Foreign Policy Choice

PRIOR TO the last week of this campaign, no President could have asked for a greater consensus on the issue of Vietnam than that which Lyndon Johnson received from the Presidential candidates. Vietnam, the most important issue of the campaign, was in fact no issue at all.

But the recent bombing halt has finally introduced alternatives for the issue of Vietnam. One of the most significant factors standing in the way of a compromise solution in Vietnam is the unwillingness of the Saigon government to recognize the National Liberation Front as a political force in South Vietnam. The Saigon generals' inflexibility on this point became obvious with their recent refusal to join the Paris talks if the NLF is represented. It is clear that a settlement of this war may have to be made which is not appealing to the special interests of South Vietnam's generals.

Yet Nixon's response to the halt was that Johnson, for political reasons, acted prematurely. The Republican candidate fears, according to his aides, that by acting without the consent of Saigon, Johnson has weakened America's position in Vietnam.

Nixon's position is consistent with his belief, as stated on an October 27 radio broadcast, that the establishment of a coalition government in South Vietnam would be a "thinly disguised surrender." This total commitment to the government in power was the same which prompted Nixon in 1954 to call for armed intervention to aid the French in Vietnam.

By supporting the call for a bombing halt in spite of Saigon's reaction, Humphrey has shown that, at least, he will not be hampered in his search for peace by Premier Thieu and his military establishment. In his policy speech on Vietnam, the Vice President made no mention of Saigon's approval as a necessary prelude to the bombing halt.

If elected President, Humphrey would be under a continuing obligation to demonstrate his commitment to political compromise as the solution to the war. But on the crucial issue of Thieu's influence on a Vietnam settlement, the contrast between the two candidates cannot be overlooked.

THE CANDIDATES' position on the bombing halt conforms to the different tones which characterize their entire foreign policies. Nixon has argued for the delay of ratification of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty as a result of the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He has promised an extensive anti-ballistic missle (ABM) system regardless of cost, and he has declared that the United States must "re-establish" clear nuclear superiority over the Soviets before engaging in discussions with them.

Humphrey has called for immediate approval of the non-proliferation treaty; he has opposed the costly ABM's system's expansion, and he asserts that the current American nuclear superiority need not be increased to enter meaningful discussions on detente with the Soviets. The Vice-President has abandoned the cold war rhetoric of the fifties.

The election of 1968 has not presented this country with ideal candidates--but even on the issue of foreign policy there is a choice. It is impossible to predict what either of the major party nominees will do if elected President. Their response to the bombing halt, however, can only reinforce the belief that the momentum toward peace lies with Humphrey.