Withdrawal from Vietnam

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32565, 26 March 1971, Page 8

Withdrawal from Vietnam

Sir,—“’One Who Knows” suggests I go to see what is really going on in Vietnam. To see 20 per cent of the richest resource of that country, its forest land, destroyed by American herbicides used at 10 times normal strength; source of enough food for 600,000 people for a year denied them, and a rising risk of stillbirth and freak births to “compensate?” Many of Saigon’s few loyal troops are northerners by origin, so their proposed “invasion” only an excuse for the United States air force to do the real invading would be “home- i

coming.” But the misguided or bought loyalty of most South Vietnamese townspeople is wearing thin. They are being pushed by the circumstances of United States “withdrawal” into political attitudes very similar to those of the National Liberation Front Perhaps we should be bombing them, too, to save them from the evils of communism?—Yours, etc., B. P. LILBURN. March 25, 1971.

Sir, —It is some indication of the indefensibility of United States imperialism that a correspondence which began on our withdrawal from Vietnam is now on "Soviet imperialism” in Egypt. However, with your indulgence, I shall follow “The Springbok’s” trail of red herrings thither. As is well known, John Foster Dulles, the then United States Secretary of State, vetoed Egypt’s application for a loan from the World Bank to build the Aswan dam, forcing Egypt to tum to the Soviet Union for the purpose. While reading “The Springbok’s” letter, it struck me with the absolute certitude of revealed truth—the clues he so lavishly provides proclaim it—the evidence is irrefutable, the logic is inexorable, the conclusion is inescapable, for a diplomacy which so perfectly, so effortlessly played into Soviet hands, only one explanation is possible: J. F. Dulles was one of those Soviet agents, “unnoticeably infiltrated into foreign governments . . Yours, etc., M.C.H. March 25, 1971.

Sir,—The signs enumerated by “The Springbok” as evidence of Soviet aggression—infiltration by agents, economic aid with strings attached, and deceitful propaganda all seem more applicable to American imperialist methods. Imperialism implies plunder and profits, and Russia, under siege for 50 years, is motivated to defensive alliances (admittedly obtained often Draconically) rather than territorial gains or the commercial exploitation of developing countries. Even the old idea of world revolution was defensive, and all our experiehce shows that economic democracy socialism will not be permitted to flourish without interference while capitalism can pursue armed aggression. The American people got dragged into Vietnam after infiltration by the C.I.A. and “advisers,” economic aid fell to political and other corruption, and today’s deceits are admitted tomorrow without shame. Even withdrawal from Vietnam to assuage popular opinion has become an excuse for further aggressions and more misery for more innocent people.—Yours, etc., “JIM ABELSON”

March 25, 1971. [This correspondence is now now closed. —Ed., “The Press.”]