Rusk Stands Firm On War Policy

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31627, 13 March 1968, Page 15

Rusk Stands Firm On War Policy

(N.Z P A. -Reuter—Copyright)

WASHINGTON, March 12.

The United States Secretary of State (Mr Dean Rusk), acknowledging that America’s policy on Vietnam is undergoing the most searching review, testified publicly again today in a bid to bolster support for the Johnson Administration.

During more than six gruelling hours before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, he said: “All alternatives from A to Z are under study.”

Then, albeit rather reluctantly, and in an unexpected concession to the “doves” and war critics led by the committee’s chairman (Senator J. William Fulbright, Democrat, Arkansas), Mr Rusk agreed to appear before the panel again this morning.

The consensus of most observers is that this final session—like yesterday’s, in the spotlight of national television would be inconclusive, failing to wring any concessions from Mr Rusk or to change the views of the Senate dissenters.

In essence, Mr Rusk and the majority of the 19 members of the committee were waging a battle to influence the television viewers, though there has been no official estimate of how many Americans viewed yesterday’s opening round. At the end of what Senator Fulbright called “a tiring and exhausting day,” Mr Rusk was still unbowed. He would have preferred to go on into the night to wind up the hearing then, rather than pick up again this morning. Senators’ Demands The Senate inquiry, taking place amid reports that America’s military leaders want President Johnson to send 206,000 more troops to Vietnam was highlighted by demands from several senators that no decisions should be taken without full consultation with Congress. “I think there is nothing as important as the direction this country is going to take in this war,” Senator Fulbright said, adding that he would be most disappointed if he was confronted with a decision about a major buildup before his committee had heard all the facts. When Senator Stuart Symington (Democrat, Missouri) asked Mr Rusk whether deescalation was being considered, the Secretary of State gave an indirect answer by saying all alternatives were being studied. But at another point, Mr Rusk said a decrease in military action had been tried before and there was no reciprocity from the North Vietnamese. And, although he said that all alternatives were under consideration, he also declared that abandoning South Vietnam would be “catastrophic.” This comment came after Senator Clifford Case (Republican, New Jersey) had said: “I am more and more convinced that what we are doing is wrong.”

Mr Rusk conceded that American pacification efforts had been seriously disrupted by the Communist guerrilla offensive which began at the end of January. But, he insisted, the United States, with its firepower and mobility, would regain the initiative in the military sphere. “The bounce-back is beginning to appear,” he said.

Refusing to discuss specific troop figures, Mr Rusk said President Johnson at present had no detailed, factual recommendations for a build-up before him, but was looking at the situation from every angle. His review embraced such questions as the whole war situation, manpower needs, allied performance and enemy plans. From Mr Rusk’s testimony it seemed clear that the Administration is as determined

as ever to continue the bombing of North Vietnam until Hanoi agrees to enter prompt, productive talks and not to take advantage of any halt in America’s military programme.

Arguing with senators who asked why the United States did not try a halt, on the advice of the United Nations Secretary-General (U Thant), the Secretary of State claimed it was Hanoi which had raised “ a major condition” by requiring the United States to end its attacks before the Communists would enter peace talks.

“On the other hand,” he added, “if the United States were to say it would negotiate only if the Communists stopped their violence against South Vietnam while America was free to continue its bombing, most people would say we were crazy.” The questioning of Mr Rusk reflected deep concern on the part of several senators over the impact on the United States itself of differences on Vietnam policy. Senator Morse said: “We’ve got to stop this killing. We cannot sit here while our boys are dying in a jungle in a war we cannot declare.” He added: “K the Administration sends 100,000 to 200,000 more men to Vietnam you’re going to create a very serious difficulty in this country.” Senator Fulbright, noting that the nation was beset by poverty and racial crises, said: “Our allies are alienated and our people divided. The light of the American example burns dim around the world.” Mr Rusk told the committee that to take the issue to the United Nations Securiy Council would lead to “a divisive debate without result.” He contended that there were more non-Americans in Vietnam than there had been under the United Nations flag in Korea, and he added: “We are in no sense alone in

terms of the situation in Vietnam or South-East Asia as a whole.” The “free world,” he said, needed to concern itself deeply with the future of South-East Asia. "... It should be made clear to the authorities in Hanoi by a maximum number of members of the world community that the independence and future of these small countries in South-East Asia is of direct concern to the free world,” he said. Mr Rusk denied allegations that the Gulf of Tonkin incident of August, 1964, which led directly to the United States bombing of North Vietnam, had been falsified