V I E TN A M
EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER,
THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT MENIES, and
THE RT. REV. J. S. MOYES, C. M. G.,
AND CERTAIN ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS
CONTENTS Page
1. Bishops' letter
12th March, 1965
2. Prime Minister's Reply
24th March, 1965
3. Bishops' Letter
9th April, 1965
4. Prime Minister's Reply
April, 1965
PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT.
CANBERRA. APRIL. 1965 1 2
3 -6
7
11 17
TEXT OF BISHOPS' LETTER
OF 12th MARCH, 1965
There are a number of us deeply concerned
that our Government should be seen to be taking
positive steps, with others, towards an honourable
and peaceful. actt.. lmunt of the fighting in Vietnam.
Already His Holiness the Pope, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations,; U Thant,
and the Lovrrnments of Canada, India and France have
urged through both private and formal diplomatic
channels their earnest desire for negotiations
leading to peace.
We are not concerned here to canvass the
merits of the respeclive attitudes of the North and
South Vietnamese Governments, or of the Governments
of the United States and China.
We have in mind, however, the attitude
of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
at the time of the Geneva Agreements in 1954, and
since. We also realise that liberal opinion in
thu as reflected by the " New York Times"
and by sober commentatois like Mr. Walter Lippmann,
by no means agrees with their Government's policy,
Although the U. S. A. was not a signatory to the
1954 Geneva Agreement, yet in a statement made on
21st July that year they undertook to refrain from
the threat of the use of force in the matter of
Vietnam,
2.
It seems to us that our Government,
because we owe so much to our Ally, the United
States of America, is morally bound to help
our Ally, in the friendliest and most loyal
spirit, to avoid a policy that can lead to an
extension of hostilities, We would hope that
our nation, living as we do in the Asian world,
should join with the Pope. U Thant and the
distinguished leaders of the other Western
nations mentioned above, in bringing to a close
a war that is costing so many lives and
reducing the economy of Vietnam to chaos.
TEXT OF PRIME MINISTER'S
REPLY OF 24th MARCH, 1965
I have given careful thought to your letter
of March 12th, relating to events in Vietnam. As
your letter was published in the press, I shall
give publicity to my reply, when you have received it.
You urge that my Government should be seen
to be taking " positive steps towards an honourable
and peaceful settlement of the fighting in Vietnam".
Now, that all of us in our country want peace
is axiomatic. The whole strength of Australia's
diplomatic forces in countries to which they are
accredited is directed almost daily to the removal
of difficulties and the promotion of peace. But
before any nation such as the U. S. A. " negotiates"
for peace, realism requires
that the other party or parties to
the conflict should be willing to
negotiate; and
that there should be a genuine ceasefire,
strictly and honourably
observed; and
that there should be some reasonable
assurance that aggression and subversion
will come to an end.
It is at this point that your letter
surprises and distresses me. Although you are
urging some form of political action upon me and my
colleagues in relation to the fighting in Vietnam,
you go on to say that you are " not concerned here to
canvass the merits of the respective attitudes of the
North and South Vietnamese Government, or the
Governments of the United States and China".
Well, all I can say is that the
Government is and must be concerned. Indeed,
it seems elementary to me that unless we
have some ideas on the merits of these matters,
our actions will be those of expediency and
not those of principle.
I therefore address myself to the
merits, to which, I fear, you attach little
significance. You refer to the Geneva agreements of
1954. These provided a military demarcation
line at the 17th parallel, separating North and
South Vietnam, with a demilitarised zone of
five kilometres on each side. Each side was
to " order and enforce the complete cessation
of all hostilities in Vietnam by all armed
forces under their control".
North Vietnam is under Communist rule.
The political views of Hanoi are not to be
distinguished from those of Peking. There
can, in our opinion, be no doubt that the
Geneva Accords have been consistently violated
by the Communists, partly by direct attacks
across the line, partly by infiltration and
supply, and partly by the establishment and
maintenance of the Communist insurgents known
as the Viet Cong, whose activities are directed
to the overthrow of government in South Vietnam
and to the ultimate establishment there of a
Communist regime. These facts are not
seriously denied. In 1960 they were expressly
conceded by the Government and Communist Party
in North Vietnam. At the request of the Government
of South Vietnam the United States has
deployed forces in that country, to aid in its
defence, and we, under similar circumstances,
have given military and material aid. These
steps are denounced by the Communists as
" Imperialism", though it is quite clear that they
have been taken in the defence of local freedom and
self-government against an imperialist aggression which,
if not restricted by deeds, will lead to the overrunning
of South-East Asia by aggressive Communism
and a complete loss of the existing freedom of non-
Communist countries. Are there no merits here to be considered
by Church leaders? There can be no true composition
between atheistic and materialistic Communism and
countries with deep religious beliefs. True, there
can be, given good faith on both sides, peaceful coexistence
and mutual tolerance. But these cannot
continue if aggression continues and grows and is
unchecked except by fine words.
We have considered the merits, as any
Government must. We believe as do all those who
have been prepared to consider the merits, that the
United States policies and actions in relation to
South Vietnam are right, and should be supported;
that they derive from a courageous and generous
acceptance of responsibilities for the protection of
human freedom. You urge that we join with some other
authorities " in bringing to a close a war that is
costing so many lives and reducing the economy of
Vietnam to chaos".
I agree that the war is costing many lives
and is damaging Vietnam. But how is it to be brought
to a close? The Viet Cong and the forces of Hanoi
are backed by Communist China, a country which
rejects peaceful co-existence and practises, as it
has already shown in India and Tibet, an aggressive
imperialism. Is the United States to withdraw, and
abandon South Vietnam? This would no doubt lead to
a conquest which would end the armed conflict by
conceding victory to the Communists.
Or is the United States, without
withdrawal or abandonment, to negotiate for
peace? With whom? About what? These are two
vital questions. How would they negotiate with the
Viet Cong, well organised but hidden, practising
the night attack upon villages, determined
upon revolution by violence? How would they
negotiate with North Vietnam, a country which
has shown that it will be bound by no agreement?
How could they negotiate with Communist
China, the home of aggression, except upon a
basis of assured independence and freedom for
South Vietnam and those other countries of
South-East Asia which are now threatened by
Communist expansionism? Sir, the change of heart that is needed
to lay a good foundation for a fruitful
negotiation and a lasting peace must occur in the
Communist bodies. It will occur all the sooner
if aggression is met by resistance, if we remain
clear about what it is that we are defending,
and if we, and all our allies, can make it well
understood that we are not concerned to conquer
others, but that we will do our part to preserve
freedom where it now exists. Freedom is, in
this world, not expendable. And free people
are not aggressors.
TEXT OF BISHOPS' LETTER
OF 9th APRIL, 1965
' le thank you for your thoughtful reply of
March 24th to our joint letter of March 11th. We
beg you to give further consideration to the urgent
request of our letter, in the earnest hope that
continuing discussion will clarify the real issues.
It puzzles us that you should be
" surprised and distressed" because we did not canvass
set forth and discuss in detail all the
facts. This, as you must realise, would have
involved hundreds of pages. So far from " attaching
little significance" to the " merits of these matters,"
we naturally attach the greatest importance to them,
as some of us have meanwhile made clear. We must
insist, however, on examining the merits of both
sides. The illegal activities of North Viet Nam are
constantly being brought to our notice. We feel bound
to point out that the South is not blameless. Your
reference to the Geneva accords of 1954 as having
been " consistently violated by the Communists" is
surely less than the whole truth of the matter.
Both North and South, and China and the United States,
have violated the agreements. Two serious breaches
of the spirit and letter of the Geneva agreements
have been committed by the South, with full knowledge
and approval, and active support, of the United States.
They are:-i. the continued refusal to hold free
elections; and
ii. the grant of military bases to a foreign
power.
As to the fact is that it was agreed at
Geneva on July 21st, 1954, that " General Elections
shall be held in July, 1956, under the supervision
of an international commission composed of
representatives of the member states of the
international supervisory commission referred
to in the agreements on the cessation of
hostilities." These elections have never been
held. Responsibility for this rests squarely
on the Government of South Viet Nam, backed
by the United States. No authority known
to us disagrees that any fair and free election
since 1954 would have resulted in a victory for
the supporters of Ho Chi Minh. If people want
to be communists, guns will not stop them.
As to we remind you that
Paragraph ( iv) of the Final Declaration on
Indo-China of July 21st, 1954 reads; " The
Conference takes note of the clauses
prohibiting the introduction into Viet Nam of
foreign troops and military personnel as well
as of all kinds of arms and munitions." We
remind you further of Paragraph of the same
Declaration: " The Conference takes note
that no military base at the disposition of a
foreign State may be established in the
regrouping zones of the two parties..."
The main contention of your letter
is that we are indifferent to the moral and
religious elements in the situation, whereas
you and your Government are deeply concerned
with both. You think of the war as a crusade
being carried out by the Christian forces
of the " deeply religious" people of South
Viet Nam, the United States and, presumably,
Australia, against " the atheistic and
materialistic" forces of North Viet Nam
and China. We find ourselves unable to make
this clear moral and religious distinction
and, moreover, regard the making of such a
distinction as in itself open to grave moral
question. We can understand the desire to
L
restrain the political imperialism of China, and
even the necessity of using force to do it, but
we cannot ourselves justify it on your grounds,
namely, that the United States and ourselves are
altruistically coming to the rescue of " local
freedom and self government".
The government of South Viet Nam rests
upon no basis of popular or democratic support.
It was from its beginning, until last year, a
dictatorship of the late Mr. Ngo Dinh Diem. In these
circumstances, it seems to us to be idealising the
situation to write of U. S. support of " local
freedom and self government."
As for your observation that " there can be
no true composition between atheistic and materialistic
communism and countries with deep religious
beliefs," we can only say that there are millions
of Christians in Russia and China who are compelled to
do just this. We have no right to criticise
them, since we have not ourselves been put to this
test. It seems to us preferable in this war, as
with all wars, carefully to keep references to
" deep religious belief" above the evil it may help
to resolve, and not to misuse it to bolster one
side of the case or the other.
On one of your political judgements we feel
bound to take issue. You say " the political
views of Hanoi are not to be distinguished from
those of Pekin." We doubt the validity of your
identification. Is it not like identifying
Moscow with Belgrade and Warsaw and Pekin?
Finally, you ask how the war is to be
brought to a close. We can only reiterate the
hope which was the main point of our original
letter, that you will use your great influence and
experience to support the possibility of
negotiations. We cannot think that we, or
others more distinguished, are hopelessly
deluded in asking that negotiations become
the declared objective of Australian
diplomacy. In urging this plea, we are
supported by His Holiness the Pope, by
U Thant, and by the Governments of France and
India, to which has been added the commanding
voice of your fellow Prime Minister of a
Dominion, Mr. Lester Pearson, and Her Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom. To all these
have now been added the proposals of President
Johnson himself. We feel no distress at
finding ourselves in such company.
TEXT OF PRIME MINISTER'S
REPLY OF 20th APRIL, 1965
I have your letter of April 9th, answering
mine to you of March 24th, and have given it my most
earnest consideration. Fortified again, I may say, by close
consultation with the Minister and Department of
External Affairs, I will proceed to deal with the
substance of your propositions.
You dismiss the actions of North Vietnam,
in a single phrase, as " illegal activities". The
rest of your letter contains, in detail and at some
length, a critical attack upon South Vietnam and
her supporters. You accuse them of two violations of the
Geneva Accords of 1954. You should recall that the
United States and South Vietnamese governments did
not subscribe to the Final Declaration, but made
separate statements indicating that they would not
use force to prevent the execution of the agreements.
The United States declared that it would view any
renewal of aggression, in violation of the
agreement, with grave concern and as seriously
threatening international peace and security.
You allege two serious breaches by the
South, approved and supported by the United States.
They are, to use your own language,
1. " The continued refusal to hold free
elections".
This refers, as you make clear, to elections over both
North and South Vietnam. You then go on to assert
a proposition which I find astonishing.
12.
Your words are
" These elections have never been
held. Responsibility for this rests
squarely on the Government of South
Vietnam, backed by the United States.
No authority known to us disagrees
that any fair and free election
since 1954 would have resulted in a
victory for the supporters of
Ho Chi Minh."
Surely nobody will deny that North Vietnam is
under complete Communist control, and that
" free elections" simply cannot happen. That
Ho Chi Minh would win in North Vietnam is clear
enough, for there would and could be no other
candidate. How you can blame South Vietnam for the
absence of a " fair and free election" in North
Vietnam therefore passes my comprehension.
Let me remind you too that if the
North had not actively sought to overthrow the
government of the South by force, and by
supporting the pockets of Communist Viet Cong
in their violent campaigns in the South, the
people of the South would be at peace, and the
way for orderly self-government would be open.
2. The second " serious breach" alleged
by you is " the grant ( by South
Vietnam), of military bases to a
foreign power."
The first answer to this is that it is simply
inaccurate. No " military bases" have been
granted to the United States.
True, that country has sent some forces into South
Vietnam, at the request of that country, to
assist in its defence against unprovoked aggression.
So have we, in a small way. Such actions are in
strict conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations. I fear that you have overlooked the vital
fact that South Vietnam did not begin these troubles.
To play down the aggression and incitement from the
North, and to devote your major criticism to the
defenders, is a strange line of argument.
You next accuse us of " idealising" the
situation in Vietnam by speaking of support of
local freedom and self-government". How do you
suppose that freedom in South Vietnam can be fully
achieved and maintained when that country is torn
about by murderous subversion fomented and supported
from the Communist North? A life and death struggle
of this kind does not lend itself to theory.
Finally, you appear to pray in aid the
recent statement by President Johnson. I
respectfully suggest that you study the full text
of that statement. It powerfully supports what
my colleague, Mir. Hasluck, and I have been saying
about the course and causes of the events in
Vietnam, and is fundamentally at odds with your own
analysis. It explains the American presence and
actions. It faces the facts.
For example ( and I will not quote in
extenso) the President said
" Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for
a world where each people may choose its
ownpath to change. This is the
principle for which our ancestors fought
in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is
the principle for which our sons fight
in the jungles of Vietnam."
14.
" We fight because we must fight
if we are to live in a world where
every country can shape its own
destiny. And only in such a
world will our own freedom be
finally secure. This kind of a
world will never be built by
bombs or bullets. Yet the
infirmities of men are such that
force must often precede reason
and the waste of war, the works of
peace. We wish this were not so.
But we must deal with the world as
it is, if it is ever to be as we wish."
" But trained men and supplies,
orders and arms, flow in a constant
stream from North to South. This
support is the heart-beat of the war.
And it is a war of unparelled
brutality. Simple farmers are the
targets of assassination and kidnapping.
Women and children are strangled in the
night because their men are loyal
to the government. Small and
helpless villages are ravaged by sneak
attacks. Large-scale raids are
conducted on towns, and terror
strikes in the heart of cities. The
confused nature of this conflict cannot
mask the fact that it is the new face
of an old enemy. Over this war
and all Asia is another reality,
the deepening shadow of Communist
China. The rulers of Hanoi are
urged on by Peking. This is a regime
which has destroyed freedom in Tibet,
attacked India, and been condemned by
the United Nations for aggression in
Korea. It is a nation which is
helping the forces of violence in almost every
continent. The contest in Vietnam
is part of a wider pattern of aggressive
purpose."
And later he said
" We will not be defeated. We will not
grow tired. We will not withdraw,
either openly or under the cloak of a
meaningless agreement."
And then " It should also be clear that the only path
for reasonable men is the path of
peaceful settlement. Such peace demands
an independent South Vietnam securely
guaranteed and able to shape its own
relationships to all others free from
outside interference tied to no alliance
a military base for no other country."
It is against the background of these clear
statements and for their achievement that the
President has said, once more, that he is willing to
have discussions. It is because we agree with all this that,
in answering a recent Parliamentary question, I said
that I could not support a suggestion " that the United
States, instead of fighting, should negotiate".
My colleagues and I must decline to be cast
for the roles of warmongers and supporters of
illicit action on the part of the United States or
South Vietnam. We are constantly aware of our duties
to our country and our people. One of those duties
is to do what we can to keep the peace, and to help
others to keep it. Another is to be acutely
16.
aware of the need to preserve the security of
Australia. It would be a sorry day if, by
undermining the will and capacity to resist
in South-East Asia, we found aggressive
Communism moving nearer to our own shores.
We will observe our obligations under SEATO
and ANZUS not only because Australia has
pledged its word a reason compelling enough,
in all conscience but because those obligations
have been accepted on behalf of our own free
future. To sum up, my Lord Bishop, we have
never approached the problem in a negative way.
We have no desire for hostilities to spread or
to grow more intense, though, if this is forced
upon us, we will face the resulting situation
and not seek to avoid it.
Like President Johnson, we wish South
Vietnam and the whole of South and South-East
Asia to live in peace and international amity
and to have full and free opportunities for
economic development and national independence.
It is just because we believe in these positive
objectives that we find ourselves unable to
ignore the lessons of the 20th Century and to
acquiesce placidly in the destruction of the
independence of South Vietnam, either by direct
outside armed Communist aggression or by internal
armed Communist insurrection and subversion
stimulated and sustained, as I am sure you must
agree, through North Vietnam.
17.
You have now twice publicly stated
your views. This letter contains my second answer.
You will, I am sure, understand that I must now
leave the issues to the judgment of public opinion.
I cannot, consistently with many pressing duties,
continue this correspondence. But it has, I think,
served a valuable public purpose.