President Johnson’s Visit

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31195, 20 October 1966, Page 16

President Johnson’s Visit

Sir,—The United States High Command has stated that a military victory by its forces cannot solve the problems in Vietnam. There is little or no hope of President Johnson’s visit providing any solution, because his use of air power, napalm, phosphorus, and crop destruction, is driving thousands into the arms of communism, instead of containing it.—Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL. October 19, 1966.

Sir, —“Criticus” is astray if he thinks the President’s visit will help Tory election chances here. According to “Time” (October 14) the slump in Lyndon Johnson’s popularity, down to 46 per cent by Gallup poll, means that his absence removes a source of embarrassment to “embattled Democratic candidates” doubly so, as the hardly less unpopular Hubert Humphrey is tied to Washington at the same time. Now that the local version of the alleged threat to Mr Holyoake’s life is a fizzer compared with the sensational 8.8. C. release, it may still be necessary to burn down the local equivalent of the Reichstag to save the National Party.— Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. October 18, 1966. Sir, “Democracy” expresses surprise that Mr Kirk is to have only 10 minutes with President Johnson. Surely, in view of the fact that Mr Kirk so strongly disapproves of Mr Johnson’s policy, he should not want any time at all unless he is naive enough to think that, from the depths of his wisdom, he is able to sway the President. President Johnson is the top world figure today. His business is with governments, not oppositions, and I feel that the allocation of even 10 minutes is more than generous to Mr Kirk.— Yours, etc., THANK GOD FOR AMERICA.

October 19, 1966. Sir, —The Maginot-line mentality which characterises the thinking of lan D. Ross and “A. B. Cedarian” could result in disaster for the whole world. Human thoughts can no more be destroyed by napalm and phosphorus, or even nuclear bombs, than Hitler’s planes could be stopped by forts and mounted guns. Also, i spite of a hush-hush official policy, it is clear that in both America and this country the number of people with doubts about the moral justification for the Vietnam intervention is not diminishing. The sincerity of President Johnson’s and Mr Holyoake’s desire for peace cannot be questioned. They are looking for a way out as long as they can save face. Meantime, to borrow a Churchillian metaphor, many New Zealanders do not relish the part cast for them by Mr Holyoake. They dislike acting as

the fawning jackal to the belligerent American lion.— Yours, etc., ENZEDDER. October 19, 1966.