Page 9


erty for the Vietnamese the values of freedom of thought in Asia. The civil liberties of the people of the rest of the world are no less important than civil liberties in our own country. Justice, the world, in many ways, agrees on ; liberty, the world does not. On the other hand, it does the spirit no good to read that Senator Goldwater is bragging in San Antonio that President Johnson is carrying out Republican foreign policy in Vietnam.’ 7 No one questions Mr. Johnson’s conviction that he is doing the right thing in Vietnam, or the anguish he feels, as we each do, about the agony of the hurt and dying ,there. Yet if it appears to a reasonable person that any significant and plausible possibility for stop ping this war has not been tried in earnest, he has a duty to speak. Just as the President has not taken a bold step suggested by Senator Kennedy to bring China to the conference table on nuclear weapons, so also he has not taken an important possible step about stopping the war in Vietnam. He should publicly challenge Hanoi and the Viet Cong to observe a ceasefire in Vietnam as of a certain date as a prelude to negotiations. Such a ceasefire would include the stopping of bombing as well as other kinds of violence. The duty to observe it would fall an both sides. There is common ground now for visualizing the negotiations: our openness to Hanoi’s four points, asserted by the President, and of course our own right to insist on our points. The United Nations and U Thant stand ready to send in negotiators at any time; UN supervision of ensuing situations in Vietnam might be arranged. We are told again and again by the President that he wants to negotiate and Hanoi does not. Why then does he not call for a ceasefire at a certain time? If Hanoi and the Viet Cong refused, we would be no worse off militarily, and we would stand much better in the opinion of the world. If Hanoi agreed, however, there would be a possibility of the ensuing negotiations leading to peace. As an intelligent young woman said to me the other day, If this great and powerful country can make war unilaterally, I don’t see why we can’t strike out for peace unilaterally, too. The Necessity of Dissent on Vietnam This, by the way, is roughly the course of action that will be urged upon the President by the Nov. 27 march in Washington, backed by SANE and sponsored, among others, by Saul Bellow, James Farmer, Dr. Erich Fromm, Mchael Harrington, John Hersey, Arthur Miller, Bayard Rustin, and Norman Thomas. The spectacle of the national press emphasizing the bizarre in the demonstrations and the government fostering doubts about the loyalties of demonstrators, all in order to repress thought and dissent about this war, must not be tolerated or knuckled under to. The spirit of McCarthyism is in the air nowhere more than in Texas and in my opinion RWY Commends RFK Senator Ralph Yarborough’s statements on foreign policy have generally supported the Administration. In recent months perhaps one should say during the current calendar yearthe senator has not been discussing foreign policy much in public statements. However, during the Senate discussion Oct. 13 after Sen. Robert Kennedy of New York had urged again a nuclear proliferation treaty and proposed that China be invited to the conference table at Geneva as one of the nuclear powers, Sen. Yarborough interrupted Sen. Joseph Clark, D.-Pa., to say: “I regret that three months ago when the distinguished senator from New York made his able and intelligent speech calling for the cessation of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, I could not be present on the floor. Committee work kept me away. Similarly, today I have just returned from a House-Senate conferende on the higher education bill. I have not had the privilege of hearing all of the speech [Sen. Robert Kennedy’sEd.], but I commend the senator for his effort to lessen the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. “If this program continues, with many nations developing nuclear weapons, I see no end but a nuclear holocaust. “I commend the senator for the leadership he is showing. I believe it is in the best tradition of the Senate to develop ideas on the floor of the Senate, especially when they mean so much to the United States.” To the Observer’s knowledge, Sen. Yarborough’s statement received no Texas press attention. The Observer came upon it in the Congressional Record transcript of the discussion. President Johnson cannot escape a grave measure of the responsibility for it. If communists break laws let them be prosecuted. But let us never acquiesce in the day when the government seeks to crush dissent from its policies with witchhunts. In my opinion it is the duty of the President and the government to conduct necessary investigations of actual communist activity with minimum public fanfare. When Mr. Katzenbach announced such investigations of Vietnam demonstrators publicly and the President approved through Mr. Moyers, the baying McCarthyism followed automatically on Capitol Hill and in the national and the Texas press. The hounds are in the field; the fox is in the copse, the hares are on the plain. Considering the President’s well-known resentment to criticism of his policies, it is difficult to avoid the belief that he intended to put pressure against dissent from his policies in Vietnam by these announcements. But this is not a proper use of presidential power in a society dedicated to free debate. If Vietnam was a declared war and we were in mortal national emergency the situation would be different. The President said in July that “this is war, ” 18 but he has no right to declare war, only the Congress does, and it has not. Those who have doubts about our growing troop commitments and our basic purposes in Vietnam are told they must shut up because they are hurting morale and encouraging Hanoi. We have heard it said often that we must support our boys in Vietnam. That is true. The question is, what does supporting them mean? Is it patriotism to be silent while our boys are being sucked into a general land war while that war may still be avoided? I have a son; he is 13. I want him to love his country, and he does. If he must die for it, then die he must. But my idea of being for my son and for my country now is to help stop this war. My idea of Next issue the Observer will review citizen and political activity in Texas on the Vietnam situation. supporting our boys in Vietnam is to help stop this war. To stop this war, before we have so many of our own flesh and blood in danger, that to try to save them we finally go all the way with Goldwater and bomb Hanoi and maybe China nextrisking, thereby, allout nuclear war and the death of everyone, our boys in Vietnam included ; for they would be target number one. Who dares say that he who wants this Tower on Vietnam In a weekly newsletter on Nov. 7, Senator John Tower, the Texas Republican, summed up his conceptions and defense of the situation in Vietnam:’ “The United States has largely taken over the actual conduct of the war, and our greatly increased military power is making itself felt. Our excellent soldiers, sailors and airmen are fighting magnificently and with splendid morale. “However, there will be no quick and easy solution. We still have a long, hard and bloody road ahead. Texans may be sure that I will continue my efforts to insure that our men have the best of everything they need, including weapons, equipment, supplies, ammunition, and medical attention. “Ultimately, we may have to send many more men to South Vietnam than the some 150,000 we have there now. By the end of this year the number of troops there probably will exceed 180,000. Let us make no mistake about the fact that we are at war in Vietnam. “It is very clear to me that, if the spread of communist power is to be halted in the vast Asiatic world, it is absolutely necessary that we form an effective and realistic alliance with both Asian and Western nations who’ are willing to stand up and be counted. Such an alliance could join us in furnishing the necessary manpower, weapons and equipment. “If there ever is to be peace in this world, aggression must cease. We as a nation are committed to peace and the rule of law. We also recognize the harsh reality that our own security is involved in Vietnam. If we were to fail in Vietnam, serious consequences would ensue. Our adversaries would be encouraged to take greater risks elsewhere. “A firm stand for freedom in Vietnam is the best effort we can make toward the future peace of the world.” 0 November 26, 1965