OCR Text |
Show . The Myth of Freedom In Viet Nam ' By GORDON BAUMBAUCHER The cost of the Viet Nam war is awesome: in casualties, in suffering, in destruction, in materials, and in the deterioration of the detente between the United States and Russia. We have slid into this war almost haphazardly, by-passing the democratic process and without defining clearly goals and limits. As dissent and uneasiness mounts at home and abroad, the Administration is trying with increasing in-creasing vehemence to justify our action. The United States is in Viet Nam, the President has repeatedly stated, to honor our commitments to a free nation and to uphold our "traditional position posi-tion that peoples are entitled to determine their own future." Unfortunately the United States, itself, has observed these noble ideals more in the breach than in the practice in Viet Nam. We first intervened there not as the champion of freedom, but as the financial backer of the French who after the Second World War attempted to reestablish re-establish colonial rule in South East Asia. In the bloody struggle for independence from French domination which followed, the United States placed military advisers at France's disposal and footed 80 per cent of the cost of the war. Subsequent events in the 1950's further indicated indi-cated that democratic ideals were of little significance in American policy. The 1954 Geneva Accords which established peace after the French defeat, divided Viet Nam in half temporarily and provided for free, nation-wide elections to be held in 1956 to reunite the country. Although not a signatory of the Accords, Ac-cords, the United States implied both approval and acceptance of the agreement when President Eisenhower Eisen-hower stated that the United States would "act as one of the guarantors of whatever agreement should be reached." . The government of North Viet Nam was headed by Ho Chi Minh, the nationalist, communist leader of the Viet Minh, while Diem, sponsored by the United States, took power in South Viet Nam. When it became apparent, however, that an overwhelming majority of the South Vietnamese supported reunifi- ! cation under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, Diem with American collaboration refused to honor the i Geneva agreement and the scheduled elections were ! not permitted to be held. The present war is a direct di-rect result of this betrayal of the Geneva Accords. Now, in basing our intervention on the right of self-determination self-determination the United States is in much the position posi-tion of a prostitute who having retired on her earnings earn-ings demands that the red-light district be closed down in the name of civic virtue. Pious pronouncements by the President that we are fighting for freedom and the "will of the people in Viet Nam" cannot alter contradicting facts. The Buddhist revolt of last spring and the student riots in Saigon indicate that in supporting the Ky regime the United States is backing a ruling clique of generals gen-erals who possess scanty popular support. Even the much flaunted elections to be held this fall to choose a constitutional assembly will be little more than show. By outlawing the advocacy of either neutralism or negotiation and by screening all candidates in advance, General Ky has made certain that neither his policies nor his government will be challenged. Furthermore, he has reserved to himself the right to amend any constitution produced pro-duced by the assembly in any way that he may see fit. The result is that the people of South Viet Nam who, claims James Reston of The New York Times, desire peace above all else have no means of voicing their desire. Instead, the United States listens to the generals, and the generals want war. The struggle for freedom and self-determination is the rhetoric of, but certainly not the reason for, American involvement in Viet Nam. If, like General Ky, the President is prepared to fight to the last American, he needs considerably better justification than he has given in the past. |