United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Fulbright Hearings On Legislation To End The Vietnam War

One of those long trip turned personal generous comments but they are I do if you read my testimony you will see that I believe we can negotiate while we was drawing and it did not delay the departure of our troops a day and agreement which worked by which they were through which there would be no reprisals by either side against a adherents of the other. I think that's necessary I think its responsibility to do it. They've indicated that that would be. The W1 the subject area will be glad to discuss it and I think it's necessary to do so I would hope there would be some sort of international supervision. The ICC the least of which is there might be some of the ages two to two years where I do think that's our obligation and I do think it's our obligation to try to bridge rather than supporting blindly this unpopular oppressive bill for a younger to bread to bring the. To help bring your dog while we're still there to bring the noncommunist groups together and non-time this

coalition so they can face up to the rather tightly knit and LFN of if that is done. Why that many and I have written these type of solution can be worked out which would make it possible so all's bought is to live in the in the country some some compromise which would be some that want to leave and I think those of. You I'm not speaking of those who are already bought the tickets to Paris and who have large accounts. But there may be some legitimate followers of who have supported us and loyal to us if we want to give a safe haven to they want to leave I think that should be considered and worked out we have responsibility towards the people that have supported us. I have no great feeling about the present year personally because I think he is not supposed to drop policies. And has gone his own way and wants to see himself maintained in power. But I'm talking about the main body of people who who have been loyal

to a good many of them that it might want to leave would feel they wouldn't have a future in the country. But I do think it's important. I don't agree that we should walk away and just assume there will be no bloodbath I think we can come to an agreement a reasonable agreement which would go a long ways towards preventing it I it's my impression that the other side doesn't want to be led by any more than we do it's that country and want to see an orderly transfer of power. In my final seconds final question is from your vantage point of saying the sweep of either history or current offense of the century. Where do you think I came in Viet Nam. We all broke at different points some of us broke earlier than others. But where what was the cause of the basic area ever or do you believe it was an era for getting involved in this essentially civil war.

Listen I mentioned and I just worry very briefly that President Roosevelt indicated in my presence on more than one occasion he had no intention of letting the French go back in to do it and China I think you know that he he didn't give instructions to the Pentagon not to everything making plans for Indochina which they didn't but we he did not sign the political solutions he did mention. And Stalin that Yalta that there should be a United Nations trusteeship for the area whatever the solution bit would have been I think a mistake was not well it was to let the French back to its true created vast expenditures of money and loss of human life the French I think they now realize it was a mistake. But it would have prevented us becoming involved. Not to follow President Johnson's. President Roosevelt. Out of a palace it was a mistake No. If our present room is concerned I want to quickly say I don't think he knew of

this. I was in Moscow and I didn't know it was going on. Later on when I was with the Marshall Plan I did feel we made a second mistake in helping the French. I was opposed to it at the time and I think it was a mistake it was done in order to because I thought it would help and would encourage the French to leave to go ahead with the easy deal in Europe. The then of course the big mistake was to 1954. We literally pushed the French out of Saigon after the Geneva agreements of 54. French had certain responsibilities and we literally pushed them out and took over from them. And as I say as I recall it General Collins indicated a great question as to whether South Vietnam could be militarily viable but we went ahead anyway took responsibility then I don't want to go on trying to appraise the mistakes you've made since that time 1 0 0 0 of the responsibility we took in

64 lead to further steps. Which comes more and more involved. All I can say is now we're tenable position now is that we must get out. The sooner we do it the better. But we must get out in a responsible manner was. Senator and we can get out responsibly. We don't have to run as I've said for president close a bugout less the same time. I totally disagree with the idea of the position the war that's policy is a continuation of war. I wonder if perhaps the historical lesson here is that when you support actions that violate a breach promise to cheat a country you do wheat the rewards in 1945 the French made a firm agreement with the men to give them independence and then retreated on that agreement and we backed the French and their cheating of the North Vietnamese in

54 as we all know it was to give the French a face saving a couple of years and then the election was understood although we never signed our name in blood and I think they felt cheated and. If we had followed the basic rules of morality of keeping our word as only supporting countries to keep their word. I think we probably would have got into the mess with it not be correct but I think you're right so thank you so very dear Mr. Harriman now as I. Read your statements and hear Specter testimony I understand you oppose generally for points being negotiated withdrawal of all troops by death and date release of prisoners of war and no reprisals on each side under international supervision. And some sort of regional development to a degree has this administration and President adopted all of those those also.

While the law. Has not passed in the Senate I ask this not as a rhetorical device I can argue many I understood or recall the president early in his administration we probably posed a mutual withdrawal of all forces on a schedule and a given tack. There cannot be an agreement on mutual withdrawal. Whether we like it or not they consider we are the invading forces. They have stated that the deployment of South Vietnamese troops must be negotiated between the Bentleys themselves have satisfied the south or at least can negotiate their withdrawal of Northerners from the south. But they will not negotiate with us for mutual drawl it's obvious they won't do it. And I think we're wasting time talking about it. They will discuss the withdrawal of our troops by a definite date and safely. They've stated nothing can be done and these other matters

can be negotiated during the course of our withdrawal if it's the end of the year. I'm satisfied these matters can be negotiated. You talk about length of time negotiation the French when they came to an agreement about they were determined to withdraw your member and 54 It was a matter of a few days before they agreed upon the redeployment of forces cease fire on certain of the range which which will which will which will made what has to be an agreement we're going to get out stay out. We cannot dictate what happens to the north that needs the south Lebanese that must be done by the bit which themselves are. What will happen is impossible for us to determine if we don't do it now. It will be done later on with greater loss of life in the meantime. But I've also indicated so that I think we have a responsibility to try to create a situation south by which the. Those who want peace represent the majority the people can can

be brought together so that they're in a position to negotiate the future of their country. I doubt president chairs made it very plain he he he won't compromise. He can't come to an agreement if you don't not really compromise. I've indicated in this testimony that he announced that he would not have a coalition government over to commit itself to come this part is to be legalized and therefore there's not there. They refused to have it. They refused for many weeks in our talks with the North and nasal tube negotiators present chair they look upon him as a. I'm not saying that he is but they look upon him as one of the military who were mercenaries for the French are not involved in the liberation of their country and they don't trust him. Now I'm not defending them but I'm just telling you their attitude. They themselves cannot negotiate but I think they could bring into their government men who. Plenty of men who know

political parties have mounted a thing in South Vietnam but there are groups of people such as the Buddhists the Catholics in these various groups that I've mentioned. They have leaders of represent the political religious concepts of the people. Oh I understood that and I don't see it. Mr. Chairman I understand that president as he started. And caught the withdrawal program or the FAA sation had made it conditional. Upon. Design flexibility in the military and diplomatic field and made a conditional upon the violence from the north and the capability of the Arvin forces. I take it in your indorsement of a certain date withdrawal and the exceptions by this committee of a bill to cut off funds. But you don't believe that those conditions are viable or raise the proposals

of Brezhnev that was issued the world by its own definition. We're never going to get up prezzies home as one of the matters which the present indicates that he's interested in keeping our troops. Is it indicated that he wants to keep our troops there until we don't have prisoners home. Well keep. Until the south but there is a government in South Vietnam this will grow into a strong enough to have a reasonable chance of or a good chance I think words he weighed of survival under those circumstances there will be no drug will be no return of our prisoners which is very important to us we have to be willing to stop to get out. The greatest get out stay out. It willing to let the South amazin the fighting come to a compromise agreement but not impose a. Our solution on South Vietnam namely present cheer and military and his military group. That part may be interrupted but as I understood your next

item. Of negotiation you would make the negotiations set. And conditional upon the return of prisoners of war is that correct. Well in dealing with a mirror got to do things their way. Sarge said they look but they have very little by themselves very small people we're Giants. They really think they were deceived in the 50s or agreement and they're very careful about their commitment we would have to say that they're going to negotiate or withdraw all of our prisoners with withdrawal of our troops as of a certain time that will be agreed upon and under certain conditions of the cease fire stop the fighting and so forth. And whatever it would be then we would say that of course we expect during this period that prisoners would come out. Now whether there was a Congressman Houghton of New York Republicans who had talks with those they go through a maze and they found the South Lebanese Army and he left in Paris recently and his report indicates that

there they were ready to discuss not a question of whether the prisoners release but when and how they are to be released and I there's no I don't believe would have any problem of getting women to our present home. I disagree with the idea they want to hold our prisoners after the fighting stops but they're not going to agree to release the prisoners in return for our troops. We would simply announce that this is what we expect to happen. These are the things we expect to happen. Then is the Congress. 6 especially a date by which funds were cut off at the end of the period. If it was a condition that arose which of which made it desirable for the present hold up of the role of troops he could come to Congress and ask for some release on the Congress in this resolution and it's in this action could indicate a willingness to have united come parent come or have come come come back if there were conditions. I think if this is a matter which I think present should be consult Congress I think that

this is and I agree with the chairman's position she's taken a number of occasions but this was being continued without a bit of a profile of the of the Senate and I think that it's high time that the president get in step with the views of this Ricciardi of this of this committee. Mr. Chairman. By the same time of the if that happens. The amount of what the lawyers are there is a certain flexibility. I'm sure the president would agree that the present sound of a certain emergency which made it necessary to extend the period of time that could be arranged. But I would like to see the not it left of the house of ministration but I'd like to see the. Congress consulted Stammen the question came to my mind when you made reference to them and agreement for no reprisals on each side. That words are by a great deal or some sort of an international force and

international supervision international supervision. What I misunderstood and my question isn't too relevant then but I was I was just concerned about it yet when I say so that there's going to be some reprisals is going to be they're going to be people that have been killed on both sides of where there are there are there are a bit of hatreds and there are going to be some tragedies occur. Can't avoid that but I think it's important. Reason why I said since the initial supervision I think it's important to have international supervision so as to indicate that there is international interest in this and this international group could report of there was any major many major violation of people that make a great deal of. The to do about a great way to love and I think correctly that what happened that way. In a way this would help create an international climate which would have an influence. The ICC has never been very

effective but at least it is about a veil which does represent a national news got as its chairman Indian. WHO IS WHO world. What I think Canadians oppose I think they would. To do anything they could do to calm down the bitternesses which do exist and I'm satisfied that the leaders of both Saigon and also the NLF if they did come to an agreement. This is that country they would want to see the maximum the amount of of the nonviolence as possible. If they want to. Among the proposals of the NLF and the nothing music made was an agreement on no reprisals it deftly proposed that Incidentally they've added and I understand all political prisoners. They have they are really they talk about the problems they had in the north of taking over a memo and coachmen took took over the North after

shift for agreement. They know the problems they had and they don't want to seeing them repeated to him ready to have peasants continue to own their own property. And various things of that kind. Which could be worked out I think the feeling my interruption this is this this cannot be a definite. We cannot avoid the height of the notions of assigning some sort of expression in violence. But I would hope that it be kept to a minimum. Well I appreciate I don't I mean I can under part I don't agree with those who think that we automatically know the reprisals I think if we hear nothing is done if fighting is allowed to continue is that position provides this love go on indefinitely that we have more and more killed it will break up into all kinds of small battles and the conflict will be utterly disastrous I think it's at least the responsible to suggest that. If that NIS can continue the war

themselves remain chaotic conditions but if we withdraw down to a small number of troops it'll be chaotic conditions fighting will be all over the of the country and it will be a tragic situation which will be will really be to his credit of the United States. And I have only one more question Mr. Chairman I and I appreciate your comment on that Carson. And here the resistance to foreign presence and in view of your own comment about them. The North failing to honor the 54 GENEVER corridor as I was concerned about in view of what is now Europe. Your persuasion asked if I am to government. Itzhak refused to negotiate it. It's it here just a continuation of the war.

If in the next election the two government prevailed as it did before which you favor continued United States aid to South Vietnam. I don't know to understand your question so would I. I think this is government the cure was moving in the direction of bringing in civilians of 1968 and that was reversed in 69 with whatever was talked about at Midway but I don't know what happened between the president of ICs and present chair but I do know when he came home first thing he said to the press was I'm going to severely punish anyone that opposes a coalition government. And then he did accept those resignation and put in a military man up to that time. The previous administration pressure had been on him to bring in civilians. Now I'm not in any way building the cheers patriotism. I'm satisfied that if he that if he had to face up to it he would. He would bring people into his government. As he did in

in 68 when he was faced with the Paris talks. I'm also subsided. If we withdraw troops and indicated we wouldn't give him a name or support. That he would have to negotiate have to bring in people that are ready to negotiate power. I don't know what's going to happen in the election in October. It's conceivable that years reelected conceivable that if there was a real free election that there would be some peace or. Some candidate who was dedicated to peace will be brought in which case he would start negotiations. Well these are I don't think we can we can depots I'm not suggesting in any way to do it. But as Nixon suggested to to dismantle the chair government. But this is their greed enough and laze agreed to negotiate with the good news with the Saigon government I think we are holding up but it we're at same time.

I team want to be fielded in Congress that wants to negotiate not a team that doesn't want to negotiate. I don't know that answers your question sir but this we can we can't we we can't dictate the government who is there we can however tell the government what we under what conditions we will continue to help them. That's barely possible. We also can say that this is the eastern Public Radio Network WGBH FM in Boston on the election of a president who we wanted negotiated peace. And I think to be a legislative election in August. We'll see if that's fair and free too. I thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank spotlight on them. Mr. Hammond with regard to this last business about a bloodbath it strikes me that

they may have overlooked the fact that the Vietnamese have a million. Man Army quip with the best weapons that we could give them it seems to me that the president of the United States has stated on many occasion that Vietnamese Vietnamization he's succeeding. Which means if it means anything that the Viet Nam Army South Vietnam Army is it developed into an effective force. If that being true then why is there a fear of a bloodbath. I mean why shouldn't they be able to protect their people from a bloodbath. I mean you can't have it both ways and it's succeeding in his not succeeding and the only reason to be a bloodbath is it is not succeeding. Well I don't agree so to come up with this force would remain. POWER I think you would see a gradual reduction of the force of the continuation of fighting I didn't say you made they are going to succeeding. I can't tell you what the president feels but I can only see a

continuation of that was a sure war without a very substantial American support. It will simply lead to a disintegration of the fighting will begin with what your saying it Vietnamization isn't succeeding and therefore there is like it could be applied it cannot succeed in my opinion without our support of a very large force. I didn't say you said Iraq seems to me there's an inherent inconsistency in saying it's succeeding and then also the same breath saying that there's a possibility of a bloodbath. You can't have it both ways if it's not not seen as a technical discussion I agree with you if they were able to end the fighting there wouldn't be a bloodbath but I see nothing but a continuing fighting the very unhappy nature breaking up into really a tragedy and therefore we have while we're withdrawing our troops we ought to see to it that they south at leisure brought together the NLF and the other responsible to see the brought together we can decide what they decide what they agree to among themselves but at least we can see that they're brought

together and we should do that. We've been there now for many years. I don't believe in the presence. The president right in saying the alternatives to his proposal is bugout we cannot responsibly role so let's rather than try to testify about it at least satisfied that we can have a responsible drawdown and arrangements can be made on the House side to do these things which I've suggested and. The South of these that brought together without some kind of self if only solution truly credible. Well thank you very much share back to Hamlin we appreciate your coming and why your testimony will be very helpful to the committee. I next witness is the honorable Joseph Klock a former member of this body again our prez of the world united we're all federalists clock a very happy to have you do you have a written statement. Yes I do. Mr. Chairman copies of which have been right many staff and I

ask consent to stay Can I be president. On the record yes I'd like to make a very few brief remarks. They will be free without objection. I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman in making it possible for me to be here today if I can make any contribution to your thinking it is because I represent a sort of political point of view as opposed to the point of view of a distinguished soldier and a very able diplomat whom we heard earlier today. And my own view is that it is absolutely under realistic view of the Viet Nam situation without giving some impact to the political implications both and get lamb and in this country and unless we consider this matter in part at least as a political matter we're not facing the basic facts. I think the questions which confront the committee right now or first how and when do we get out of get my man I think we want to get out of Vietnam now because an overwhelming majority of the people of the American people want us to get out of Vietnam and this is a political

decision. It's not a diplomatic position it's not a military decision it's a political decision. I believe although I can't grow but that a majority of the members of this committee I think we should get out of Vietnam I think earliest possible moment. So the problem is how do we do it and that also I suggest is a political question and it leads to the corollary collection as to what can this committee do to expedite a sensible. Pull out from the get man. PRESIDENT NIXON I take it does not agree with what I conceive the big majority of the American people he wants a much more slowly phased wind down the war and leaving residual U.S. forces including a small strong air force and then to China for several years to come. He suggests and I quite disagree that this will expedite the release of American prisoners of war so the issue is up to the Congress in general and to this committee in particular should the president be supported. You can of course make a good case to support him I suggest he should not be supported and that this

committee should take the lead by setting a date to end American protests a patient in the fight and by using the power of the purse given to the Congress under Article 1 of the Constitution to prevent the continuation of American forces and yet now I am after a fixed day which I would set in accordance with what I believe will be the modern version of the McGovern Hatfield Amendment. The end of this year. Now this does not mean that I will not be subject to the Goetia and I agree quite thoroughly with practically all of what Ambassador RMN has said but the first step I suggest as my political step which is to set a fixed date for withdrawal. And if this is done I am confident that our prisoners will be promptly released. And I ask the committee put place in the record three excellent articles which appeared in The New York Times in the last few days to go by that very able reporter Anthony Lois and the third this morning by Tom Wicker discussing this prisoner of war issue and making it very clear to my mind at least that once we fix a day we can

negotiate for the release of our prisoners and they will be released. And of course if they are not released we can always change the date. The next thing is that I believe that. The people of Cambodia and Laos and North and South Vietnam must settle their own fate politically. Now there will be some military over tellers to be sure but primarily this will be in the end it will be what they really want to do because they are armed forces particularly in Laos and Cambodia who are so weak that I would think a preponderant political view of those peoples as to what their future would be would prevail. And I agree with Governor Harriman that once we fix a date to get out that the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese can politically settle the situation between them and that it will then become apparent that a military victory is just as impossible without United States participation as it is with. The important thing is to stop American participation in the shooting and the bombing and the killing and to bring our troops home. I believe that I should base some international

interventions which would be helpful such as renewing the ICC the Indian is going to help as well as the Poles and the the other country are big Canadians and I think this would be useful it might also be useful to convene another Geneva conference. But the first thing is to set the date to get out and then to negotiate from there always appreciating that if your negotiation and not successful if the president will not release you could always say well setting a date didn't do what we thought it would and we were going to review that because we made an initiative which we thought would lead to peace and it did. I personally believe it will lead to peace. I was fascinated to hear General Shoop say that he thought you could get the troops out of Viet Nam and presumably Laos and Cambodia to including Air Force in 15 days. I had suggested six months although I say in my statement I think it could be done in six weeks. I wonder if we all appreciate the incredible bureaucracy and red tape which is over at the Pentagon which I suspect regardless of what the

generals want to do will take a go on more than two weeks to get the troops out but I think fixing a date as of the end of this year in December is a perfectly realistic one. I would agree with Governor Harmon completely about the bloodbath. I think frankly this is Pentagon propaganda to scare little children in the dark at the head of the stairs. I take no cognisance I do not believe we have a moral duty to the people of Vietnam I think we fulfill that duty I don't think we have a moral duty to repair the damage which we have created there. And I do think also that to the extent we can do that multilateral instead of you and I laterally we will be much better advised to the point of view of our diplomacy and I commend what President McNamara the World Bank is trying to get done with the Asian Development Bank in the Mekong Valley other places as well I would think this would be a situation where we could truthfully call on the United Nations to make some participation. Once that the once the fighting has done. In short I urge this committee to make a prompt and favorable report on the McGovern

Hatfield bill which is now pending in this committee as an amendment to whatever appropriate legislation is now or will shortly come before the Senate I thank Chairman again Senator Cooper for their courtesy listening to me. I think you know I kind of put in for the record the rather comical but nonetheless helpful article by Dean Acheson in the Times this morning indicating that even he is now in favor of winding down the war and I await with anticipation the unconditional surrender Joseph foresaw that. Thank you very much indeed. You have a longer wait here and your former colleague I appreciate it Senator could always Joy what he says he did. Strong thing he says to brace him is the word abrasive is the word whether you like it to good to get attention so it's perfectly all right.

Oh you're not so abrasive or even strong. They're number of eyewitnesses if they agree with you I mean I think the majority of them do that. Of all those proposals which have been presented today to the committee I think the McGovern had feel represents the consensus of those who believe we should get out at the earliest possible time. I mean it's possible to believe that if we're so disposed to get out earlier such as the French did and that was what I think the general was talking about it would be possible I don't think he really thinks very probable but and I also remind you he prefaced this by saying with planning. And a gathering of transportation it would take two weeks he didn't mean from the very beginning to the end. I would anticipate it would be a good deal of planning what he meant is the gathering together the ships the transport so on the physical evacuation you remember would be very quickly. Remember what former congresswoman Jeannette Rankin said when she was asked how she get out she said I

get out the same way you got in by boats an airplane that they wouldn't be too long after the decision in the French experience is a fairly good estimate although ours would be a larger and longer one. When I far as I know you represent really a consensus of that school. There are many people who really think we shouldn't get out. We should maintain a presence in Southeast Asia. A strategic presence from now on I mean there are such people as you know who are not interested in us cider but I would recur to my suggestion that this is a political question that I was only a democracy and we should be governed at least in the long run pretty much by public opinion in a very peculiar manner. Democracy is responsive This is very slow as you well know it's a big country and if we had a parliamentary system it would be more quickly I think but. Such as it is we had an election and one of the platforms through one of the platforms or both of

my guests were in the War of the Prez and Nixon said he had no plan in the war. The assumption was I think within a reasonable period of maybe six or eight months now it's nearly three years certainly before 19. How does a democracy react to that kind of a situation because I'm quite sure those who supported him thought they were. They were promoting a man who intended in the war quickly. Well I suggest this is part of the responsibility of Bush committing. What to run the elections. No no just to follow the dictates of a sensible intelligent and informed political opinion even though the president may not agree. Oh well I don't I think the committee was very likely to do that I can't speak for them far as I'm concerned I've already made it very clear I was going to support it. They have run a vote Mr. Cooper. They're voting I see for the clock on the tiny amendment to the amendment so there's a vote in process so

we'll have to adjourn. Thank you very much for the remark because I think you get a little political but I think I'll resist. Thank you very much. Thank you very much that way though many hurrying round to look. More quickly today I have been suspended because of a vote being in progress on the Senate floor. Let's review briefly what's taken place today. First witness was General David in the show U.S. Marine Corps retired. General said that somehow he could not help feeling that our policies regarding withdrawal from Vietnam were influenced by the elections in October in Vietnam and the elections next year in the US. The general said he hoped that that was not the case as it meant playing with the lives of American troops. And it was he said Augusta I thought the general commented on both the pursuit of the war and its extension

into new areas and the three years since he last gave testimony before this committee the general said he felt but now the American people who were not certain at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution about the presence of United States troops in Vietnam are certain and they feel we should get out of Vietnam. And answering the questions that followed his testimony the general spoke of the frustration the men felt fighting the Vietnam War. He said that allowing 10 days for planning it would take 15 days to withdraw all live bodies from Vietnam. He said he was not including removal of equipment in that estimate. General Shoop said he did not think the administration planned on naval or air withdrawal from Vietnam for some time to come. Asked if the U.S. with if the U.S. withdrew. Should we continue to supply the South Vietnamese with military aid he replied. He thought we would have to go on supplying the South Vietnam is

until either they were strong enough to carry on by themselves or until there was a negotiated settlement. But he said he thought a negotiated settlement would come quickly after U.S. withdrawal. The second witness was W. Evreux Harriman. He advocated a policy of responsible prompt withdrawal he said of prime importance as the negotiation of an agreement on the release of our men who are prisoners of war. Mr Hermann said this must be accomplished before the final withdrawal of our forces. We continued the normal time for the return of prisoners as when the fighting stops continuing the war he said through Vietnamization would condemn our prisoners to continuing captivity. Mr. Herman said we should not depend on assurances by the other side if their actions are not satisfactory. A scheduled withdrawal would not be carried out. He advocated international supervision to keep to a minimum reprisals by

either side against the adherents of the other. He said we must accept the fact that there would be reprisals. Mr. Herman I advocated coming to an agreement with Benoit on a program for reconstruction and read regional development. He said we must recognize that the North Vietnamese did not keep their law as agreement of 1962 for a single day. And some agreement must be reached. But they will find it in their interest to keep for a period of years. Economic arrangements would provide an incentive for North Vietnam to work cooperatively cooperatively with its neighbors and maintain peace in the area. Moreover he said having been involved in creating the devastation. We have and inescapable obligation to assist in the restoration. He said the North we have them is in his opinion. We're fiercely nationalistic. Well they want to be friendly with China. They do not

want in his opinion to be dominated by her. With this in mind he said they established friendly relations with the French after the war with France and ended. Now he said after our war is ended they want similar relations with the United States. And like Tito they recognize the need for an alternative to being compelled to rely on the powerful communist neighbor. They want he said technical information from us. And he said they showed real interest in miracle rice which they hope would make them independent of Chinese imports running as high as 300000 tons a year. He continued in spite of the reduction in American forces and American casualties. We must recognize that the war is not now on its way to being ended. Speaking of the president's position he said the president has told us that. Not our power but our will and character are being tested in world opinion.

Mr. Harriman said this appraisal is not correct. What is being tested is our judgment and the wisdom of our actions. The last witness who spoke before the committee today was former U.S. senator Joseph S. Clarke. He is currently president of World Federalists and he spoke mostly in favor. And he did speak in favor of the McGovern had the old bill. He drew some distinctions between his testimony and the testimony of previous witnesses. He did not believe that we could withdraw all our forces from they had not more than two weeks simply because of red tape. However he did feel that if we gave a specific date wraps at the end of this year. That the fighting would stop the exchange of prisoners could be carried on and we would be out of Vietnam quickly. He concluded his prepared

remarks with I urge this committee to make a prompt and favorable report on the government Hadfield bill as an amendment to appropriate legislation which is now or will shortly be come before the Senate. One new aspect was apparent in the testimony before the committee today and that was in Eberle Harriman's testimony for the first time in this series of hearings. The committee heard testimony from someone who was basically in favor of rapid withdrawal but who had some question about the degree to which the North Vietnamese could be trusted and there was an exploration in the testimony of what steps could be taken to assure North Vietnamese cooperation and keeping commitments both during and after a proposed US withdrawal.

The committee will be taking testimony again tomorrow at 10 o'clock. Washington time on National Public Radio we'll be covering those hearings for you. We hope you'll join us then. Looking back on some of the resolutions which the committee is considering and Senator Fulbright explained basically what the committee is doing is considering specific resolutions one which is receiving more and more attention in the committee as a proposal by Senator Fulbright which would advocate attention to the forthcoming elections in Vietnam and ensure that there was not any U.S. involvement in those elections or rather Mr. Stevens and I made that proposal and that was touched on briefly today or that point of U.S. involvement again

in the testimony of Eberle Harriman. He said the important time to be concerned about those elections is not of the date of the elections but between now and the elections because indeed that is the time. And the time of electioneering when there is a question with exactly what is being done that is appropriate. Question of US funds is involved there and several other things for National Public Radio. This is Mike Walters. This is National Public Radio. And this is the eastern Public Radio Network. Radical. Join us on poetry by request Saturday and Sunday and let Bill cavernous take you the rest of the way to the Dawlish fair that John Keats wrote

about so amusingly there will be other journeys to one of them into the past when we hear from the 17th century poet John Webster. But the present isn't neglected either. Several of today's poets will be heard from also including Audrey Lord WS Merwin Norma Farber Firman Houghton and Richard C. Raymond. Listen to the poet speaks Saturday and Sunday evenings at 7 o'clock. This is National Public Radio in Boston WGBH f am I. This is the eastern Public Radio Network.

U.N. Secretary General Lute and former Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson and U.N. Ambassador George Bush will be among the world dignitaries participating in a United Nations symposium in Boston. Thursday May 27 some 1000 state and community leaders including Sen. Brooke I want to Sergeant Mayor White will attend the meeting. It's a first program in a series of national programs planned by the U.N. association to promote the second United Nations Development decade. For the past ten years the project has worked as a cooperative effort to support the developed and developing nations of the world. WGBH radio will provide live coverage of the event to be carried nationally beginning at 9:15 Thursday morning regular programming will be heard from 12 to 2 in the live broadcast will continue from the Boston Sheraton until 4 join us won't you. National Public Radio in Boston WGBH FM eighty nine point seven I guess I was on your FM radio dial. U.N. Secretary General Lute tongued former Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson and U.S. U.N.

Ambassador George Bush will be among the world dignitaries participating in a United Nations symposium in Boston. Thursday May 27 some 1000 state and community leaders including Senator Breaux governor Sargent and Mayor White will attend the meeting. It's the first in a series of national programs planned by the U.N. association to promote the second United Nations Development decade. For the past 10 years the project has worked as a cooperative effort to support the developed and developing nations of the world. WGBH radio will provide live coverage of this event to be carried nationally beginning at 9:15 there is a morning regular programming will be heard from 12 to 2 and a live broadcast will resume from the Boston Sheraton until 4 join us for this special coverage of the United Nations symposium beginning Thursday at 9:15 a.m. here on National Public Radio in Boston WGBH FM. Could.

Can. Moderate or Roger Good evening and welcome to WORLD Press tonight we're going to check newspapers from the Soviet Union Great Britain Africa the Arab Middle East and Israel. Before we start what do you pick up if anything the fact that the Mansfield Amendment reducing Kreutz in Europe was beaten in the Senate and the Soviet press it got unfavorable reports because the Soviet press found that the White House took an unusually hard line on this thing and was unwilling to yield anything to my British neighbors regarding the campaign for it as symptomatic of an increasing isolationism in the United States but they

also pointed out it is time the Europeans recognize that they have a greater responsibility for their own defense than they have been taking so far. Thank you. In the Soviet Union Mr. Brace nafas announced that he is willing to deal with the United States on reducing arms. At the same time trials are going on in the Leningrad an anti-U.S. barrage is taking place in the press. So let's go to the Soviet press and poles that are of course Roger the biggest news of the past few days is the announcement simultaneously in Moscow and in Washington that these two governments have agreed in principle to go ahead and work out some kind of agreement on strategic arms to limit them both in the offensive and defensive categories up to a few days ago there was no hint in the Soviet press at least not as that I could detect of any such impending development on the contrary the anniversary of the creation of the Warsaw Pact forces was noted and on this occasion there were some very belligerent reports in Soviet newspapers that sort of continued in the vein of the tone of the reports that I

gave last week here in red star the military paper under the headline the front tears over the socialist Commonwealth inviolable. The deputy commandant of Warsaw Pact force he says NATO is an aggressive bloc It does not want to get along with the Warsaw Pact forces. These have served the interests of the socialist countries well and they must remain a powerful shield of these countries in the training of the Ukrainian newspaper the Warsaw Pact is described as the bastion of peace and freedom of nations. And the 16th anniversary of this pact is commemorated and again some hard language about NATO its aggressiveness under American leadership to come to terms with the Warsaw Pact. A somewhat slight departure from this in Soviet scare ACA the Indian Ocean and the strategy of the Pentagon. An article that deals with what they claim are the aggressive intents of our naval forces in trying to make the Indian Ocean here a kind of close sea of the United States Navy. And again no indication

of any desire on our part to get along or to achieve any agreement with the Soviet Union. Here is the item on the White House and its stand on the Mansfield Amendment. Just a brief article but it says that the White House is doing all it can to prevent any troop reduction or any amendment that would soften our hard military stance. An article in Prague through NATO binoculars which says that in effect NATO has so got got used to ruling Europe over for the past 20 years. It doesn't want to give up its prerogatives. Another article on the same page a long one which says against the policy of the adventures by the forces of peace and socialism. A gloomy picture. And then we get to Mr. Brezhnev in Georgia. He was there to celebrate the 50th anniversary of that socially Soviet republic bestowing a medal on the republic as shown in this picture here. A long speech in which he mentions Stalin as one of the great revolutionaries. And then also mention the personality cults which said NEED TO needed to

be corrected. So at the end of the speech two important statements he makes one on a congress of socialist parties now being held in Finland where he says this is an important event that we hope that these parties are going to act constructively and we want to cooperate with them. An important indication of Soviet foreign policy in Europe and the second item he says there are some NATO countries that do not want to respond to our invitation issued at our 24th party congress that we get together and see how we can reduce military forces in Europe in Central Europe and achieve greater stability for Europe. This is the sum total of vindication in Brezhnev speech. An offer to negotiate with NATO in the United States on Armed Forces. No indication up to that date that he wants to do anything on strategic oil like Canada as Desmond Fitzgerald has been reporting is it seems to be getting father and father away from the United States. Now the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau has been wined and dined in Moscow. How did your press carry his visit.

Well I haven't got it yet I'm sorry to say next week I will report on it. From what I understand they treated him extremely well and concluded an agreement with him which is unusually friendly and extensive. Harold Wilson has publishing his memoirs and apparently he states that the President Johnson and others sold him down the river coming to a settlement in the peace with in Vietnam when he was with Cosequin the one that you're picking up anything on the mountain not yet on that either I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the impression was strong at that time that in fact proceeding made some noises in London that would indicate perhaps a desire on his part to do something a picking up anything on the 11 grad trials. Well I'm going to strike out OK. No I see you got a nifty press. Give me a few days and I'll pick up all these things. Paul I was part of the sims to Brezhnev so-called for the end of the personality Copas understand and so the Prince they're running articles on his early days in the Army and the Prisoner of picture of what's the purpose of these kinds of articles now.

Well I think they're building him up and he is obviously number one. They were enormous praises of him at the party congress our dear and I don't need bread you know and all that. But this is not the same as the personality cult which was associated with arbitrariness and terror and of course no dictatorship on the part of Stalin which I don't think is the case with this call for several weeks now you've been reporting it increasingly hard line in the Soviet press toward the United States now suddenly in the past few days there is a thaw in American Soviet relations and possibility of military agreements about troop reductions ABM reduction and so on. How do you explain what I think possible explanations. One is that there's simply a dialectical unity of opposites. But that's too abstract. Second is that they were trying to let their people know that what was forthcoming was not a capitulation before the United States that in fact that they had not been hoodwinked by us that they were hard on us they realized the nature of our system. But still they were trying their best to get together with us and work out some reasonable agreements that so that with the benefit of everybody. That's one possibility. The second possibility is and this is not totally unusual in the Soviet past that there are

hardliners in the Soviet Union who were aware of what was coming and they were trying to apply their rearguard action on it. You know all every question on the Rogers visit to the Middle East was a success and it was very well received by the Egyptians and the Egyptians seem to be continuing to carry on and dialogue with Washington. How is this going down with the Russians who are sitting there with their weapons and their advisers. Well the Russians gave very little about the Rogers visit. What they gave was of course not laudatory at all. And by playing it down playing down the importance and in fact commenting almost nothing at all about the recent changes in Egypt I think that indicating that they're quite concerned about the success of the Rajah's mission. Thank you Paul and Africa. A lot of black African leaders are on their way to see the prime minister of South Africa to see how the African press is reacting. Let's go to Lani Hicks thank you Roger. The major debate in the African press and recent weeks has involved and revolves around the issue of whether black Africans ought to enter into a new dialogue with South Africa. The idea was first broached by who Fred Warnie the president of Ivory Coast. Here's the story as it

was broken in Africa no vote was just published in the Carlson ago a conservative newspaper. And down below an editorial Afric Novell cautiously endorses the idea of dialogue calling it a means of struggle and saying that it is preferable to a race war in Africa. It goes on to say that perhaps with external dialogue with South Africa perhaps some kind of internal dialogue between South African Africans living this may occur. The standard had a very negative attitude toward the whole idea of dialogue here carried in the standard in Tanzania. Just that perhaps Mr. going knee is a fool if he thinks that a mist of oyster is going sit around a table and dismantle apartheid talking about it. He goes on to say that it doubts if Mr. voices and see it calls the move a diplomatic ploy and suggest that nothing will come of it except the division among the ranks of African leaders. You know Africa expressed its views on the question of dialogue on a front page cartoon shown here and here we see an African with an olive branch and missed a voice to apparently here with

a gun behind his back. As to the opinion of the rest of Africa's leaders we go to Africa of again and up here we see the headline dialogue with South Africa reaction of the chiefs of state and on the back. In this article it's pointed out that the moderate states of Ethiopia Nigeria and Liberia are against the idea of dialogue and the article states that this perhaps will kill the whole idea. In other news African press have followed with the developments in the aftermath. The Pakistani crisis and he in an article entitled Thunder Road for unity is suggested that the Pakistani area has been in recent years devastated by floods Cyclons now famine and it is also reports of cholera. It goes on to say that the situation as it exists now is such that economically it's been goal is not viable as an independent state. At the same time one cannot really envision a unity between two sections of the country separated by a thousand miles of foreign territory. I can't understand why the prime minister of South Africa who is the foremost

exponent of our profit in the world is inviting these black leaders to come and visit what's his point. Well I think most of the president's saying it's a diplomatic ploy the South Africans are trying to make points on the international scale they're willing they want to be reasonable they also feel that something is a feeling good about themselves the economy is booming that they are seeking out with ties in order to cement the holding so that when one is a fellow like Bondi of Malawi or who think a boy near however you pronounce it. Why do they come. Well the press is that what may be a factor in it is that they hope to benefit economically. On your reporting at least I guessed on Am I right in understanding you in suggesting that they're not nearly so sympathetic to the to the moral and nationalistic character of the east Pakistani cause as for example the British papers work well generally interested in almost all kinds of movies after they have experienced a community with violence I would say the press is somewhat sympathetic to Bangladesh

and Uganda I get the impression from my press that generally mean is essentially reversing the policy of nationalization and more nationalistic kind of internal and external policies and that as anyone is trying to bring in foreign investment and that sort of thing you get the impression that he's doing that and why. Well that's true. That was apparent almost from the very beginning that he would have a much more conservative policy in taking of Uganda and I said before many times there's a real concern about his ability to rule in Uganda. Just one last incident he offered a reward. The current president ability what kind of reaction did you get say from the press in the Sudan and Somalia in particular to the recent attempts at Federation again not among the Arab states. By and large they approve of it. But I get nothing special over and above that doesn't let ME WANT TO FINAL what I understand that in Kenya they've been having sleep ins in Nairobi in front of the British High Commission is protesting British Asian policy. You pick anything out of your press.

A few items on that but that's a longstanding problem of the British government has reduced its import quotas and that means that a large number of Asians with British passports can't get into Britain they can't stay in Kenya either. All right let me let's switch then to the land that's reducing import quotas of all sorts they're trying to get into the Common Market. And John Searle the British press by far the biggest news in the British press this week are the common market negotiations these now appear to be reaching a climax both as Mr. Rippon negotiate on behalf of Britain and Brussels. And this week Prime Minister he went off for a summit conference with Premier Pompidou of France with President Paul be due to see if they can settle the outstanding differences. Here we see on the front page of The Economist a cartoon showing he's arriving in Paris with a somewhat imbecilic smile on his face and saying it is bad French move. See here I am. There's some apprehension about what it's going to be like when these two characters get together. The Economist says that the reason they haven't met before is that we do doesn't relish meeting a man who may

it be as strange to him as a man on the moon. And One French official is quoted as saying if being friends consists of knowing nothing whatever about the English then the president is extremely French. However in spite of the personality personality difficulties there is general optimism. The Economist goes on to comment that Britain now recognizes that it has at least as serious an interest in Europe as it ever did in its relations with the United States. Meantime Pompidou appeared on British television saying that the basic issue in all these talks is Britain's Will to join Europe. The crux of the matter he says is that there is a European conception or idea something that the British will find rather abstract. And the question to be ascertained is whether or not the United Kingdom's conception or idea is indeed European or if it continues to be nationalistic. Now in spite of the abstract character of the discussion this and rather nitty gritty discussion going on about New Zealand better the question is will the New Zealanders be allowed to continue to sell their butter cheese and meat products to England and other European countries after England enters the Common

Market. England insists on it.