A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President
Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in
South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional
development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his
personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of
state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government,
which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963,
when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
Few members of that junta are still around, most having been ousted or
exiled in subsequent shifts of power.
Significance Not Diminished
The fact that the backing of the electorate has gone to the generals who
have been ruling South Vietnam for the last two years does not, in the
Administration's view, diminish the significance of the constitutional step
that has been taken.
The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a
confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That
hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread
scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the
Vietcong's disruption of the balloting.
American officials had hoped for an 80 per cent turnout. That was the
figure in the election in September for the Constituent Assembly.
Seventy-eight per cent of the registered voters went to the polls in
elections for local officials last spring.
Before the results of the presidential election started to come in, the
American officials warned that the turnout might be less than 80 per cent
because the polling place would be open for two or three hours less than in
the election a year ago. The turnout of 83 per cent was a welcome
surprise. The turnout in the 1964 United States Presidential election was
62 per cent.
Captured documents and interrogations indicated in the last week a serious
concern among Vietcong leaders that a major effort would be required to
render the election meaningless. This effort has not succeeded, judging
from the reports from Saigon.
NYT. 9/4/1967: p. 2.
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
I think it says a lot about a person, or a group of people, when they can't even see the Iraqi election as JUST MAYBE being a good, positive first step in the right direction.
Who's side are you people on? That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answers to that question are painfully obvious.
You might want to remember that in the US in 1967 (and before) a great deal of people were in favour of the Viet Nam war. It wasn't until Tet in 1968 that it became obvious to the public that the war wasn't winnable.
That's the point of the irony. Are we, right now, in the 1967-equivilent in Iraq? Is there going to be a "Ramadan 2005" which will be the equivilent of Tet? The point is that at one point in a war they lost, the US administration, used the EXACT SAME excuses and line to indicate they were winning and doing the right thing. They were wrong.
What has changed in 35 years? What makes you think this time is different? Maybe this is different, but if you can't see the parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam, you are a fool or an apologist for the Bush regime or both (likely the later).
I think there is some positive that is coming out of this. But it still doesn't mean the path of the Bush admin was the right path.
I'm still confused as to why Saudi Arabia, a country that had more links to 9/11 then Iraq, ended up getting no pressure from the U.S. Not to mention a history of hand shakes between the Saudi's and U.S goverment.
Hypocrisy.
Kevin
---
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
--Bertrand Russell
What's most humiliating is what happened after US troops withdrew from Vietnam. The slaughter of all the pro-democracy viatnamese civilians, the slaughter of the cambodians, etc. The left was silent during that time, proving once again that mass slaughter of civilians is OK with the left as long as YANKEE GO HOME.
The Left is hoping for a civil war and a retreat of America from the region -- at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (ie, the abstraction they hope to validate their identity). They adhere to the racist belief that Arabs are incapable of freedom or do not want freedom-- but would rather provide their children with a wasteland built on hate and imminent annihilation. This is why they have no moral or intellectual authority in the US.
My hope is that the Left and liberalism in particular will regain its ability to speak of peace and freedom and human rights without these obvious clouds of hypocrisy. That, however, will require courage and convictions and faith which is currently lacking.
Iraq is your problem. You broke it, you clean it up. We'll help out where we can.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Specifics would be nice here...
" As an American, you have no right to talk about Rwanda. What happened there was a direct result of US support for Croation troops, UN Bureacracy and your President turning a blind eye to the obvious."
OK, so what you're saying is that Canada has no moral obligation to protect the hundreds of thousands killed in Rhwanda because of the US? Interesting. The Croation troops prevented Canada from caring about the lives lost? Damn Croations! UN Bureacracy? Didn't your leaders say that the UN establishes the criterion on which to act? Since moral responsibility wasn't inferred by UN auspicies, you are absolved? You can just blame the UN, while seeking ethical shelter from the UN for action and inaction? What courage!
"Iraq is your problem. You broke it, you clean it up. We'll help out where we can."
We'll take care of it, no doubt. We will plant freedom there and it will spread through-out the region, because freedom is the right of every human being. Don't you worry your pretty head about such things. A few dollars, some symbolic gestures and you are absolved of moral obligation.
Read "Ghosts of the Medak Pocket" by Carol Off. Google is your friend in the meantime.
"OK, so what you're saying is that Canada has no moral obligation to protect the hundreds of thousands killed in Rhwanda because of the US?"
Google again: "Shake Hands with the Devil, Gen. Romeo Dellaire". You'll find he was UN Force Commander in Rwanda during the genocide. He begged, he pleaded for troops. At that time the US, Germany, Italy, Greece and other NATO countries had over 3000 troops in Rwanda. Not one of them lifed a finger to help out, even after 10 UN Peacekeepers were murdered by Hutu tribesmen to make a point. We had peacekeepers in Rwanda, Crete, Bosnia, and many other countries, but the UN failed the Force Commander's efforts to pre-emptively stop the genocide. Afterward, it was too late.
"The Croation troops prevented Canada from caring about the lives lost?"
That's cold. I know of many soldiers who were peackeepers there that took their own lives since 1993 over the lives in the pocket they could not save. We prepared for 1200 Serb/Croat/Moldovian refugees, we found 1 horse and some chickens. Everything and everyone else was dead. Yes, the Croation troops actively prevented us from saving thousands of Serbs. And they used former East German TU-72 tanks, American made missles, mortars and rifles to do it.
"What courage!"
You keep questioning my courage. So, let's whip them out and see who's is longer. When did you earn your Blue Beret? When did you earn your UN Force Commander Medal of Commendation? When did you earn the Governor Generals Meritourious Service Medal? When did you earn the US Bronze Star?
"We will plant freedom there and it will spread through-out the region, because freedom is the right of every human being."
So true. Explain to me how to bomb a country into freedom again?
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
--Bertrand Russell
Enough said.
And Darvin... let us look at history. Did your fellow Americans find legitimacy in the elections held in former Soviet Bloc under occupation? No they did not. What about the elections held by the Soviets in Afghanistan? Nope, not there either. So what makes this occupation any different?
There is nary anywhere in history where elections held in an occupied nation have been successful in the long term.
So that is where we are coming from. Elections do not excuse criminal behaviour, whether that be Soviets or Americans.
<br />
Yah all you had to do was kill a few million more of them to save a few thousand of them. Not to mention a couple million more from Cambodia and Laos.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096">http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=5096</a><br />
<br />
"What the US did in Indochina involved the mass killing of civilians and the premeditated, wholesale destruction of the environment using chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange. These are war crimes under the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act."<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4401617,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4401617,00.html</a><br />
<br />
What's more, there are STILL people dying in those countries from unexploded cluster bombs etc. There are STILL people suffering from the chemical warfare. But hey Darvin, whats a few million more eh?<br />
<br />
Stunning in your ignorance of history you truely are.