Aid For Vietnam

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31315, 10 March 1967, Page 12

Aid For Vietnam

Sir,—l am with your correspondent, Trevor Hooper, all the way. An ex-regular soldier, old enough to have been involved in two world wans, and having had in addition many years’ experience of dealing with civilian-cum-military affairs in England, I must profess myself like, in another context, the Duke of Edinburgh “sick and tired” of all the political chicanery and double-dealing, all the distortions and suppressions of the truth by various forms of news media, that inevitably permeate the atmosphere of a country at war. With the dispatch of infantry to Vietnam, our casualties, which so far, thank goodness, seem to have been minimal, are bound to ■ increase. Furthermore, what sort of assurance have we that the infantry company of today may not become the battalion of tomorrow?— Yours, etc.,

MAURICE TREW. March 9, 1967.

Sir,—The truth about increasing our force in Vietnam is out With one hand we are to make a further contribution to the mess in Vietnam, while on (he other we try to dean it up. The mess becomes more real and tragic as the war escalates. Civilians suffer most. Nine out of very 10 in the hospitals are civilians. Reports say that 250,000 children have been killed in South Vietnam and 750,000 injured. No mention of North Vietnam. Orphans are increasing at the rate of 2000 a month. Refugees total 1,300,000. Forecasts are that it will probably reach 2,000,000. Post-war Korea will be a picnic compared with Vietnam. When will we ever learn? Are we too busy with the price of bread and butter and Mona Vale to raise our voices?—Yours, etc., - m. a. McDowell. March 9, 1967.

Sir, —“The Press” daims that additional troops for Vietnam “may be considered as contributing to the humanitarian work of the medical team.” They might equally well be considered as contributing to the work of American bombers engaged in destroying defendess villages, as at Lang Vei last week, where high explosives, cannon fire, fragmentation bombs, and napalm, reportedly killed or maimed

275 men, women and children. Your American-sourced reports suggest that the only thing wrong with this was that they bombed the wrong village. Thus we may infer that for the American military command such bombings are now routine practice.' In placing our troops under this command, the truth is that we indentify ourselves with all their actions, whether we like it or not. We identify ourselves with their Nazi-pion-eered tactics of terror from the sky, and we commit our children to its inevitable consequences of hatred and revenge.—Yours, etc., H. C. EVISON. March 9, 1967.

Sir,—The use of the words “Aid to Vietnam,” for assisting United States in the des-

traction of large areas of Vietnam, by sending another batch of soldiers, strikes me as misplaced.—Yours, etc., W. ROSENBERG. Man* 8, 1967.

Sir, —In spite of the apolo- , gia for more troops to Vieti nam in today’s editorial, the real truth was expressed in your editorial of February 23: “The best course the Government could take would be to return a team of engineers to Vietnam. The' original team should not have been withdrawn in 1965. Although essentially non-combatant, the team would be capable of protecting itself. . . . New Zealand could well supplement this work by sending medical teams to the rural areas.” Doctors and engineers are the best protection against the spread of communism. Sir Edmund Hillary, speaking of “areas in Thailand classified as likely to be in danger from communism,” said the V.S.A. teams had never heard of any Communist activities. The Thai Government is doing something to remedy the trouble: improving the state of their economy makes political unrest less likely.—Yours, etc., i SETH NEWELL. March 9, 1967.

Sir, —The official statements by the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches on the new troop commitment to South Vietnam clearly show that these two churches understand their position in the community and that of the Government. They concede that the Government’s function is to formulate policy and it should be supported while the policy is tested. Needless to say, the Government was recently re-elected on precisely its policy on the Vietnam situation. The National Council of Churches does not appear to have the same sort of understanding, nor to support the views of these churches on the Government’s action. It has opposed the troop commitment to South Vietnam and recently warned the Government to take more notice of demonstrators. Fortunately the Catholic and Anglican churches have not handed over their responsibilities to this body but have again given a clear guide to their own people.—Yours, etc., L. FERRISS. March 9, 1967.

Sir, —The Government has again made a decision involving the lives of other people | without bothering to convene Parliament first. Although New Zealand is small, various moves might have been made which would have forwarded the achievement of a just peace. Democratic discussion in Parliament might have made the Government and the public more aware of such positive possibilities. Instead, the Government has doubled its token military commitment. A token commitment could be interpreted as a definite policy. Hopeful theories have been suggested about the imagined secret statesmanship which might underlie the Government’s token commitment. But the doubling of a token commitment cannot be explained by hopeful theories and destroys the idea that there is any subtlety in the Government’s policy. But there is, perhaps, a certain consistency—that of people who habitually talk big, act small and seem to think little, if at all.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. March 9, 1967.

Sir,—The United States Defence Secretary, Mr Robert McNamara, says that there is a limit to the number of foreigners Vietnam can absorb without adverse effects. Militarily, too, it seems that saturation point has been reached, judging by the casualties we are inflicting on our allies. U Thant, Anthony Eden, and Robert Kennedy are among those who warn that escalation of bombing and shelling minimise the prospects of negotiations for peace. History has proved that a proud people are not easily bullied into submission, yet our Government in its unwisdom proposes, an additional 100 in - combatant role, but a mere 16 in the medical team which alone could truly be described as “aid” to Vietnam.—Yours, etc., REALIST. March 9, 1967.