Anti-War Support In Senate May Be Substantial

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32391, 2 September 1970, Page 17

Anti-War Support In Senate May Be Substantial

(N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) WASHINGTON, Sept. 1. Nearly 40 senators are prepared today to vote for withdrawal of all United States troops from Vietnam as a means of ending America’s long and bloody struggle, but opponents claim that the action might lose the peace and wreck United States foreign policy, according to the Associated Press.

While anti-war senators were given little chance of passing their amendment. Republican sources reported the White House launched a telephone campaign yesterday in an attempt to sway some who were wavering towards a vote for the limitation. The roster of those committed to the amendment—which would require President Nixon to withdraw all United States combat troops from Vietnam by the end of 1971 —included each of the Democratic senators considered a potential candidate for presidency. Backers of the "end the war amendment” contend that anything more than 40 votes would show the nation’s disenchantment with Nixon war policy. They claim that the proposal would save United States lives and money. Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew, who presides over the Senate, has urged a humiliating defeat for the amendment calling it a blueprint for the nation’s first military defeat. Two Republicans

Both sides in the struggle agreed the key to the size of the final vote is held by two uncommitted, veteran Republicans: Senators George Aiken, of Vermont, and John Sherman Cooper, of Kentucky. They are members of the influential Foreign Relations Committee which helped write the final version of the amendment offering new flexibility to the President in pro-

tecting United States troops remaining in Vietnam and implementing their withdrawal. ! “If Cooper votes for it, we’re still in the ball game,” ! said a vote-watching aide of ’ Senator George McGovern, a I co-author of the measure. Two Elements Washington said that today’s . vote represents both a symbolic attempt to reassert the Ses nate’s long-eroded constituI tional role of giving advice

and consent on foreign affairs and a political testing point for supporters and opponents of the President’s Vietnam policies. The Senate flexed its foreign policy muscles on June 30 when it voted for the amendment by Senators John Sherman Cooper (Republican, Kentucky) and Frank Church (Democrat, Idaho) to require specific Congressional approval for future direct and indirect military involvement in Cambodia.

Last night, Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator McGovern appeared on a special television programme to argue their case for the amendment. The television time was made available by the National Broadcasting Company under a recent fairness ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that critics should have rebuttal time to President Nixon’s five broadcasts on Indo-China.

Senator Fulbright said in his television speech: “I am convinced that this war is mistaken from the standpoint of both our own security and the security of our allies.” He said that the question arose whether the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong actually threatened non-Commu-nist countries in South-East Asia. Pacific Allies “On the basis of their grudging minimal contributions to the fighting in Vietnam, it would appear that our Asian and Pacific allies either do not take the threat very seriously or are content to let the United States cfo their fighting for them, or are willing to fight if they are paid lavish subsidies by the United States.” Mr Fulbright did not name any countries but added: “If the countries closest to Vietnam do not care enough to voluntarily send their boys to fight and die in Vietnam, why should we send our boys to fight and die for them?”