FOUR DECORATIONS

(By William Rice)

The Distinguished Service Cross, the Nation's second highest decoration, and three other medals, have been awarded posthumously to Captain Christopher J. O'Sullivan of Astoria, Queens, killed in Vietnam on Memorial Day.

They will be presented tomorrow to his widow and two sons, Michael, 4, and Stephen, 3, at a parade at 1st Army Headquarters, Governors Island.

In addition to the Distinguished Service Cross, for extraordinary heroism, the Silver Star, for gallantry in action, the Purple Heart, and the Army Commendation Medal will be given to Mrs. O'Sullivan.

SEARCH JUNGLE FOR YANK O'Sullivan, 29, had led a 265-man Vietnamese ranger force into the jungle in a search for Lt. Donald Robinson of Tacoma,

Wash., missing for 2 days. Robinson "has a young wife and a 3-year-old daughter" and O'Sullivan felt "responsible for him," he wrote his wife.

The Vietcong surrounded the search party and O'Sullivan, an Army sergeant and 100 of the rangers died before help arrived.

Robinson later walked out of the jungle, one of three survivors of another ambush.

What the captain died for was evident in a letter he wrote to his two sons just before he was killed:

"I cannot protect you from all the hurts of the world, but I can try to protect you from one of its major dangers.

"And that, my sons, is why, though we are thousands of miles apart, you are still before my eyes and I must try to protect you from this war."

O'Sullivan's parents, Mr. and Mrs. William J. O'Sullivan, and Mrs. O'Sullivan's parents, Mr. and Mrs. James Scott, will also attend tomorrow's ceremony.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Daily News, Aug. 10, 1965]

LASTS 90 MINUTES

"Stop killing, end the dirty war," "Refuse to serve in Vietnam," and "War on Poverty, to serve in Vietnam," and "War on Poverty, not people," read some of the signs.

The rally lasted 90 minutes under a broiling sun and tempers were frayed when the front rows suddenly charged the police line. The demonstrators were dumped to the sidewalk and arrest teams quickly began tossing them into the waiting paddy wagons.

There were about 300 demonstrators left when the arrests began, and almost all appeared willing to be arrested, despite biting and kicking.

One bearded youth stuck a booted leg out a paddy wagon window and tried to decapitate a nearby officer. A tattoo of night sticks finally forced prisoners to their seats.

As the bus pulled away to the chant of "We Shall Overcome," those still outside and not yet arrested cheered and waved.

[From the New York (N.Y.) Daily News, Aug. 19, 1965]

HERO'S DEATH IS MOCKED AS HE'S LAID TO REST

(By Gerald Kessler and John Cirri)

"I hope that the outcome in Vietnam will be a just one. I don't want the lives of my boy and others to have been sacrificed in vain."-Mrs. Josephine Devers, yesterday.

The Deverses and O'Sullivans of Queens are friends. That friendship was heightened yesterday by a common sorrow-both had lost men in Vietnam, both had received cruel phone calls mocking the deaths.

The O'Sullivan ordeal came after Army Capt. Christopher O'Sullivan, 29, was slain Memorial Day when an overwhelming force of Vietcong overran his patrol in a Vietnamese jungle.

On June 9, O'Sullivan was buried after a service in Long Island City attended by a 30-man police detail because of telephoned insults to his widow.

KILLED IN DEFENSE OF AIR BASE

PROTEST

WASHINGTON, August 9.-Scores of biting, kicking, screaming pacifists, protesting U.S. policy in Vietnam, were arrested and tossed into paddy wagons on the Capitol Grounds today.

Many of the 800 demonstrators calling themselves the "assembly of unrepresented people," looked more like beatnik Indians after two members of George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party tossed beer cans filled with red paint into their midst.

Newspaperman Andrew Glass was among those splattered with paint. He was later arrested with the demonstrators in the melee following an abortive charge through police lines, but was released this evening.

Yesterday 50 demonstrators were arrested while picketing the White House when they failed to keep moving past the entrance. Today they held a mass rally on the Mall before the Washington Monument, then marched on the Capitol, chanting: "L.B.J., L.B.J., how many children did you kill today?"

WARNED BY POLICE

An army of uniformed and plainclothes police bolstered by FBI agents, U.S. marshals

21, of Jackson Heights, killed August 10 while on defense duty at Da Nang Air Base.

There was no uniformed police detail at the Devers rites in St. Joan of Arc Church, '83d Street and 35th Avenue, Jackson Heights. His death had not been widely publicized, as Captain O'Sullivan's had been, and his flag-draped casket had arrived here only Tuesday.

Even so, Dever's older brother, Peter, a Manhattan attorney and longtime friend of Captain O'Sullivan, got an anonymous call just before leaving for the funeral.

"I'm a card-carrying Communist," the caller phoned. "I've got a gun and I'm going to take care of all of you."

HANGS UP ON STREAM OF ABUSES Devers, shocked, responded: "I'd like to meet you on the street and show you what

Americanism is about."

When the caller burst into vicious abuse of his dead brother and the family, Devers hung up.

"I'd love to get my hands on him," the attorney later said. "But he did sound like a weakling or someone mentally sick."

Mrs. Eleanor O'Sullivan, widow of Captain O'Sullivan and mother of two young sons, O'Sullivan and mother of two young sons,

visited the funeral home Tuesday night and offered her condolences to Mrs. Josephine Devers, mother of Corporal Devers.

Other sympathetic callers included Police Chief Inspector William McQuade and other brass. They had been friends of the corporal's father. A highly respected policeman, Detective Capt. Peter J. Devers was killed in a traffic accident while on duty on August 31, 1956.

MARINE HONOR GUARD AT SERVICE

An honor guard of nine marines from Fort Schuyler escorted the coffin to the church. About 200 mourners, including former schoolmates of Devers at St. Sebastian's parochial school, Jackson Heights, and Xavier High School, Manhattan, were present. Burial was at Pinelawn National Cemetery, Farmingdale, Long Island.

Paul Devers was a member of the 3d Marine Division and had served about 3 years. "He enlisted to do his duty," his mother said. "And he did perform his duty. I hope all this will not be in vain."

H.R. 10818

A bill to protect the morale and efficiency of members of the Armed Forces by prohibiting the making of certain threatening and abusive communications to members of such forces or their families, and for other purposes

Whereas there have in recent months been repeated reports of telephone calls or other communications to wives and widows of members of the American Armed Forces serving in Vietnam, harassing and threatening them, and even threatening their children, specifically on account of their husbands' service in Vietnam; and

Whereas it is the natural expectation of all members of the American Armed Forces that the society they are serving will do its utmost to protect their families in their absence; and

Whereas the widespread publicity received by the threats and harassments directed against wives and widows of American servicemen in Vietnam has resulted in widespread indignation among our Armed Forces and an understandable anxiety over the safety and welfare of their families; and

Whereas this anxiety can only have an adverse effect on the morale of our servicemen in Vietnam and impair their ability to render efficient military service; and

Whereas the national security is threatened by such indirect assaults on the effectiveness of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

Whereas it is the power and duty of Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, to raise and support armies, and to make all laws necessary and proper for these purposes: Therefore

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 115 of title 18, United States Code (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"§ 2392. Subversive communications to members of the Armed Forces or their families

"(a) Whoever, at any time at which the United States is at war or any of the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in military operations abroad, knowingly makes, or knowingly conspires with any other person to cause to be made, an anonymous or pseudonymous communication by any

means

"(1) to any member of such forces whereby such member, or any member of his family, is threatened with physical harm or is subjected to abuse because of military service

rendered or to be rendered by such member of the Armed Forces; or

"(2) to any member of the family of any

member of such forces, or of any individual who died while rendering military service in such forces, whereby such member of the Armed Forces, or any member of his family, is threatened with physical harm or is subjected to abuse because of military service rendered or to be rendered by such member of the Armed Forces

shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both.

"(b) As used in this section

"(1) The term 'Armed Forces' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; and

"(2) The term 'family,' when used in relation to any member or deceased member of the Armed Forces, means the wife, widow, child, brother, sister, or parent of such member."

(c) The section analysis of chapter 115, title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

"2392. Subversive communications to members of the Armed Forces or their families."

The appropriation of money to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to assist Cuban refugees, while necessary, does not meet the real prob

lem.

Cuban refugees are forced to depend upon refugee relief programs because they are unable to secure permanent residence without which jobs, housing, educational, and other opportunities are closed. Adjustment of their immigration situation would permit many to obtain work and decent housing and to live independent lives. The refugees from Communist domination in Cuba are no more anxious to be on our welfare rolls than we are to have them there.

Adjustment of status for some refugees is possible through our consulates in Canada, but applicants must wait on long waiting lists, finally traveling to Canada to receive visas. This remedy is not available to thousands who under circumstances other than parole entered or became refugees after entry into the United States.

The immigration bill which the House passed on August 25 will not provide for the adjustment of status of Cuban refugees.

There are over 250,000 Cuban refugees in this country. It is estimated that 60,000 to 70,000 of them are living in New York City. In the interests of humanity we cannot ignore this problem any longer. It is one which money alone will not

solve.

I have prepared this bill so that the adjustment of status will be voluntary;

no one will be penalized if he does not wish to change his situation. But this bill says to each refugee, "You have come here as a refugee; whether you consider this stay temporary or permanent is a decision for you to make; as a country, the United States is prepared to help you in every way possible, whatever your decision."

This bill is addressed to an economic and social problem, not a political problem.

The bill contains special provisions for children in order that families may be kept together in case a child in a family applying for permanent residence might be found excludable under certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will receive prompt action by the Congress. The Cuban refugees deserve the opportunity to participate as permanent residents in the free society to which they with hope have fled.

WHY VIETNAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. COHELAN] is recognized for 5 minutes.

responsibilities of each speaker. The congressional testimony has been edited to avoid undue repetition and to incorporate the sense of the discussions that ensued.

Together, they construct a clear definition of America's role in the Vietnam conflict: the

dangers and hopes that Vietnam holds for all free men, the fullness and limits of our national objectives in a war we did not seek, the constant effort on our part to bring this war we do not desire to a quick and honorable end. LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

AUGUST 20, 1965.

THE ROOTS OF COMMITMENT In the historic documents that follow, two

American Presidents define and affirm the commitment of the United States to the people of South Vietnam.

In letters to Prime Minister Churchill in 1954 and to President Diem in 1954 and 1960.

President Eisenhower describes the issues at stake and pledges United States assistance to South Vietnam's resistance to subversion and aggression.

And in December 1961 President Kennedy reaffirms that pledge.

EXTRACTS FROM LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO PRIME MINISTER CHURCHILL, APRIL 4, 1954

(From Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Mandate for Change, 1953-56," New York, 1963) DEAR WINSTON: I am sure

* you are

following with the deepest interest and anxiety the daily reports of the gallant fight being put up by the French at Dien Bien Phu. Today, the situation there does not

seem hopeless.

This document includes letters from President Eisenhower and President Kennedy which document the nature of our commitment. More important, it contains concise statements by President Johnson, Secretary of State Rusk, and Secretary of Defense McNamara which speak directly to the steps that have been taken to resist aggression, to our continuing efforts to achieve negotiations and a peaceful settlement, and to the "third face of the war"-the pressing requirement to deal with the deep and underlying problems confronting the people of Vietnam.

and also a transcript of a CBS special Mr. Speaker, I include this document news program broadcast last week called "Vietnam Perspective: Winning the Peace." I include them for they speak

pointedly to so many of the questions that are asked by thoughtful and con

cerned Americans.

WHY VIETNAM?

FOREWORD

MY FELLOW AMERICANS: Once again in man's age-old struggle for a better life and a world of peace, the wisdom, courage, and compassion of the American people are being put to the test. This is the meaning of the tragic conflict in Vietnam.

In meeting the present challenge, it is essential that our people seek understanding and that our leaders speak with candor.

I have therefore directed that this report to the American people be compiled and widely distributed. In its pages you will find statements on Vietnam by three leaders of your Government-by your President, your Secretary of State, and your Secretary of De

fense.

These statements were prepared for different audiences, and they reflect the differing

But regardless of the outcome of this par

not alone see the thing through, this despite the very substantial assistance in money and materiel that we are giving them. It is no solution simply to urge the French to intensify their efforts. And if they do not see it through and Indochina passes into the hands of the Communists the ultimate effect on our and your global strategic position with the consequent shift in the power ratios throughout Asia and the Pacific could be disastrous and, I know, unacceptable to you and me. * This has led us to the hard conclusion that the situation in southeast Asia requires us urgently to take serious and farreaching decisions.

* *

There

Geneva is less than 4 weeks away. the possibility of the Communists driving a wedge between us will, given the state of mind in France, be infinitely greater than at Berlin. I can understand the very natural desire of the French to seek an end to this war which has been bleeding them for 8 years. But our painstaking search for a way out of the impasse has reluctantly forced us to the conclusion that there is no negotiated solution of the Indochina problem which in its essence would not be either a face-saving device to cover a French surrender or a facesaving device to cover a Communist retirement. The first alternative is too serious in its broad strategic implications for us and for you to be acceptable. * *

Somehow we must contrive to bring about the second alternative. The preliminary lines of our thinking were sketched out by Foster [Dulles] in his speech last Monday night when he said that under the conditions to today the imposition on southeast Asia of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communists ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the whole free community, and that in our view this possibility should now be met by united action and not passively accepted.

I believe that the best way to put teeth in this concept and to bring greater moral and material resources to the support of the French effort is through the establishment of a new, ad hoc grouping or coalition com

posed of nations which have a vital concern in the checking of Communist expansion in the area. I have in mind, in addition to our two countries, France, the Associated States, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines. The U.S. Government would expect to play its full part in such a coalition. ***

The important thing is that the coalition must be strong and it must be willing to join the fight if necessary. I do not envisage the need of any appreciable ground forces on your or our part. * * *

If I may refer again to history; we failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time. That marked the beginning of many years of stark tragedy and desperate peril. May it not be that our nations have learned something from that lesson? * * *

With warm regard,

IKE.

LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO PRESIDENT DIEM, OCTOBER 1, 1954 DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Vietnam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Vietnam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within.

Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.

We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Vietnam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Vietnam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Vietnam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government, how an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your government can serve to assist Vietnam in its present hour of trial, provided that your government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.

The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Vietnam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Vietnam endowed with a strong government. Such a government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people. Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. LETTER FROM PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO PRESIDENT DIEM, OCTOBER 26, 1960 DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: My countrymen and I are proud to convey our good wishes to you and to the citizens of Vietnam on the fifth anniversary of the birth of the Republic of Vietnam.

We have watched the courage and daring with which you and the Vietnamese people attained independence in a situation so perilous that many thought it hopeless. We have admired the rapidity with which chaos

During the years of your independence it has been refreshing for us to observe how clearly the Government and the citizens of Vietnam have faced the fact that the greatest danger to their independence was communism. You and your countrymen have used your strength well in accepting the double challenge of building your country and resisting Communist imperialism. In 5 short years since the founding of the Republic, the Vietnamese people have developed their country in almost every sector. I was particularly impressed by one example. I am informed that last year over 1,200,000 Vietnamese children were able to go to elementary school; three times as many as were enrolled 5 years earlier. This is certainly a heartening development for Vietnam's future. At the same time Vietnam's ability to defend itself from the Communists has grown immeasurably since its successful struggle to become an independent republic. Vietnam's very success as well as its potential wealth and its strategic location have led the Communists of Hanoi, goaded by the bitterness of their failure to enslave all Vietnam, to use increasing violence in their attempts to destroy your country's freedom.

This grave threat, added to the strains and fatigues of the long struggle to achieve and strengthen independence, must be a burden that would cause moments of tension and concern in almost any human heart. Yet from long observation I sense how deeply the Vietnamese value their country's independence and strength and I know how well you used your boldness when you led your countrymen in winning it. I also know that your determination has been a vital factor in guarding that independence while steadily advancing the economic development of your country. I am confident that these same qualities of determination and boldness will meet the renewed threat as well as the needs and desires of your countrymen for further progress on all fronts.

Although the main responsibility for guarding that independence will always, as it has in the past, belong to the Vietnamese people and their government, I want to assure you that for so long as our strength can be useful, the United States will continue to assist Vietnam in the difficult yet hopeful struggle ahead.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

LETTER FROM PRESIDENT KENNEDY TO PRESIDENT DIEM, DECEMBER 14, 1961

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have received your recent letter in which you described so cogently the dangerous condition caused by North Vietnam's efforts to take over your country. The situation in your embattled country is well known to me and to the American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your country. Our indignation has mounted as the deliberate savagery of the Communist program of assassination, kidnaping, and wanton violence became clear.

Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown-that the campaign of force and terror now being waged against your people and your Government is supported and directed from the outside by the authorities at Hanoi. They have thus violated the provisions of the Geneva accords designed to insure peace in Vietnam and to which they bound themselves in 1954.

At that time, the United States, although not a party to the accords, declared that it "would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security." We continue to maintain that view.

In accordance with that declaration, and in response to your request, we are prepared

its people and to preserve its independence. We shall promptly increase our assistance to your defense effort as well as help relieve the destruction of the floods which you describe. I have already given the orders to get these programs underway.

The United States, like the Republic of Vietnam, remains devoted to the cause of peace and our primary purpose is to help your people maintain their independence. If the Communist authorities in North Vietnam will stop their campaign to destroy the Republic of Vietnam, the measures we are taking to assist your defense efforts will no longer be necessary. We shall seek to persuade the Communists to give up their attempts of force and subversion. In any case, we are confident that the Vietnamese people will preserve their independence and gain the peace and prosperity for which they have sought so hard and so long.

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

TOWARD PEACE WITH HONOR (Press conference statement by the President, the White House, July 28, 1965) Not long ago I received a letter from a woman in the Midwest. She wrote:

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In my humble way I am writing to you about the crisis in Vietnam. I have a son who is now in Vietnam. My husband served in World War II. Our country was at war, but now, this time, it is just something I don't understand. Why?" I have tried to answer that question a dozen times and more in practically every State in this Union. I discussed it fully in Baltimore in April, in Washington in May, in San Francisco in June. Let me again, now, discuss it here in the East Room of the White House.

Why must young Americans, born into a land exultant with hope and golden with promise, toil and suffer and sometimes die in such a remote and distant place?

The answer, like the war itself, is not an easy one. But it echoes clearly from the painful lessons of half a century. Three times in my lifetime, in two world wars and in Korea, Americans have gone to far lands to fight for freedom. We have learned at a terrible and brutal cost that retreat does not bring safety, and weakness does not bring peace.

The nature of the war

It is this lesson that has brought us to Vietnam. This is a different kind of war. There are no marching armies or solemn declarations. Some citizens of South Vietnam, at times with understandable grievances, have joined in the attack on their own government. But we must not let this mask the central fact that this is really war. It is guided by North Vietnam and spurred by Communist China. Its goal is to conquer the South, to defeat American power, and to extend the Asiatic dominion of communism.

The stakes in Vietnam

And there are great stakes in the balance. Most of the non-Communist nations of Asia cannot, by themselves and alone, resist the growing might and grasping ambition of Asian communism. Our power, therefore, is a vital shield. If we are driven from the field in Vietnam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise, or in American protection. In each land the forces of independence would be considerably weakened. And an Asia so threatened by Communist domination would imperil the security of the United States itself.

We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else.

Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring peace. We learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed in

one country and then another, bringing with it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict.

Moreover, we are in Vietnam to fulfill one of the most solemn pledges of the American Nation. Three Presidents-President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and your present President-over 11 years, have committed themselves and have promised to help defend

the small and valiant nation.

Strengthened by that promise, the people of South Vietnam have fought for many long years. Thousands of them have died. Thousands more have been crippled and scarred by war. We cannot now dishonor our word or abandon our commitment or leave those who believed us and who trusted us to the terror and repression and murder that would follow.

This, then, my fellow Americans, is why we are in Vietnam.

Increased effort to halt aggression What are our goals in that war-stained land?

First: We intend to convince the Communists that we cannot be defeated by force of arms or by superior power. They are not easily convinced. In recent months they have greatly increased their fighting forces, their attacks, and the number of incidents. I have asked the commanding general, General Westmoreland, what more he needs to meet this mounting aggression. He has told me. We will meet his needs.

I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces which will raise our fighting strength from 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately. Additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested. This will make it necessary to increase our active fighting forces by raising the monthly draft call from 17,000 over a period of time, to 35,000 per month, and stepping up our campaign for voluntary enlistments.

After this past week of deliberations, I have concluded that it is not essential to order Reserve units into service now. If that necessity should later be indicated, I will give the matter most careful consideration. And I will give the country adequate notice before taking such action, but only after full preparations.

We have also discussed with the Government of South Vietnam lately the steps that they will take to substantially increase their own effort-both on the battlefield and toward reform and progress in the villages. Ambassador Lodge is now formulating a new program to be tested upon his return to that

area.

I have directed Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara to be available immediately to the Congress to review with the appropriate congressional committees our plan in these areas. I have asked them to be available to answer the questions of any Member of Congress.

Secretary McNamara, in addition, will ask the Senate Appropriations Committee to add a limited amount to present legislation to help meet part of his new cost until a supplemental measure is ready and hearings can be held when the Congress assembles in January.

In the meantime, we will use the authority contained in the present Defense appropriations bill now to transfer funds, in addition to the additional money that we will request. These steps, like our actions in the past, are carefully measured to do what must be done to bring an end to aggression and a peaceful settlement. We do not want an expanding struggle with consequences that no one can foresee. Nor will we bluster or bully or flaunt our power.

But we will not surrender. And we will not retreat.

For behind our American pledge lies the determination and resources of all of the American Nation.

Toward a peaceful solution

Second, once the Communists know, as we know, that a violent solution is impossible, then a peaceful solution is inevitable. We are ready now, as we have always been, to move from the battlefield to the conference table. I have stated publicly, and many times, America's willingness to begin unconditional discussions with any government at any place at any time. Fifteen efforts have been made to start these discussions, with the help of 40 nations throughout the world. But there has been no answer.

But we are going to continue to persist, if persist we must, until death and desolation have led to the same conference table where others could now join us at a much smaller cost.

I have spoken many times of our objectives in Vietnam. So has the Government of South Vietnam. Hanoi has set forth its own proposal. We are ready to discuss their proposals and our proposals and any proposals of any government whose people may be affected. For we fear the meeting room no more than we fear the battlefield.

The United Nations

In this pursuit we welcome, and we ask for, the concern and the assistance of any nation and all nations. If the United Nations and its officials or any one of its 114 members-can, by deed or word, private initiative or public action, bring us nearer an honorable peace, then they will have the support and the gratitude of the United States of America.

I have directed Ambassador Goldberg to go to New York today and to present immediately to Secretary General U Thant a letter from me requesting that all of the resources, energy, and immense prestige of the United Nations be employed to find ways to halt aggression and to bring peace in Vietnam. I made a similar request at San Francisco a few weeks ago.

Free choice for Vietnam

We do not seek the destruction of any government, nor do we covet a foot of any territory. But we insist, and we will always insist, that the people of South Vietnam shall have the right of choice, the right to shape their own destiny in free elections in the south, or throughout all Vietnam under international supervision. And they shal not have any government imposed upon them by force and terror so long as we can prevent it.

This was the purpose of the 1954 agreements which the Communists have now cruelly shattered. If the machinery of those agreements was tragically weak, its purposes still guide our action.

As battle rages, we will continue as best we can to help the good people of South Vietnam enrich the condition of their life— to feed the hungry, to tend the sick, teach the young, shelter the homeless, and help the farmer to increase his crops, and the worker to find a job.

Progress in human welfare

It is an ancient, but still terrible, irony that while many leaders of men create division in pursuit of grand ambitions, the children of man are united in the simple elusive desire for a life of fruitful and rewarding toil.

As I said at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, I hope that one day we can help all the people of Asia toward that desire. Eugene Black has made great progress since my appearance in Baltimore in that direction, not as the price of peace-for we are ready always to bear a more painful cost-but rather as a part of our obligations of justice toward our fellow man.

The difficulty of decision

Let me also add a personal note. I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth,

our finest young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units. But I know them all, every one. I have seen them in a thousand streets, in a hundred towns, in every State in this Union-working and laughing, building, and filled with hope and life. I think that I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow. This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President.

A nation which builds

There is something else, too. When I was

young, poverty was so common that we didn't

know it had a name. Education was something you had to fight for. And water was life itself. I have now been in public life 35 years, more than three decades, and in each of those 35 years I have seen good men, and wise leaders, struggle to bring the blessings of this land to all of our people. Now I am the President. It is now my opportunity to help every child get an education, to help every Negro and every American citizen have an equal opportunity, to help every family get a decent home and to help bring healing to the sick and dignity to the old.

As I have said before, that is what I have lived for. That is what I have wanted all my life. And I do not want to see all those hopes and all those dreams of so many people for so many years now drowned in the wasteful ravages of war. I am going to do all I can to see that that never happens.

But I also know, as a realistic public servant, that as long as there are men who hate and destroy we must have the courage to resist, or we will see it all, all that we have built, all that we hope to build, all of our dreams for freedom-all swept away on the flood of conquest.

So this too shall not happen; we will stand in Vietnam.

THE TASKS OF DIPLOMACY

(Statement by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, August 3, 1965)

As the President has said, "there are great stakes in the balance" in Vietnam today.

Let us be clear about those stakes. With its archipelagos, southeast Asia contains rich natural resources and some 200 million people. Geographically, it has great strategic importance-it dominates the gateway between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and flanks the Indian subcontinent on one side, and Australia and New Zealand on the other.

The loss of southeast Asia to the Communists would constitute a serious shift in the balance of power against the interests of the free world. And the loss of South Vietnam would make the defense of the rest of southeast Asia much more costly and difficult. That is why the SEATO Council has said that the defeat of the aggression against South Vietnam is "essential" to the security of southeast Asia.

But much more is at stake than preserving the independence of the peoples of southeast Asia and preventing the vast resources of that area from being swallowed by those hos

tile to freedom.

The test

The war in Vietnam is a test of a technique of aggression; what the Communists, in their upside-down language, call wars of national liberation. They use the term to describe any effort by Communists short of largescale war, to destroy by force any non-Communist government. Thus the leaders of the Communist terrorists in such an independent democracy as Venezuela are described as leaders of a fight for "national liberation." And a recent editorial in Pravda said that "the upsurge of the national liberation movement in Latin American countries has been to a great extent a result of the activities of Communist Parties."

Communist leaders know, as the rest of the world knows, that thermonuclear war would be ruinous. They know that large-scale invasions, such as that launched in Korea 15 years ago, would bring great risks and heavy penalties. So, they have resorted to semiconcealed aggression through the infiltration of arms and trained military personnel across national frontiers. And the Asian Communists themselves regard the war in Vietnam as a critical test of that technique. Recently General Giap, leader of North Vietnam's Army, said:

"If the special warfare that the U.S. imperialists are testing in South Vietnam is overcome, then it can be defeated everywhere in the world."

In southeast Asia, the Communists already have publicly designated Thailand as the next target. And if the aggression against South Vietnam were permitted to succeed, the forces of militant communism everywhere would be vastly heartened and we could expect to see a series of so-called wars of liberation in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

International law does not restrict internal

revolution. But it does restrict what third powers may lawfully do in sending arms and What men to bring about insurrection. North Vietnam is doing in South Vietnam flouts not only the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 but general international law.

The assault on the Republic of Vietnam is beyond question, an aggression. It was organized and has been directed by North Vietnam, with the backing of Communist China. The cadres of guerrilla fighters, saboteurs, and assassins who form the backbone of the Vietcong were specially trained in the north. Initially, many of them were men of South Vietnamese birth who had fought with the Viet Minh against the French and gone north in their military units after Vietnam was divided in 1954. But that reservoir was gradually exhausted. During 1964 and since, most of the military men infiltrated from the north have been natives of North Vietnam. And near the end of last year they began to include complete units of the regular North Vietnamese Army. In addition to trained men and political and military direction, the North has supplied arms and ammunition in increasing quantities-in considerable part of Chinese manufacture.

Between 1959 and the end of 1964, 40,000 trained military personnel came down from the north into South Vietnam, by conservative estimate. More have come this year. Had all these crossed the line at once-as the North Koreans did in invading South Korea 15 years ago-no body in the free world could have doubted that the assault on Vietnam was an aggression. That the dividing line between North and South Vietnam was intended to be temporary does not make the attack any less of an aggression. The dividing line in Korea also was intended to be temporary.

If there is ever to be peace in this world, aggression must cease. We as a nation are committed to peace and the rule of law. We recognize also the harsh reality that our security is involved.

We are committed to oppose aggression not only through the United Nations Charter but through many defensive alliances. We have 42 allies, not counting the Republic of Vietnam. And many other nations know that their security depends upon us. Our power and our readiness to use it to assist others to resist aggression, the integrity of our commitment, these are the bulwarks of peace in the world.

If we were to fail in Vietnam, serious consequences would ensue. Our adversaries would be encouraged to take greater risks elsewhere. At the same time, the confidence which our allies and other free nations now have in our commitments would be seriously impaired.

The commitment

Let us be clear about our commitment in Vietnam.

It began with the Southeast Asia Treaty, which was negotiated and signed after the Geneva agreements and the cease-fire in Indochina in 1954 and was approved by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 82 to 1 in February 1955. That treaty protects against Communist aggression not only its members but any of the three non-Communist states growing out of former French Indochina which asks for protection.

Late in 1954 President Eisenhower, with bipartisan support, decided to extend aid to South Vietnam, both economic aid and aid in training its armed forces. His purpose, as he said, was to "assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means."

Vietnam became a republic in 1955, was recognized as an independent nation by 36 nations initially, and is so recognized by more than 50 today.

Beginning in 1955, the Congress has each year approved overall economic and military assistance programs in which the continuation of major aid to South Vietnam has been specifically considered.

During the next 5 years, South Vietnam made remarkable economic and social progress-what some observers described as a "miracle."

Nearly a million refugees from the north were settled. These were the stouthearted people of whom the late Dr. Tom Dooley wrote so eloquently in his first book, "Deliver Us From Evil," and who led him to devote the rest of his all-too-brief life to helping the people of Vietnam and Laos.

A land-reform program was launched. A comprehensive system of agricultural credit was set up. Thousands of new schools and more than 3,500 village health stations were built. Rail transportation was restored and roads were repaired and improved. South Vietnam not only fed itself but resumed rice exports. Production of rubber and sugar rose sharply. New industries were started. Per capita income rose by 20 percent.

By contrast, North Vietnam suffered a drop of 10 percent in food production and disappointments in industrial production.

In 1954, Hanoi almost certainly had expected to take over South Vietnam within a few years. But by 1959 its hopes had withered and the south was far outstripping the heralded "Communist paradise." These almost certainly were the factors which led Hanoi to organize and launch the assault on the south.

I beg leave to quote from a statement I made at a press conference on May 4, 1961:

"Since late in 1959 organized Communist activity in the form of guerrilla raids against army and security units of the Government of Vietnam, terrorist acts against local officials and civilians, and other subversive activities in the Republic of Vietnam have increased to levels unprecedented since the Geneva agreements of 1954. During this period the organized armed strength of the Vietcong, the Communist apparatus operating in the Republic of Vietnam, has grown from about 3,000 to over 12,000 personnel. This armed strength has been supplemented by an increase in the numbers of political and propaganda agents in the area.

"During 1960 alone, Communist armed units and terrorists assassinated or kidnaped over 3,000 local officials, military personnel, and civilians. Their activities took the form of armed attacks against isolated garrisons, attacks on newly established townships, ambushes on roads and canals, destruction of bridges, and well-planned sabotage against public works and communication lines. Because of Communist guerrilla activity 200 elementary schools had to be closed at various

times, affecting over 25,000 students and 800 teachers.

"This upsurge of Communist guerrillà activity apparently stemmed from a decision made in May 1959 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of North Vietnam which called for the reunification of Vietnam

by all appropriate means.' In July of the same year the Central Committee was reorganized and charged with intelligence duties and the liberation of South Vietnam. In

retrospect this decision to step up guerrilla activity was made to reverse the remarkable success which the Government of the Republic of Vietnam under President Ngo Dinh Diem had achieved in consolidating its political position and in attaining significant economic recovery in the 5 years between 1954 and 1959.

"Remarkably coincidental with the renewed Communist activity in Laos, the Communist Party of North Vietnam at its third congress on September 10, 1960, adopted a resolution which declared that the Vietnamese resolution has as a major strategic task the liberation of the south from the 'rule of U.S. imperialists and their henchmen.' This resolution called for the direct overthrow of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.”

Next door to South Vietnam, Laos was threatened by a similar Communist assault. The active agent of attack on both was Communist North Vietnam, with the backing of Peiping and Moscow. In the case of Laos, we were able to negotiate an agreement in 1962 that it should be neutral and that all foreign military personnel should be withdrawn. We complied with that agreement. But North Vietnam never did. In gross violation of its pledge, it left armed units in Laos and continued to use Laos as a corridor to infiltrate arms and trained men into South Vietnam.

There was no new agreement, even on paper, on Vietnam. Late in 1961, President Kennedy therefore increased our assistance to the Republic of Vietnam. During that year, the infiltration of arms and military personnel from the north continued to increase. To cope with that escalation, President Kennedy decided to send more American military personnel-to assist with logistics and transportation and communications as well as with training and as advisers to South Vietnamese forces in the field. Likewise, we expanded our economic assistance and technical advice, particularly with a view to improving living conditions in the villages.

During 1962 and 1963, Hanoi continued to increase its assistance to the Vietcong. In response, President Kennedy and later President Johnson increased our aid.

Hanoi kept on escalating the war throughout 1964. And the Vietcong intensified its drafting and training of men in the areas it controls.

Last August, you will recall, North Vietnamese forces attacked American destroyers in international waters. That attack was met by appropriate air response against North Vietnamese naval installations. And Congress, by a combined vote of 504 to 2, passed a resolution expressing its support for actions by the Executive "including the use of armed force" to meet aggression in southeast Asia, including specifically aggression against South Vietnam. The resolution and the congressional debate specifically envisaged that, subject to continuing congressional consultation, the Armed Forces of the United States might be committed in the defense of South Vietnam in any way that seemed necessary, including employment in combat.

In summary, our commitment in Vietnam has been set forth in the Southeast Asia Treaty, which was almost unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate; the pledges made with bipartisan support by three successive Presidents of the United States; the assistance programs approved annually, beginning