Vietnam Atrocities

Sir,—The issues at stake in S. Vietnam are not so clear-cut as some (Mr. Holyoake included) would like us to believe.

Numerous observers there have remarked on the wide support given the anti-government forces by rural Vietnamese. Without this support it would be impossible for the Viet Cong to maintain its grip on the greater part of the South. Military aid is coming from the Communist North, but compared with the two thousand million dollars poured in by the USA over the last 10 years it-would be of the order of only a fraction of a cent for each dollar of American aid.

New York Herald Tribune (Apr. 9. 1963) reports: "The Viet Cong regular forces of about 25.000 and their regional troops of about 50,000 are recruited almost entirely from the villages of S. Vietnam. Some of the leaders have been trained in the North, but they number less than one per cent of the whole. The 'regionals' carry weapons dating from the French war in Indo-China, while the regulars are equipped with captured American arms. In short, the war in S. Vietnam is homegrown."

The methods used by the S. Vietnam American sponsored army against the Viet Cong and those suspected of anti-government tendencies, caused Bertrand Russell to label this war an atrocity. The depths to which USA foreign policy is capable of descending could not be much lower than at present. Americans now feel able to condone barbarities and Inhumanities that rival the worst efforts of the Japanese in S.E. Asia. Napalm jelly gasoline is used against whole villages without warning; USA planes bomb villages suspected of harbouring Viet Cong guerillas: unwanted prisoners are massacred and those retained are tortured during interrogation. The war has been prosecuted in a way that has served only to alienate peasant loyalties.

Of course, our Press continues to suppress the truth. Repeated USA violations of the 1954 Geneva convention have gone unrecorded. Cambodian charges of incursions by S. Vietnam and American forces into Cambodian territory are distorted. Proposals that could hope to end this fruitless war have all the weight of editorial illogicality and absurdity thrown at them. The true nature of the conflict is apparent to few.

It is with this sort of "informed" public in mind that Mr. Holyoake has suggested that NZ involve herself in the South Vietnam war.

Dining Room Dubious

In my opinion, the proposed inclusion of both a higher-priced dining-room and a private diningroom in the Student Union Building is not in the best interests of the student body. I believe that the facilities that will be most used by students are the ones that should be incorporated in the additions and alterations to the SUB.

The room formed by opening the doors between the present Common Rooms is already becoming inadequate for social functions. The expedient of selling tickets for a dance in advance has been tried. However, in five years the student roll will have doubled. Either at least one very large room must be provided in the extensions, or the numbers attending social functions will have to be severely limited, or once more Victoria will have to hold functions such as capping and orientation balls off the campus.

The plans for the extensions to the SUB have not yet been released for examination by students. Therefore, although I have seen two different sets of plans, I cannot reveal the size of the largest room suitable for social functions. But it is evident from the figures published in Salient last year concerning the size of the proposed facilities to be incorporated in the Union that it will be almost impossible to incorporate a large Common Room suitable for social functions in the SUB unless either the proposed coffee room for sandwich lunchers (area 2500 sq ft) or the combination of private and higher-priced dining-rooms (combined area 1600 sq it) are deleted from the plans.

The present small coffee shop is exceedingly well patronised. As the student roll grows, a large coffee shop will be needed.

It is very difficult to determine how many students would use the higher-priced dining-room, especially as no one has said how high the prices will be. Certainly a great many students buy Mr. Levenbach's higher-priced options in the present cafeteria. However, this gives no guide as to whether students will be prepared to pay extra for tablecloths and semi waiter service in a new swept-up establishment.

It could be argued that in the future, with the rapid growth of the student roll, that further eating facilities will be required and that the higher-priced and private dining-rooms will help to meet this growth In demand. In the plans for the future development of the university it is made quite clear that further eating facilities will be made available on the campus at a future date. I think that higher-priced and private dining-rooms are not the right sort of additions we should make to eating facilities.

If the higher-priced and private dining-rooms and coffee shop are all installed in the SUB then the equivalent of two floors of the building will be under the control of Mr. Levenbach. In general, I cannot see why the students should agree to such a large proportion of the union being eating facilities, especially as no good reasons for the provision of the higher-priced and private diningrooms have ever been released to students.

Dean Replies

Sir,—I have just had the opportunity of reading Salient for May 25. 1964.

You quote from a speech I made at NZ Youth Forum: "That sexual intercourse is permissible when there is a certain degree of permanence and security ... In some cases therefore it would seem premarital sexual intercourse Is permissible. This he did not deny."

Your statement is the exact opposite from what I said, and no way reflects either my opinion or my speech.

I emphasised throughout the glory of the sexual relationship between man and woman, but that it would be fulfilled only In marriage because only there would the necessary permanent features apply.

Later in the Conference, the phrase "chastity before marriage and faithfulness after it" was used in a finding This is the phrase I used in my talk and which is the basis of my argument.

You obviously won't agree with my line In the matter, but it is what I said. Goodness only knows by what breakdown in communication drill I can be credited with denying what I have always stood for!