By Manuel Delgado
The Students for Peace in Vietnam believe that at least five points must be met by our government before any constructive peace can be realized in Vietnam and before any progress toward peace can be made.
The first point that must be made is that of an unconditional halt to the bombing of North Vietnam. This is because it has been proven militarily ineffective and because it is not the climate under which we can expect the enemy to come to the conference table.
The second point is that the government of the United States should institute negotiations with all concerned nations, with no pre-conditions, for initiation of talks. It is clear that no progress has been made to date because of the restrictive conditions set forth by the government of the United States.
The third point is the recognition of the national Liberation Front (Viet Cong) as a major political party in Vietnam, for contrary to popular belief the NLF is not an “arm” of the Hanoi government. It was formed in th South to overthrow the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem. Its purpose was to gain national independence and negotiate wityh the North for reunification
the fifth and most basic point the student group wants of its government is to recognize the need for a reappraisal of its foreign policy in southeast Asia. The present policy was the result of the hysteria that pervade the politics of the 1950s and is no longer realistic in light of the clearly national aspirations of the Vietnamese people.
Reasons for getting involved vary among the present participants. For example Mike Lawton, an English major, is concerned because he feels that the present policy of war is an indication of a moral and creative exhaustion on the part of its participants. Michael Landroche, a social science major, says that the American people must face the fact that their government has involved them in a futile and illegal war.
Stephen B. Wilke wonders how the American people can condemn the violence in Watts and Detroit when it allows villages to be burnt to the ground and measures its victories in terms of human deaths. D.J. Freel reiterates the conviction of many government officials, including Secretary of Defense MacNamara, that the war cannot be won by military means short of using atomic weapons. He has
Pete Nava believes that the stubborn refusal of our government to recognize the Vietnam war as a struggle for national independence has closed many attractive alternatives to the present course of action. Instead, by seeing Vietnam as a world conspiracy, we have chosen to destroy, mutilate and rape a nation and its people, he says.
Prevalent among all the participants is the feeling that a dialogue concerning the war must be started on campus. The apparent apathy of the student body must shaken and an active exchange of ideas must be instituted toward this end. The Students for Peace in Vietnam sincerely want all those who are concerned about the war to join in the effort.
Groups or individuals with opposing views on the war are also invited to attend discussion meetings to exchange ideas and to help create an atmosphere of toleration.
Although the students for Peace in Vietnam are committed to one side of the issue, they will present both sides of the issue at all forums and debates.
Any student interested in participating in this activity can contact any of the following people: Sam Sandusky (825-7857), Ernie Powell (875-3678), Manuel Delgado (888-3560), or look for announcements of meetings.
Even if we believed this argument, it should not change our basic purposes for this demonstration. When one, in all conscience, finds himself identified with an occurrence which he abhors, he must let it be known that he is not a part of it.
In all probability, at least in my experience, this type of public overt demonstration gives one the opportunity to analyze his dedication to his beliefs in his own eyes. It is easy to talk of your dissent, to persuade others to your way of thinking, to identify with activist groups which are presenting your views by active dissent, but it is much different, much more difficult to say publicly, “look at, here I stand, I’m against this war.”
Our function, in reference to affecting apathy, non-committance and opposite
The use of this peaceful and non-disruptive method of demonstrating our dissent allows those of a conservative nature to show their support for peace in Vietnam without fear of aggressive harassment from the establishment.
The preceding views are not necessarily the feeling of all those who are participating in this vigil; they are mine. But there is at least one thing that we are united on and that is to do our part, as insignificant as it may seem to some, in the widespread effort to show our leaders that we feel they are degrading the image of our country and that we refuse to be a part of this degradation.
Our purposes are manifold. The most important ones, in my opinion, are perhaps the most obvious. One is to publicly demonstrate our dissent and to present a measurement of our commitment to our cause.
Another is to establish a permanent reminder to students on this campus that there is a war, that there is a controversy over the validity of that war, and that if the democratic process is to survive dissent must be demonstrated to the leaders of this country upon which they may base their decisions.
We have been criticized even by our sympathizers that this is a futile and way