KANSAN Comment Why are we there? By NEAL PEASE Student Mobilization Committee Perhaps one reason why official pronouncements on Vietnam are so often phrased in generalities—freedom, selfdetermination, things like that—is that this practice allows the government an easy opportunity to sidestep the realities of the war. Of course, we are not fighting for freedom and democracy and other pleasant abstractions. In practical terms, we are warring for a government that we entrust to carry out these policies. Presumably, then, when the United States fights proxy wars for other nations, it should make sure that the beneficiary government is worthy of that support. How does the government of the Republic of Vietnam measure up? The answer is: not very well at all. Let's take a look. First of all, the Nixon Administration affirms that its basic goal in Vietnam is to achieve self-determination for the Vietnamese. Fine, but the very existence of the present Saigon regime is an afront to the concept of free choice. The government of Nguyen Van Thieu is the result of an election held in 1967 that was denounced as a "hoax" by Robert Kennedy and many other observers. The Thieu regime is maintained by the United States, which donates $90\%$ of Saigon's revenue, assigns every government official right down to the village chiefs an American adviser and entirely equips the South Vietnamese army ("New Yorker," 2-1/69). Anyone checked their definition of a puppet regime lately? Nor can we expect the Saigon government to go along with free choice; even "Time" has admitted that "the trouble with the theory (of selfdetermination) is that whover organizes elections in Vietnam wins them." Further, is Saigon a democratic government? The answer is a resounding negative. In the first place, there is very little diffusion of political power in South Vietnam. Saigon is basically like Nationalist China, n inheritor of the long tradition of Oriental authoritarianism. As Robert Shaplen of the "New Yorker" has written, "Thieu has run the government virtually by himself. . . Thieu is expected to dominate the new Cabinet . . . at least as strongly as he dominated the old one." As if this were not enough, Thieu and Ky have sought to consolidate their position by doing violence to several basic democratic practices. Press censorship is more extensive than at any time since the deposition of Diem. In the first months of this year, 23 South Vietnamese newspapers were shut down or temporarily suspended. Maynard Parker, "Newsweek's" Saigon bureau chief, has written that Thieu warns imprisonment for anyone who advocates a coalition government or uses the word "withdrawal" instead of "replacement" in labeling American troop pullouts. This has not been an idle threat. Robert Drinan, speaking for the U.S. Study Team on Political and Religious Freedom, asserted that "the Thieu-Ky administration has imprisoned at least 20,000 persons because of their non-Communist opposition to the Saigon regime," and indicated that 25,000 was a more likely figure. This panel, which consisted of 4 theologians, an academic, a congressman, an ACLU official and a retired U.S. admiral, concluded further that political arrests are rising rapidly and that many political prisoners are tortured for information in South Vietnamese jails. The Thieu-Ky government has failed to win wide support among the Vietnamese during its tenure, and with good reason. Saigon has not been particularly notable for its responsiveness to the needs of its people. Vietnam is in the midst of a social as well as political revolution, and Thieu has not yet recognized that drastic reform is necessary to withstand the attractiveness of Marxism. This is not an impressive list of traits and accomplishments. This is not to imply that the Viet Cong or North Vietnamese are any more meritorious. That is beside the point. The unmistakable conclusion is that, based on its own merits and demerits, the South Vietnamese government is not worth America's sacrifice. President Nixon's pledge to stand by the Thieu regime is in fact a betrayal of the stated aims of our nation's war in Southeast Asia. To continue to prop up an authoritarian, reactionary, corrupt, intolerant political grotesque will only add fuel to the Asian fires the United States is attempting to extinguish. We can best serve stability and democracy in Southeast Asia by abandoning the role of the counter-revolutionary meddler, accepting the fact that we cannot dictate Asian destiny and employing peaceful means to bolster the area economically and aid in social reform. If western style democracy is to be fostered in this embattled area of the world, the causes of revolt must be eliminated before they come to violent fruition. Seen in this light, the shedding of a single drop of blood for the sake of two tinpot dictators represents an obscenity of the highest order. There Go De Judge Readers' write President Nixon announced that he would "Vietnamize" the war through a gradual withdrawal program. However, few observers believe that the South Vietnamese army can ever adequately take over the war on its own. The desertion rate is over $20\%$, morale is poor and the officers frequently refuse to send men out to actual combat. To the editor: When the "Vietnamization" program fails, what will Nixon do? Evidently, he will continue to use Americans to fight the war. His "new policy" doesn't change any of the old policies; only the words have been changed to deceive the innocent. On August 31 there were 509,800 Americans in Vietnam; on October 2 there were 509,600. Where are Nixon's troop withdrawals? The war is not over, it is not ending, and American lives are still being sacrificed. You were out in October and November, learning about the war or protesting it—this is no time to stop. If you care enough to be concerned, Student Mobilization Committee has information about the war and needs support to help end it. Gretchen Miller Wichita sophomore Walker Hendrix Overland Park junior To the editor: 1 think that in this time of modern war machinery which alienates almost every individual completely from true heroic action, we are doing a grave injustice to Lt. Calley. As a Viet Cong has been defined as a dead Vietnamese, and since Lt. Calley has provided us with as many as perhaps a couple hundred, I think he should be commended, not punished. Also, I think it is my moral duty as a taxpayer in the U.S., to point out that if we had more Lt. Calley's, we could save millions of dollars which now go to buy airplanes, napalm, CBU's and the like. Roger Schmanke Bonner Springs graduate student $$ * * * $$ The recent charges that U.S. troops were responsible for the murders of over 100 South Vietnamese civilians should raise several questions in the minds of the American public. To the editor: First, we should ask ourselves about the hypocrisy of a way of thinking which sends some young men to jail for refusing to participate in a war, and sends others to jail for killing in a war situation. Then, we should begin to wonder about the truth of the U.S. policy line which asserts that we are merely fighting for the self-determination of the South Vietnamese people. For, in the sort of war in which we are engaged—a political struggle for the allegiance of the citizens of South Vietnam—the senseless massacre which occurred at My Lai is not to be unexpected. It is rather my hope that the American people, by our collective outrage at this atrocity, will realize that our consciences are trying to tell us something—something about the incompatibility of war as an institution with the basic values of our society. We must realize that in the current situation in South Vietnam, drawing the moral line between war activity and murder becomes more and more ludicrous—the two simply blend into each other. Rather than drawing this imaginary line, we should analyze what we really believe about the worth of human life. M. Sue Wilson Kansas City, Mo., junior THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN An All-American college newspaper Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examinations period. Attendance of students must be arranged by Lawrence Kon. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to financial status. The university is not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents. Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom--UN 4-3646 Business Office--UN 4-4358 NEWS STAFF NEWS STAFF News Adviser . . . James W. Murray Managing Editor Alan T. Jones Campus Editor Joe Bullard News Editor Ruth Rademacher Makeup Editor Ken Peterson Sports Editor Jay Thomas Wire Editor Martha Mangledsford Arts and Review Editor Mike Shearer Women's Page Editor Linda Loyd Photo and Graphic Editor Mike Riake Assistant News Editors Donna Shraider, Steve Haynes Assistant Sports Editor Joe Childs Associate Editorial Editors: Assistant Campus Editor Judith K. Diebold, Joe Nuss Assistant Photo and Graphics Editor Rick Pendergrass Assistant Women's Page Editor Viki Hysten BUSINESS STAFF Business Advisor . Mel Adams Business Manager ... Jerry Bottenfield Assistant Business Manager ... Mike Banks Advertising Manager ... Jack Hurley National Advertising Manager ... Red Observer Classified Advertising Manager ... Larry Rosenberger Promotion Manager ... Reason O'Neill Circulation Manager ... Todd Smith Member Associated Collegiate Press REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC. 360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017 01C 08H 4000 A9H0 2015-06-24T10:19:08