rrrcn
MB
tmmmm LfJ vZL-
JTte authors of this peace trv.-rty
drafted it in a spirit of hope, that the
treaty would provide a humane and
respectable alternative to the Vietnam
war. It is in the same spirit that the
Peace Treaty Committee of the
University of Nebraska moved to
place- the treaty on the ASUN
referendum ballot The peace treaty
committee is made of students from
virtually every dormitory on city
campus and east campus and students
from sereral Greek houses.
Ke hope you will take a bit of your
time to read this article-it is not a
stereotyped attack on the war, if is not
a vicious attack against the President,
and it is not a call for revolution or
mass civil disobedience. Rather, this
article provides rationale, as to why
the Unirersity of Nebraska students
should vote for the Joint Treaty of
Peace between the people of the
United States and the people of South
Vietnam and North Vietnam.
Members of the University of Nebraska
Peace Treaty Committee
The Joint Treaty of Peace Between
the People of the United States and
the People of South Vietnam and
North Vietnam resulted from a
mandate of the 23rd National Student
Congress organized by the United
States National Student Association.
The purpose of the mandate was "to
explore the possibilities of a peace
treaty that would put an end to the
war on terms that would satisfy the
honor and safeguard the interest of
the people of the United States and
Vietnam.'" In late December, 1970
delegation of IS students and Vietnam
war veterans flew to Vietnam and met
with representatives of the South
Vietnam National Student Union, the
South Vietnam Liberation
Student Union and the North Vietnam
Student Union. The peace plans they
negotiated then were later sent to Paris
and signed by official representatives
of the four student groups.
The intent of the Treaty was to
provide a viable, humane, and hopeful
alternative to the crisis in Vietnam. It
was the hope of the conference
participants that this Treaty would
show people around the world that
there is potential, from directly
concerned people, for peace in
Southeast Asia. Members of the
organizations involved in the
Conference hoped the ideals of the
Treaty would be carried beyond their
conference table to the people of the
involved countries-it is this hope that
brings the Peace Treaty before the
students of the University of Nebraska
for referendum.
It is important to remember when
considering the Peace Treaty that it is
not an intricate banding contract i ar peace in
Southeast Asia. The legality of such a
contract would be questionable, as
well as the fact that an actual contract
negotiate between diplomats would be
much more complicated and specific
than this Treaty. The Peace Treaty is.
rather, an alternative that may be and
should be considered by those
legislators who have the power to
make such treaties.
Already the Peace Treaty has been
openly supported by several members
of Congress. With enough support
from people on campuses, business
groups, labor grcps, and large
organizations it is possible that the
ideas of the peace plan wSl be
considered by the VS. Congress. Now
on the floor of the Nebraska
Unicameral, is a resolution from State
Sen. John DeCamp from Neligh (mho
is a Vietnam veteran) to support
attempts of those senators in the
National Congress to end the wr.
Senator DeCamp's resolution requests
Congress to disengage from Southeast
Asia and cut appropriations. Tangible,
non-radical alternatives are being
offered to encourage the present
administration to provide an early end
to the war. According t a recent
Gallup Poll, 73 per cent of the
American people want lie United
PAGE 2
i
M A
D(EaD
States out of Vietnam by the end
of 1971. If this poll is to be con
sidered a close approximation of the
American people, there can be no
doubt that the concept outlined by the
Treaty, of setting an immediate date
for total withdrawal is certainly not
radical.
Is "Vietnamization" a solution for
ending the tragic Vietnam war? It
appears that it is merely an easy way
to gradually phase-out the conflict, at
the expense of many American and
Vietnamese lives, without admitting
the error of our involvement there. It
is a way to say two different things at
the same time without taking a
clear-cut course of action. This Treaty
provides a definite and honest
approach to the problem.
The Treaty provides for setting a
withdrawal date prior to discussions
concerning prisoners of war because it
is essential to place limitations upon
the duration of this overly prolonged
and costly war. Of course, we have to make
sure that our prisoners are freed and
the treaty does not preclude an
agreement, to release prisoners at the
same tune that American troops are
being withdrawn. The specifics of
releasing prisoners would have to be
worked out in any offkal treaty that
might be entered into between the
governments of the affected countries.
The present "Vietnamization'
policy provides no guarantee for
prisoner release. Usually prisoners are
not released until a war has been
ended; it is unlikely that that policy
will be altered for this war.
In answer to the, opposition's
contentions that the fifth point of the
Treaty is wrong in that it imposes a
new government on South Vietnam is
false because the point provides only
for an end to the massive U.S.
economic and military support of the
present Thieu-Ky regime. This is in
line with DeCamp's resolution that
further expenditures for supporting
our present involvement should be
soon terminated.
This is also in tine with the Gallup
poll that the United States should
terminate present effort and bring our
money and boys home by the end of
1971. The sixth point of the treaty
follows this fifth point, saying that
when the imposition of the Thieu-Ky
regime is ended, follow-up procedures
to set up a temporary coalition
government to organize democratic
and free elections.
The opponents of the Treaty also
charge that the Treaty is illegal. In
answer to this legality question, it
must be remembered that the Treaty
was not negotiated by governments
but by four student groups in the
United States and Vietnam. Thus,
people who vote on the treaty are not
illegally negotiating with any foreign
government.
The Treaty's opponents also charge
that the Treaty will be used as a tool
for disruption. In this charge they are
referring to an appendage to the actual
treaty attached by a few other
American groups who have already
supported the Treaty. This appendage
reads: "By ratifying the agreement, we
pledge to take whatever actions are
appropriate to implement the terms of
this joint treaty to insure its
acceptance by the government of the
United States. This appendage, which
is not part of the Treaty put together
by the four student groups, is not part
of the Treaty on the ASUN ballot
either. Thus, when the news media is
informed of the results of the
referendum, it will be made clear that
the students were not voting as to
whether they support any illegal or
disruptive actions on the part of any
groups or individuals in this country.
We are being asked to support "the
Joint Treaty of Peace" because it will
"...bring our boys home, free our
POWS, and importantly, provide a
realistic, just and honorable peace for
the Vietnam nation."
If this were true, the "treaty", if
not the actions surrounding it, would
deserve our support. Unfortunately,
there are no such safeguards in this
"treaty". Also, to look at this "treaty"
as an isolated entity is a mistake. One
needs to know about the background
of this "treaty" and one needs to
know what various groups intend to
do with your endorsement.
As its twenty-third congress the
National Student Association (NSA)
resolved that its officers were
mandated to engage in negotiations for
a peace treaty between the students of
North and South Vietnam and
students of the United States. Less
than 25 per cent of the colleges and
universities in this country are
affiliated with NSA.
AS IT TURNS out there have been
no referendums on the "treaty at the
Universities of Saigon, Hue, Dalat,
Vanh Han or Can Tbo. The students of
South Vietnam as a body were never
consulted. The students of North
Vietnam were represented by their
"North Vietnamese National Union of
Students".
NSA has endorsed the "spring
offensive" of the People's Coalition
for Peace and Justice (PCPJ). This
includes: "May 3-4: Intensified civil
disobedience and disruption in
Washington. May 5: National
moratorium in all cities and
campuses..."(NSA newsletter.)
The officers of PCPJ are the same
as those of the old
communist-dominated NCAWRR
according to the Socialist Workers
Party paper - Militant. (Nov. 27, 1970
andFebr. 19. 1971)
The actions planned are not the
same as those of the peaceful
"moratorium" in Lincoln. According
to the Washington, D. C. underground
press:
"AT 7:30 a m.. May 3, people will
move onto (the roads that are the life
line into government institutions), sit
down, and lock arms. At noon, Mav 3,
we will assemble at Congress' to
surround the Capitol... On May 4 and
throughout the week, we will engage
in militant actions at the entrances of
those government institutions that
cannot be allowed to continue their
murderous activitiesOur actions on May 3
and 4 will build support for a nationwide
'No business as usual on May 5 "
(Quicksilver Times March. 17-30
1971.)
As Rennie Davis has said, "Unless
Nixon commits himself to withdrawal
by May 1-that is if he won't stop the
war we intend to stop the
government."
Even if one overlooks the
background of the "treaty" and the
potential for violence, the "treaty"
itself docs not deserve support. Point
by point it fails.
I.WHYISNT the withdrawal of
North Vietnamese forces from South
Vietnam on a publicly set date also
called for? Some 4 DO .000 North
Vietnamese troops have presently
crossed internationally recognized
frontiers into neutral Laos, Cambodia.
and into Vietnam. Suppose there were
divisions of South Vietnamese soldiers
in North Vietnam seeking to
liberate" it? Wouldn't it be logical
and just to insist on reciprocal
withdrawals as a condition for ending
the war?
2. IN THE PAST the North
Vietnamese and the Viet Cong have
"pledged to discuss seriously" only if
the United States would unilaterally
take certain steps. But in each case -the
unilateral bombing halt of North
Vietnam; the pledge to withdraw large
numbers of U.S. forces and the actual
withdrawal of over 200,000 U. S.
troops - there has not been the
slightest reciprocity on the other side.
What reason is there to expect it now?
The "treaty" merely offers to "enter
discussions" about POW's without any
assurances whatsoever that the POW's
will be freed.
3. IN THE PAST each of the IS
cease-fires agreed to by the U.S. has
been violated by the North
Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces. The
massive Tet offensive of 1968 was
launched d urine such a "cease-fire."
4. ALLIED PROPOSALS for the
reciprocal withdrawal of troops have
been totally rejected by the
communists. All discussions of
international inspection and
guarantees for withdrawal have also
been rejected by the other side. As
with the other "articles" in this
"treaty", A is only discussions about
the procedures about the safety that
the "treaty" promises, not the safety
itself.
5. THE SOUTH Vietnamese
government was not imposed by
America on the Vietnamese people. It
came to power in September 1967 as
the result of internationally observed
elections.
6. THE VIETNAMESE already
have an elected government, and on
Oct. 3 the Vietnamese will again have
the democratic right to vote. Which
Vietnamese will "pledge to form" a
provisional government?
7. AGAIN, nothing is said about
guaranteeing the safety or political
freedom of anybody. The "treaty"
only guarantees to enter discussions
about procedures.
8. IN GROSS violation of the
Geneva Accords of 1954 and 1962,
the North Vietnamese have
consistently and massively violated
Laotian and Cambodian peace and
neutrality by sending troops; by
building roads; by establishing military
base areas; and by launching attacks
on the people and governments of
these nations.
9. THE ALLIED governments have
proposed in Paris to resolve the war on
the basis of: (1) an internationally
supervised cease-fire throughout
Indo-China; (2) an Indo-China peace
conference; (3 an agreed time-table for
complete reciprocal withdrawals; (4) a
fair political settlement involving all
the major forces: (5) the unconditional
release of all POVs. Hanoi and the
PRG have refused to discuss these
proposals.
We must realize that treaties are
negotiated by governments, not
private groups.
Mrs. Nguyen Thi Bir.h, the Vkt
Cong's Foreign Minister, supports this
"treaty". We do not. We hope you
vote to oppose the "treaty".
Robert J. Vlasak.
fryfe -f ft; lifts. $mtJZW
t, . . , :w
THE DAILY ZEBRAS KAN
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1971