March 11, 1970
Page 6879
THE MUSKIE PROPOSAL – A PREFABRICATED EXCUSE TO CUT AND RUN
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the "let's cut and run in Vietnam" proposal is back with us again, only this time it is being couched in more subtle language than before.
Either that, or I have misinterpreted a recent speech by the junior Senator from Maine. In which case, I would be glad to have him set me straight.
Let me say first, however, that the Senator has put his proposition well and disguised it neatly with the statement that he believes a real end to the war can come only through negotiations. That point may or may not be valid. Suffice it to say that to date the North Vietnamese have shown little sign of wanting to negotiate on any realistic terms.
Largely, I suspect, because they have been encouraged, time after time, to believe that we will negotiate on their terms or, failing that, just plain cut out.
Certainly, these are the alternatives the Senator seems to be proposing, or, rather demanding. He tells the President he, and I quote, "must develop a proposal that is negotiable." That proposal he says is "a U.S. withdrawal timetable" coupled with "an informal arrangement regarding the withdrawal of North Vietnam forces."
Now there you have it. First we must work with the North Vietnamese and find for them a satisfactory time when we shall get out. In return, we get "an informal arrangement" regarding their withdrawal.
Mr. President, another President, a Democratic President, if you will, tried the same thing once before in Laos.
Except that in that case the North Vietnamese formally agreed to get out. We now know what happened. We got out. The North Vietnamese did not. In fact, they now have 67,000 troops in that country. That fact shows how the North Vietnamese live up to their agreements. Yet, the Senator from Maine would have us put our faith in them anyway. I respect his faith. But I fear it is misplaced.
Mr. President, perhaps another Member will stand up and tell me about the thousand-plus personnel we have in Laos and use that as an excuse for the North Vietnamese presence there.
Of course, there really is no comparison – for two reasons. One – we went back into Laos at the invitation of the lawful Laotian Government when it became obvious that the North Vietnamese would not leave. Two – 67,000 troops with tanks and artillery is not quite the same as a thousand advisers and support personnel.
The Senator tells us that "there is some reason to believe that Hanoi would be receptive" to the negotiating approach he mentions. I am sure there is. But from their record, there is no reason to believe the North Vietnamese would live up to such an agreement should it be made.
The Senator must know this. Every thinking person in the country must know this. This is not the sure road to peace. This is just a prefabricated excuse to cut and run out on our commitments and on our allies.
Mr. President, as usual with those who put their trust in a foe who has an unbroken record of betrayals, the Senator seeks to put the onus on the back, not of the enemy, but of the American President, whomever he may be.
Again, I quote:
We have been in Paris for over a year and a half, and it is obvious that Hanoi finds no incentives for compromise in our present policy.
Our present policy?
Mr. President, every compromise proposal in Paris since the talks began has not been made, not by Hanoi but by Washington.
On May 14 and again on November 3 the President set forth our peace proposals. I quote:
We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year.
We have proposed a cease-fire under international supervision.
We have offered free elections under international supervision with the communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. The Saigon Government has pledged to accept the result of the elections.
Mr. President, that is what the United States has proposed. And the President goes on to say:
We have indicated that we are willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side and that anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.
What else could rightly be expected from the United States?
And yet the enemy, according to the Senator, finds no incentive to compromise.
I ask the Senator, "What is unreasonable about the President's approach?" I ask him, "What kind of incentives does he seek?"
I wish he could answer these questions or get the North Vietnamese to answer, because, as of last November 3, and I know of no change since then, Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms; that we withdraw all American Forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the Government of South Vietnam as we leave.
How do I know this? President Nixon told us this on November 3.
Mr. President, it is obvious that there are those who would retreat from Vietnam at any cost.
There are those who seem to seek to make Vietnam a political issue.
There are those who pretend that the massacres perpetrated by Ho Cho Minh after the partition of Vietnam did not happen. There are those who pretend that the atrocities at Hue – 3,000 civilians shot and clubbed to death – did not happen.
There are those who ignore the effect of an American surrender in Vietnam on the peace of the rest of the world.
Fortunately for America and for the world the President of the United States is not one of those.
Fortunately for all of us the President has chosen a road to travel that freedom-loving people everywhere can live on and that the South Vietnamese will not have to die on.
It is a different road from the low road to surrender or appeasement.
It is, instead, the high road to an honorable and just peace.