JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE
by.
VICE PRESIDENT HUBERT H. HUMPHREY AND PRIME MINISTEF.
HAROLD HOLT
CANBERRA. FEBRUARY 19, 1966.
AMBASSADOR CLARK: Gentlemen it is indeed an honour and pleasure for
me to introduce the Vice President of the United States of America, the
Honourable Hubert H. Humphrey who has come to Australia on a special
mission for President Lyndon Johnson following the historic Honolulu
Conference. Prime Minister Holt, of course, needs no introduction.
Gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States.
MR. ROBERT-ABERNATHY N. B. C. What is the attitude of Australians
towards the war in Vietnam, the conduct of that war and Australian
involvement there? Then what are your comments on the demonstrators we
have seen today?
MR, HOLT: Gentlemen, you heard me say at the luncheon that the Australian
people and I speak as the Head of this democracy, fully conscious that in
a democracy you speak for a majority and I believe in this case an overwhelming
majority. The Australian people are firmly behind the administration
of the United States in the stand that it has taken in Vietnam. We understand
fully the reasons for your presence in Vietnam. And because those reasons
were so magnificently stated for us today by the Vice President, because of
those reasons we are there with you as we have been over the years in other
causes where Australians and Americans have been together in the cause of
f reedom. You mentioned the demonstrators here today. Well, they're
entitled to demonstrate in the kind of democracy we have. But I thiz* a
truer indication of the state of opinion is that in the government parties, and
these are men and women responsible to Australian electors and having
to carry the responsibility of their judgments and their decisions into their
electorates. But there is not one member of the two government parties in
both Houses of the Parliament who has not been fully in support of our
intervention with you in Vietnam and in support of the American policy there.
I believe and subscribe wholeheartedly to the statement that the Vice President
has made. I only wish that what he has put so compellingly and movingly and
clearly to us today could have reached out to every household in every free
country of the world. And I hope that the message that he has given us today
will spread throughout not merely the free world but even reach into the darker
recesses of the Communist world because there was a great statement coming
from a free people directed to freedom-loving people throughout the world.
And we are greatly indebted to him for this heartening statement of the
American attitude.
ALAN REID Sydney Sunday Telegraph A defence question: Release
yesterday in Washington of an Armed Services hearing of January 20 reveals
that Secretary McNamara has asked for more troops from Australia. I ask
you, Sir, have you discussed this with the Prime Minister? And I ask the
Prime Minister what is his reaction to this request.
MR. HUMPHREY: In response to your question, Sir, I have not made any
request to the Government of Australia for additional forces in Vietnam. I
read on the press wires the matter from Washington, the release of certain
testimony from the Armed Services Committee in Washington. The Government
of Australia will do what it feels it can do and we Americans have faith and
confidence in their judgemnent. I said today in my remarks in the other
room that Australia today is a participant in a host of activities in many
countries including her commitments to the defence of Malaysia, her foreign
aid activities in the Colombo plan countries, her emergency assistance to
India, her help in Pakistan, her great contribution a very generous
contribution to the Asian Development Bank, and her forces now in
Vietnam. You would expect, I am sure, that the Government of the
United States would encourage every country that it can to make some
contribution, and greater contributions in Vietnam. This would be a very
natural thing for our government to do. But may I say we are very
grateful to have as our partner in Vietnam, amongst other partners, Australia
and the New Zealanders and the Koreans and ourselves and other countries
that are indeed some 30 of them in activities of a non-combatant nature.
We're hopeful that there will be more, particularly in that other sector
of the non-combatant services.
MR. HOLT: Could I supplement that, Mr. Vice President?
You know we are in almost daily, certainly close and continuous
discussion and consultations at some level or other with the United States of
America. What the Vice President has said about our talks today I
confirm completely of course. He has raised no question with us which
implies or presents any pressure of any kind to this country. But we are
engaged together in Vietnam. We are engaged together in some of these
other activities of an economic and social kind to which the Vice President
has referred. There need be no mystery about the fact that at a time when
American forces have been increased very substantially in a conflict in
which we are both involved but along the line in service discussions and in
various other ways we've talked together about what one country can do and
what another can do, and what we can do ourselves. It's well known, as the
Vice President has just put it to you, that Australia has obligations in a
number of directions. We are trying to help against Malaysian confrontation.
We are helping to a degree in Vietnam. Wc are helping in the aid field. We
are trying to secure the situation of New Guinea for which we have accepted
great responsibilities. And we have here a continent, as I said earlier, the
size of the United States. In two states of this continent of ours Mr. Vice
President, you could contain the whole of France, Germany, Italy and the
British Isles and in one of those States there is less than a million people
and in one of the others there is less than 2 million people. And so we have
in Australia a great variety of responsibilities to discharge. We are capable
of coming to our own judgement. As to what contributions Australia should
make, whether it is of a military kind, an economic or social kind, in any
particular area or issue and in anky part of the world. And I can say with
entire sincerity and frankness that at no time has any pressure been put upon
this country of an improper or irregular character by the Government of the
United States or any representative of it. But we are grown people, we can
think and speak in realistic terms about these things. And what a remarkable
world it would be if at no point in discussions in either service quarters or
administrative or governent quarters that the question hadn't been raised
as to whether Australia could do a little more here or a little more there.
Sir, you have stated the position quite accurately from our point of view
and I'm glad to be able to confirm it.
HERSCHEL HURST Melbourne Sun: I'd like to submit a question a
supplementary question to the one asked by Mr. Reid. And that is; what
answer, if any, has our government given, or you yourself given to Mr.
McNamara's stated request for an increase in troops?
MR. HOLT: We have been considering for some time now what more could
usefully be done in Vietnam. We have had discussions as you know with
the Defence Minister of the United Kingdom quite recently, and it was
important for us to be clearly aware of British intentions and of forming
-3-
some judgement ourselves of the future picture in that particular area
of the world and, indeed, of the British contribution in this area of the
world, because quite clearly that had a bearing of what Australia can do in
one part of South East Asia or another. We've since had the advantage of
the talks with the Vice President and our discussions at various levels in
the administration and at the service levels. We have come to no conclusion
as yet but this matter is actively under consideration. I hope we shall
soon be in a position to what extent Australia feels able at this point of time,
having regard to our commitments in all these other directions I mentioned,
to supplement our present scale of forces in Vietnam.
TOM WICKER New York Times: Mr. Prime Minister, is it possible that
some time in the near future you may be able to augment activity in Vietnam
on the civilian side? For instance, those similar to the medical teams
you have there now, as well as perhaps things like military.
MR. HOLT: Well, I shall certainly hope that we will be able to play an
increasing role in these and other directions. As the Vice President has
pointed out to you, Australia has recently made a contribution to the
Asian Development Bank quite disproportionate to the size of our population
or our resources. There is to be a United States contribution of
S. 200, 000, 000. There is a Japanese contribution of $ UJ. S. 200, 000, 000
and an Australian commitment of $ A85, 000, 000. There are a variety of
directions in which economic and technical assistance is being given by
Australia. Not merely in South Vietnam but throughout this whole area. You
may have read that only in the last week, or was it earlier this week, we
have announced an Australian grant of w'-eat to a value of S. 9, 000, 000
to India in order to assist that country. In a variety of ways, we are trying
to give effect to the sort of spirit which resulted in Australia pioneering
international aid activities in this part of the world through the Colombo Plan.
And we have welcomed the imaginative approach, the constructive approach
of the President. And we have watched with appreciation the drive being given
to this effort by the Vice President. This approach which sees a military
victory as being only a part of the purpose which lies ahead for us; and
before the military victory has been achieved we would hope to be well on
our way with work that can be done in this constructive economic and social
improvement through South East Asia. But don't overlook the fact that we are
still only a country of something under 12, 000, 000 people inhabiting a vast
continent with all the problems that distance and scarcity of population make
for us. But you will find us not an unwilling ally a country which has
contributed something under just under half a million casualties in two
World Wars when we had less than eight million people in Australia is not
a country that is laggardly in its recognition of international responsibility.
MR. HUMPHREY: I might add to what the Prime Minister said, that in
every country that we have visited we have found the heads of government to
be enthusiastic and in full support of the Asian Development Bank. I believe
with the exception of one country where the resources were entirely too
limited I believe it was Laos. There has been a generous contribution
on the part of those countries to the Asian Development Bank which offers,
I think, a great hope for economic and social development in the Asian areas.
SAM LIPSKI The Bulletin: Mr. Vice President what are the needs of
Vietnam Would you care to give us your assessment of the kind of time
scale that's involved in military activities? By this I mean, how long do
you think the present phase of military activities is likely to go on? And are
you able to say whether in one year or in two years there is likely to be
some major change in the present strategy of the United States purely
in the military field disregarding for a moment whatever other social or
economic activities the United States might undertake.
MR. HUMPHREY: Sir, I don't think it is possible, nor would it be even
reasonable to try to project what the time scale will be on military
activities. I can only say this: that whatever is required and that whatever
amount of time is needed that the people and the government of the
United States are prepared for that. We realise that this is a difficult
assignment but we do see encouraging developments. The forces of the
allies, the government of Vietnam, the United States, Australia, New
Zealand and Korea, those forces are on the offensive. They are winning
every engagement in which they are coming in contact with the enemy. the
forces of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese are suffering defeats and
heavy casualties. I believe that this spells for us the hope of a military
success. But I want to make it quite clear that military success alone
does not mean the accomplishment of our objectives, because the objectives
must be a stable government and a viable economy for Vietnam and that,
Sir, to me is the most difficult assignment. Actually I really believe that
the military capability for what people call military victory is there, and
it can be assured'. But the economic and social progress that is required
will test us very severely and will take considerable time, energy and
resources, but to this we are willin& to give ourselves and we find othe rs
willing to do the same.
LEN BICKEL A. B. C. ( Australia): Following the general tenor of your
statement, can you give us any idea of the shape or the pattern or the type
of form of government that you would find acceptable both in the United
States and to South Vietnam that might ensue following a settlement with the
communists? And secondly, what would be the role of the Viet Cong
in the long term administration of that government?
MR. HUMPHREY: Well, Sir, our purpose in Vietnam is to thwart the
aggression, to stop the aggression, so that the people of Vietnam can make
their own choice as to what kind of a government they want and what their
future will mean. I do not think it would be proper for a free nation such as
the United States, and I am sure my Australian friends agree, for us to
outline the character of government that the people of Vietnam should have.
What we are trying to demonstrate by our efforts in Vietnam is the right
of free choice and that includes ' die freedom to establish a government of
their own choosing, the freedom if they wish, to have a united Vietnam
whatever they wish to do. But we are not going to tolerate conditions, if
we can prevent it, of having force and aggression design the future of a people
or a nation. And your second question, Sir, I forgot, Sir.
MR. BICKLE: What would be the role of the Viet Cong in a settlement?
MR. HUMPHREY: Well, the Viet Cong is not a government and I want to
make it quite clear and that in any negotiations that may take place our
Government's position has been that North Vietnam, which does mastermind
the military operations of the Viet Cong, is the sovereign, is the regime
that is recognised for purposes of negotiations. And whomever they wish to
bring with them as friends and associates to the conference table is their
business. But the Viet Cong is not a government institution; it is not
recognised as a government entity, and it will not be recognised as a
government entity.
STUART HARRIS London Times: I am not quite clear who I ought to
address the question to, if you forgive me, because I really want to get an
answer. The questiorn would like to ask either of you is this; is whether
the American Governent has taken the Australian Government fully into
its confidence-on the contingency planning in Vietnam both of a political
and a military character on the basis of the Australian government was not
represented in Honolulu, and I would like to feel that from the American
point of view that the American has taken the Australian government fully
into its confidence on the possibilities and the possible responses by America
to those contingencies, and I'd like to feel that the Australian government from
its point of view feels completely happy with the American government, and
be quite sure that its comrnital is certain, provided the contingencies
have been foreseen.
MR. HOLT: Mr. Harris, I don't know that I follow the latter part of the
question entirely but I can say this: that the Australian government
believes that the co-operation, the supply of the information and discussion
from the United States Government to the Australian Government could not
be closer. I don't know of any direction in which we could have closer
consultation or discussion the awe received at aUl levels from the United
States and those who serve it.
MR. HUMPHREY: And may I add that the prime purpose of my visit with
the Prime Minister and the Ministers of this government is to answer any
questions that the Ministers may have and to fill in any or all details
relating to the Honolulu conference, and to advise and consult with the
members of this government relating to plans and programmes that our
government has in mind. We do feel that the continuing consultation is
essential and in fact we have discussed today even the improvements and
methods of such consultations and discussion.
MAXAMILLIAN WALSH Australian Financial Review: You're a friend
of India Sir, and I know Indians enjoy a greater measure of diplomatic
contact with Hanoi than does the United States. I was wondering, Sir, whether
the Indians were able to indicate to you whether Hanoi's attitude to
negotiations is any less intransigent than it has been in the past? Or the
other way?
MR. HUMPHREY: The Indian Government has been very helpful in this
matter. The President of India, who is a highly respected statesman, as you
know, offered his good offices and the good offices of his governent to
bring about negotiations and discuissions leading towards peace. I'd been
assured by representatives of the Indian Government that they would intensify
these efforts. I have spoken to the representatives of the Indian Government
about the desirability of having the co-chairmen of the Geneva Conference
reconvene a Geneva Conference. Regrettably the information from Hanoi is
not at all encouraging and I think it should be clearly understood that the
Indian Government, because of the aggression of China upon its frontiers and
borders, is not, does not, have the kind of contacts that it would like to have
in Hanoi, and surely not in China; but the Indian Government is being helpful
we are in close contact and consultation with the Indian Government.
President Johnson has been in personal consultation by letter and communicating
with the Indian Prime M~ inister. On two occasions I have spent a considerable
period of time with the President of India and we have nothing but feeling of
gratitude towards that government for what it is attempting to do.
STAN STEPHENS Adelaide Advertiser: Mr. Vice President, is it
the intention of President Johnson despite the mor~ k-than somewhat
discouraging signs emerging from Hanoi today to continue his peace efforts?
MR. HUMPHREY: Yes, Sir. Bi-laterally, through normal diplomatic
channels through the United Nations, through the extension of good off ices
on the part of friendly nations and non-aligned nations, and any at all. And
we have been getting, we have had efforts, from sources that are as varied
as the Commonwealth Nations, Nasser, the President of the United Ar ab
Republic, the President of India, the 17 non-aligned countries. We will
pursue any avenue, any honourable avenue, towards a conference table
discussion lending itself towards negotiations and we will continue to do so.
RICHARD CROLL Channel 7, Sydney: Since you have been here to
answer questions of the Australian Government on the subject of the
Honolulu Conference and since Australia is fighting in Vietnam:
-6-
a two-part question. No. 1 Do you think in any future conferences
Australia should take part? And, do you think that it would be fair to
say to make a gesture of increasing its troops in Vietnam that the
Americans would welcome it?
MR. HUMPHREY: I am sure of that, Sir. Let me just say a word
to you about the Honolulu Conference to put it in proper perspective.
President Johnson had intended to go to Honolulu in October to meet
there with our representative General Westmoreland and the head of
CINCPAC, Admiral Sharp and other officers of our government, including
our Ambassador, Ambassador Lodge. Because of his operation surgery,
he could not go. He spoke to me about it then. A little later on in the
month of Januaiy, I don't think this has been spread on the record particularly;
he spoke to me about my possibility of going, and then when it was
discovered that Secretary McNamara was meeting with General Westmoreland
and since President Johnson had not as yet had a cbance to meet with
General Westmoreland since he had been assigned in Vietnam, and
Ambassador Lodge had not returned to Washington since he had been
assigned to Saigon, the President felt this gave him an opportunity on a
weekend to go within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, Hawaii
being the 50th State, to meet with our officials and at the same time to
meet with the government leaders of Vietnam whom he had not met. Our
President believes a great deal in personal diplomacy. He likes to know the
men that he talks to. As he has indicated in the past, you can get the
measure of the man when you have a chance to be with him and talk with him.
This was a meeting that had as its purpose the co-ordination of activities
between the government of Vietnam and the United States. Every government
that's friendly to the United States that is involved in this matter was
notified and was informed by letters from the President. I am sure that
without indulging without violating any rule of secrecy that the Prime
Minister the former Prime Minister of Australia, and the present Prime
Minister of Australia had been in personal communication with the
President of the United States.
RICHARD CROLL: -That would be an internal matter in the United States.
MR. HUMPHREY: -Yes. I do think, Sir, that the suggestion that you have
made, which is one, by the way, which has been discussed by some of us
on this journey, is very meritorious. Mainly, that in due time the allies
involved in the struggle in Vietnam will want to consult in a much broader
framework than the Honolulu Conference.
ALLAN REID Sydney Sunday Telegraph: Have you had any concrete
assurance in detail from the present South Vietnamese Government they will
produce the social re form that is so obviously necessary for the success
for the outcome, of your military effort.
MR. HUMPHREY: Yes, Sir, indeed we have. Now the assurances have been
given by the Chairmen of the Government, the Council of Ken, that is known
as National Unity Council General Chu, and by the Prime Minister Prime
Minister Ky, and his Ministers. Frankly we have been impressed,
favourably impressed, by these gentlemen This is a relatively new
government but it has been empowered for better than seven months and
has exhibited considerable stability. The Prime Minister, Prime Minister Ky,
made a very favourable impression upon the President and indeed upon myself
with the sincerity of his purpose in advocating and instituting the necessary
economic political and social reforms. The question of the ability to carry
out is one that only time can tell. We are working with them. It is our view
that our Australian friends, our New Zealand friends, and the Koreans and
others that will be working with us will have to be of help to the Vietnamese
government in terms of technicians and specialists to help carry out these
reforms. But we have already seen the reforms in action. I have visited, Sir,
on the spot, at least two areas in the Saigon district where I witnessed some
-7-
of the reforms underway. I believe candour and frankness is the only
way to deal with these men. It is an uphill fight. It will be difficult. But
these men seem determined to make the effort and Prime Minister Ky
told me, he said that had we been at this 12 years ago much of the trouble
we have today would not be here and he said, " I am determined to have
honesty in my government; I am determined to have a social revolution.
I do not intend to let the Viet Cong say that they are the revolutionaries.
I am the revolutionary, said Prime Minister Ky to me. He said, " I will
carry out these reforms. Akid I've noticed since we've left that he has
acted, and, for example, on the black market a new code new law and an
Inspector General to pursue the black market violators, the violators and
the black marketeers. The appointment of a new Director of Docks and
Harbours things that were needed manpower that was needed. The
establishment of a training school for the training of cadres the training
of cadre personnel to go into these villages and hamlets. We believe that
there is a sincerity of purpose. We also know that there is a limitation
of trained manpower, and that' 9 why I said to you earlier that the
struggle for the reconstruction of the country which has been literally
decimated by the Viet Cong, that that's the long-term battle. Actually
I am much more optimistic on the military front. I find that the real
challenge ahead is going to be in what we call the programmes of
pacification and world construction.
ALAN REID: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.