US Viet Policy: Why We Must March

To the Editors of the CRIMSN:

The President's Baltimore speech has been widely interpreted as a step towards peace, but as Johnson himself said this speech does not mark a change of purpose but a change in what that purpose requires. We must examine that purpose.

"Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change." But American policy is rooted in the refusal to allow the Vietnamese people to choose their own path to change. President Eisenhower in his memoirs admits that "had elections been held as of the time of the fighting possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh." Therefore Diem with U.S. backing did not permit these elections to take place in 1956 as provided for by the Geneva accords. Can we then believe that President Johnson's offer to reaffirm old agreements or to strengthen them with new ones is anything less than an attempt to appease the growing chorus of dissent at home and abroad?

South Not Independent

"The first reality is that North Vietnam has attacked the independent nation of South Vietnam. Its object is total conquest." In the first place, South Vietnam is not an "independent nation" but half of the nation of Vietnam as stated in the Geneva accords. Secondly, the White Paper's hard evidence of North Vietnamese intervention was limited to 179 weapons from the Communist bloc captured over an 18-month period and six infiltrators of North Vietnamese origin in seven years of war.

"We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." Since the condition for an end to U.S. military involvement is that Ho Chi Minh call off an army that is not his to command, it is Johnson's offer of "unconditional discussions" that is meaningless. The offer of $1 billion of aid to develop the Mekong delta and the expressed desire to see peace returned to that part of the world are an attempt to place the blame for continued fighting on the National Liberation Front, Hanoi, and China: "Merely negative responses from the Communists--should Hanoi and Moscow follow Peking's lead--will only make crystal-clear where the responsibility lies for pushing Southeast Asia and all the world to the brink of the abyss." (New York Times editorial, April 9) But it is Johnson who is pushing the world to the brink of the abyss. Once Johnson has made credible his intention to devastate the North if Liberation Front victories continue, Ho Chi Minh will have little choice but to strike south in a desperate attempt to break the American grip on his country.

Order of Oppression

"We are also there to strengthen world order." This is a clear warning to men everywhere who are struggling to liberate themselves from a "world order" of poverty end oppression. By attempting to maintain this world order our government is directly responsible for the immeasurable suffering of millions. Every day young Americans die in its defense.

China's claim that the speech was a cover-up for further escalation was borne out the next day when the largest bombing raid yet on North Vietnam took place. But the very fact of Johnson's speech indicates that he cannot ignore public opinion indefinitely. The continued bombings show that there is need to protest, while the speech recognizes that our protest can be effective. Since the President Baltimore speech has been widely and uncritically interpreted as a step towards peace there is all the mores reason for us to act and act now. By marching on Washington April 17, we will make it known to our government that we at leaest are not fooled by empty talk of peace. John Maher '60   William M. Sacks '60