April 15, 1970
Page 11784
PROGRESS IN VIETNAM
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, in line with his policy of keeping the American public informed about developments concerning our country's involvement in Southeast Asia, President Nixon announced last week that he will make another report to be carried to the Nation by radio and television from the White House Thursday evening. It is anticipated that this report will deal with the progress being made in withdrawing American troops from Vietnam and in helping the South Vietnamese Government to assume a greater role in the conduct of the war and in the affairs of Southeast Asia.
Despite the harping and jibing of some of his critics, President Nixon's policy of Vietnamization is increasingly successful. During this administration, there has been an overall reduction in casualty rates. The number killed in action in 1969 was 9,414, compared with 14,592 in 1968. The costs of the war have been lowered. In fiscal year 1970, the costs for Southeast Asia, the bulk of which was Vietnam, totaled $23.2 billion, compared with $28.8 billion for fiscal year 1969. The Government of South Vietnam has become more stabilized, and, most important of all to the families of American servicemen, more than 100,000 troops have been brought home.
Reckless charges have been made that American participation in the war has spread into Laos and Cambodia. Such politically inspired allegations have not been substantiated. The Nixon administration has made it very clear that it does not intend to involve the United States in an expanded war in Indochina.
In light of Mr. Nixon's determined efforts for peace, it is highly regrettable that some members of the opposition party are striving hard to keep the country divided and thereby prolong the war.
The statement last week by National Democratic Chairman Lawrence F. O'Brien offers strong evidence that some Democrat leaders plan to do everything they can to make Vietnam the main issue in this year's elections. They are intensifying their attack on a Republican President who has done much in 13 months to remedy a situation which their party had been unable to resolve in 6 years.
It is ironic that at the same time some politically ambitious spokesmen for the opposition party are chastising President Nixon for our posture in Vietnam, they are also trying desperately to take credit for some of the notable successes. A striking example is the land reform program.
With the assistance of our Government, President Thieu was able to obtain passage of a bill by the Vietnamese Legislature which will provide for the distribution of more than 2.25 million acres of good agricultural land to 500,000 tenant farmers on a permanent ownership basis. The program is working, it is popular, and it has strengthened both the Thieu government and the South Vietnamese citizens' will to defend the nation.
It is generally recognized that this accomplishment is a major step toward providing the necessary incentive for the Vietnamese people to achieve the internal strength and independence which is essential to building a durable nation.
It is interesting to note that the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) who has been openly skeptical of the abilities of the Vietnamese people, has now come forth with a proposal to spend an additional $320 million for the land reform program. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The Nixon administration and the Thieu government have every reason to feel flattered by Mr. MUSKIE's move.
As for Mr. MUSKIE's repeated demands that a new representative to the Paris peace talks be named, this question was adequately answered by Under Secretary of State Elliott Richardson in hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from the transcript of those hearings be printed in the RECORD,
There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EXCERPTED FROM HEARINGS, MARCH 16, 1970
Senator SYMINGTON. . . . why don't we put somebody of the stature of Ambassador Lodge
in Paris and really try to get on with the negotiations?
RICHARDSON. . . . we think that the prognosis for Vietnamization is quite good and to the extent that this is so, this fact in turn should, we believe, convince the other side that the opportunity to negotiate is a wasting opportunity.
By that I mean that their chances of a favorable deal from their point of view through the negotiating process are not going to be as good a month from now or a year from now as they were last month or last year. In this sense, the Vietnamization process and the negotiating process have always in this Administration seemed to be inseparably related.
Now, so far as our representation in Paris is concerned, the point essentially is that we sought by every means we can conceive of to engage the other side in serious negotiations. The US part in the negotiations necessarily involves primarily the mutual withdrawal of external forces. The other major heading for negotiations is a political settlement. And here it has been our position that a political settlement can only be negotiated among the Vietnamese. The key parties in any such settlement obviously are the Government of South Vietnam and the so-called provisional revolutionary government of the Viet Cong. And so far the other side has persistently refused to permit that type of negotiation to take place.
And so we are saying in substance that we and the Government of South Vietnam stand ready to enter into serious negotiations at any time. We have made clear that no proposition that we have advanced has been advanced on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, that the only fundamental to which we adhere is that any political solution should be a political solution arrived at freely among the South Vietnamese through the process of negotiation and elections. And so in effect, at this stage we are awaiting an indication of the other side's willingness to engage in serious negotiations, and, of course, at that point if it seemed desirable, we would be prepared to send another delegation head to Paris, but in the meanwhile, we made clear that Ambassador Habib has full power to negotiate. He has the full confidence of the Administration. And he is a very experienced and resourceful, fair-minded diplomatic representative.
SYMINGTON. Well, let me say I have the highest respect for Ambassador Habib, and my only point is that there has been discussion of the fact that he was not as well known nationally and internationally as his predecessor, and that being a point that has been developed by many people in many countries, we are sincere about the idea of negotiation being an equal opportunity along with Vietnamization which for the reasons presented to you I have my doubts about, then I would think that we would want to carry out more of an appreciation of the form of the development of the situation as well as the substance.
RICHARDSON. Well, Senator, all I can say, I can only really add that the point has been made primarily, and it is made often, by the spokesman for the Government of North Vietnam and the PRO in Paris, but we think this is an excuse on their part, a smoke screen, designed to mask their own unwillingness to negotiate. They have plenty of ways available to them at any time to signal their readiness to enter into serious negotiation and if at that point it became significant to substitute a new delegation head in Paris, we would certainly do it. But so far there really appears to be nothing in this point beyond the attempt by the other side to divert responsibility or attention from their own intransigence.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, 1970 is an election year. It is understandable that intense partisanship will cloud the judgment of candidates and party leaders. However, 1970 is also a war year and I believe that the American people will not be kindly inclined this November toward those super partisans who jeopardize the growing opportunity for peace.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.