Meeting Condemns Vietnam War

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31195, 20 October 1966, Page 18

Meeting Condemns Vietnam War

A resolution condemning the Vietnam war, the terms of which will be sent to the United States Embassy in Wellington, was passed at a protest meeting in Christchurch last night. The attendance at the early part of the meeting, which was orderly, was over 70, but when the resolution was passed onlv about 20 remained.

The meeting, spon- I sored by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation with Mr L. F. J. Ross as chairman, also resolved to ask the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) to 1 withdraw New Zealand troops and increase humanitarian aid to the Vietnam people. The text of the resolution opposing the war in Vietnam was that the meeting “express agreement with U Thant, who defined the war as one of the most barbarous in history, and who said it was high time it was stopped.” “The meeting supports U Thant’s position which is: unconditional halt to bombing of North Vietnam; reduction of military activity in the South; and peace talks involving all interested parties, on the basis of implementation of the 1954 Geneva accords.” Mr Ross said the meeting was not an anti-American rally. He produced material which he said proved that the Vietnam war was a violation of the Geneva agreement, was against international law and even the American Constitution.

It was not a question of communism coming down from the north, but of the white races coming into Asia —and he pointed on a map to the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

It was up to ordinary people to protest, he said. President Johnson, who had brought his massive propaganda machine to the South Pacific, had to learn that his plan would not work, and he would have to stop lies and deceit. F.O.L. Policy Mr D. M. Kane, a member of the national council of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, outlined Federation of Labour policy which, he said, was against military involvement in Vietnam. The federation was neither anti-American, nor pacifist. The political impact of a withdrawal of troops from Vietnam would demonstrate the real desire of New Zealand for peace. Grave concern over the war, and New Zealand’s part in it was expressed by Mr R. H. Thomson, reader in sociology at the University of Canterbury, and president of the New Zealand Pacifist Society. Seldom had so many churches been so united about an issue in so many countries, as they were over Vietnam, he said. Members of the Government and of the Cabinet had described those who participated in peace movements as Communists or their dupes; in other words, rogues or fools. This was the description i given to those who opposed the South African Government or the segregationists in the United States. “The churches are not entirely faithless, and this is what the Government claims when it says that those in peace movements are the dupes of Communists,” Mr Thompson added. “Citizen’# View Mr F. A. Betts, described as giving a citizen's view of the Vietnam issue, said the man tn the street, insofar as he thought, or was allowed to think, saw it as a moral issue. He regretted the “widow’s mite” New Zealand contributed. People today were more re-

moved from the responsibilities of their actions. “But you as New Zealanders are helping to commit atrocities,” he told the meeting. Dr J. Stott, senior lecturer in chemical engineering. University of Canterbury, and secretary of the Christchurch Joint Council on Vietnam, said there was a large body of opinion in New Zealand which supported the council’s action. They felt, however, that marching in street demonstrations was “not quite the thing.” "Any poll we have taken shows that many more people are in support of us than are in opposition,” he said. It was a tragic farce when the President of the most powerful nation had to be protected from all contact, especially when one main political party was against participation In the Vietnam war. Although advertised as a speaker, Mr W. A. Hall, of Victoria University, was unable to attend. Mr R. Stowell, lecturer in English at the University of Canterbury, said President Johnson had prayed for peace at a Catholic cathedral while bombs dropped in Vietnam.

He criticised the nolicv of the United States Administration that “might makes right.” In exnosing lies and deception, radio, press and television in New Zealand had failed even more dismally than it had in the United States.

Mr W. Rosenberg, reader in economics at the University of Canterbury, criticised New Zealand’s policy of including South-east Asia in its sphere of activity. New Zealand was being used as a hand-maiden of the power with which it had entered into agreements. And it was being abused. New Zealand’s defence should be a matter of selfreliance. No power would come to the aid of a country because it liked it, but because its own interests might suffer.

We should opt out of various agreements, although it might be possible to reach some arrangement with Australia. Foreign policy should be reconsidered as should national development.