President Johnson’s Visit

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31190, 14 October 1966, Page 14

President Johnson’s Visit

Sir,—Most people who demonstrate against United States policies in Vietnam do so as much in sorrow as in anger. Sorrow, because United States policies fall so far short of the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, and of their own tremendous potentialities in relation to the Charter of the United Nations. Anger, because men and women of decency and good will feel they have both the right and the duty to protest this barbaric and dirty war against an Asian people now moving into the second generation of struggle for the things so clearly spelt out in the U.N. Charter. For the same reasons we demonstrate against New Zealand’s satellite participation in this illegal attack on the Vietnamese people on both sides of the 17th parallel. We feel that both President and Premier are letting humanity down, and are proving pitifully inadequate in meeting the great needs and challenges of our times.—Yours, etc., H. G. KILPATRICK. October 13, 1966.

Sir, — “Coral Sea.” with his welcome to President Johnson, overlooks that New Zealand and the Commonwealth held the line against the Nazis and Japanese while the United States amassed profits selling us arms to do the common iob. The United States entered the Second World War not to save us, but because she was attacked. If there is any gratitude due, it is from the United States to Britain and the Commonwealth for leading the way. Many Americans believe that the policies of the Johnson Administration, especially in Vietnam, are inconsistent with American traditions and ideals. Thus it is not uncommon for those who love America most to be in the vanguard of protest against President Johnson and his Vietnam policies. Any casual reader of the papers over the

: last few years knows that Mr ' Johnson has often done what ' he promised not to do, this ; resulting in the growing ; “credibility gap.” Protesting ; Johnson has become the pro- , American thing to do.—Yours 1 etc. ! ’ L. F. J. ROSS. October 12, 1966. ‘ Sir, —’’G.A.T.” may be assured he has not spoilt the argument for aiding America for a change. His own is spoilt by the fact that not only Communists, but Nationalists also, were our allies, only, of course, because the Japanese already occupied Nanking. His argument that we should give due credit to our “ally,” Mao Tse-tung, for fighting the Japanese also fails because after the United States entered the war both Communists and Nationalists studiously avoided seeking combat with the Japanese. In the Chinese view the Americans could fight the Japanese while they themselves prepared for the more important contest of who would rule China. Why are Vietniks and Labour candidates for rule content to sit back on their heels and let young Americans fight for them? My guess is that they are honestly, inhumanly stupid, and if not already on it, in danger of travelling with Mao along the road originally cleared for him by young American lives. Yours etc. A. B. CEDARIAN. October 13, 1966. Sir, —It is surprising that none of your regular corre-’ spondents have speculated on the nature of the after-effects of President Johnson’s visit. After all, Vice-President Humphrey did get us into Vietnam. Perhaps we can expect conscription, an increased defence budget, and “technical ; assistance,” after the Presi- ■ dent has won our coming elec- ’ tion.—Yours, etc., Y. ANX. ENZED. 1 October 13, 1966.