Oregon daily emerald., January 19, 1971, Page 4, Image 4

Commentary
John Lanier
Red Cross inspection not the answer
Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series
of articles specially commissioned by the
Emerald editors on the other side of the
POW question.
Previously this series has shown that
there is no evidence to indicate
mistreatment of American POWs in North
Vietnam, that the DRV has been open and
honest in its dealings on this matter and
has allowed a free flow of information to
and from the POWs, and that there is no
evidence to indicate mistreatment or foul
play in the fact that there are 1,000 GIs
missing in Southeast Asia.
Let us now examine a few more
contentions voiced by our government and
the “Tell It to Hanoi” Committee.
• Contention No. 3: A third contention of
the POW campaigners is that U.S. POWs
in the North are subject to the Geneva
Convention of 1949, including the provision
for international inspection and regulation
of camp conditions.
• The Facts: Again this contention is
quite false, although it should be added
that the North Vietnamese by all reports
have lived up to the high standards of the
Geneva Convention as far as POW
treatment is concerned, despite American
and South Vietnamese violations.
There are two main reasons why the
339 Americans held in the North are not
subject to the Geneva agreements.
Firstly, the Geneva Convention ar
ticles on prisoners deal only with formally
“declared” wars between nations. Once a
war is declared, the Geneva Convention
immediately goes into effect. However,
since neither side in Vietnam has officially
declared war, the conflict and parties
involved in it clearly do not fall under the
regulations, according to the basic rules
under which they were established.
U.S. violations
But a second reason, and a much more
important one, for North Vietnam’s not
being subject to the Geneva Convention in
its dealings with American POWs is
discussed here by I.F. Stone:
“North Vietnam’s ratification of the
Geneva Convention in the 50’s was
qualified, as was that of the other Soviet
states, by the proviso that it would not be
applied to war criminals. Our in
discriminate bombing raids North and
South—including the use of napalm and
‘anti-personnel’ bombs—have for years
violated international conventions
designed to protect civilian populations.
Our own Army’s handbook, ‘The Law of
Land Warfare,' says that belligerents are
required to refrain ‘from employing any
kind or degree of violence which is not
actually necessary for military purposes
and that they conduct hostilities with
regard for the principles of humanity and
chivalry.’ This reads like a cruel satire
after what we have done in Vietnam. The
truth is that U.S. forces have been as in
different to international law in handling
prisoners as in dealing with the civilian
population generally. ‘The only good gook
is a dead gook’ has been the rule of
thumb.”
• Contention No. 4: A fourth contention
of the “Tell It to Hanoi” people is that
North Vietnam is obligated to (or at least
should) allow the International Red Cross
to inspect its POW camps.
• The Facts: The facts relating to
Contention No. 3 show beyond a doubt that
the North Vietnamese are not obligated to
allow inspection of their camps by the Red
Cross, since they are not subject to the
Geneva Convention.
No carte blanche
But voluntary permission for such
inspections is of course another story, and
one to which many POW campaigners
have latched on. Their attitudes and
outlook were recently expressed by the
Eugene Register-Guard, which claimed
that the DRV has not “convincingly”
demonstrated its humanitarian treatment
of American POWs and concluded: “All
that would be necessary would be an in
vitation for International Red Cross in
spection teams to travel through North
Vietnam on carte blanche credentials.”
This argument sounds convincing and
foolproof on the surface, but if one digs a
little deeper than the surface, he realizes
that it is patently absurd no matter what
your point of view.
First of all, the North Vietnamese are
under no obligation to do so. They are
being bombed, battered, attacked and
pushed by the largest military power in the
world, and are not obligated to respond to
its every suggestion as if an American
pawn on an imperial chess board.
More POW raids
Second, if the North Vietnamese were
to submit to International Red Cross in
spection in a “carte blanche” fashion, as
the POW campaigners suggest such an
action would involve revelation of the
locations of each and every POW camp in
the North. With a complete map and
outline of POW camp locations supplied by
the Red Cross, the Pentagon could then
conduct any number of Sontay raids deep
into North Vietnam, endangering that
nation’s defenses, creating another
escalation of the war and a direct threat to
the North Vietnamese people, and
guaranteeing U.S. success in at least one
of the raids, as has been promised.
As Peter Weiss explains: “If (the
North Vietnamese) have reason to believe
that every time the Green Berets learn of
the existence of a new camp they’re going
to send in a raiding party (as at Sontay),
(they) are going to be reluctant to admit
anybody who may bring information out
about where the camps are located.”
Third, it is now clear that any in
formation supplied by the International
Red Cross, no matter what light it might
place North Vietnam in as far as treat
ment of the prisoners is concerned, would
certainly be twisted around by the Pen
tagon and Nixon administration and used
for anti-DRV propaganda. We have seen
numerous examples of such tactics. The
release of the names of 17 American
military men who had died in the North
was used, without any basis or
justification, as “evidence” of some sort of
“mistreatment.” Each and every time the
DRV either releases names of POWs held
or allows interviews with them the Pen
tagon and the White House label the moves
“enemy propaganda” and use them to
support the claim that North Vietnam is an
international “criminal.”
Why should the North Vietnamese go
out of their way to supply propaganda
opportunities for the U.S. Pentagon? This
is obviouslv not in their interest, as it
would not be in anyone’s in a similar
situation, so it would be absurd for the
DRV to go to the trouble of undertaking
such a venture.
Finally, a very significant piece of
information relative to North Vietnam’s
not subjecting itself to International Red
Cross inspection is that the Red Cross has
on occasions been guilty of racism against
the people of Asia, a fact which certainly
does not endear it to the Vietnamese
people.
Red Cross ads
Let us not forget that it is the U.S.
offshoot of the Red Cross which is at the
top of the list of vocal groups involved in
the “Tell It to Hanoi” campaign in which
the North Vietnamese are pictured as
criminally barbaric and in which
Americans are urged to write letters to the
President of the DRV. The Red Cross is the
largest sponsor of ads of all sorts for the
POW campaign.
Perhaps if the American Red Cross
was reprimanded by its International
group for involvement in such a hate
campaign, the International might be in a
more morally consistent position with its
self-righteous desire to check the stan
dards of DRV prisoner facilities.
Liberation News Service reporter
Hugo Hill got right to the heart of the Red
Cross racism question early last year. Hill
was investigating some reasons “why the
North Vietnamese government doesn’t
permit the International Red Cross to
inspect its prison camps.” His conclusion:
In addition to Hanoi’s view that the Red
Cross has no jurisdiction over DRV prison
camps, the fact is that “The International
Red Cross is not the neutral body it claims
to be but rather a stronghold of white
racism.”
Hill’s conclusion was based on an
interview with the chief of the In
ternational Red Cross delegation in South
Vietnam, Christian Hauser. Hill began by
asking Hauser about the Red Cross’
position on “the torture routinely inflicted
on captured NLF soldiers in the South.”
Despite widespread press coverage of
such atrocities (even on the streets of
Saigon and even in the Establishment
press), Hill reported that Hauser denied of
their existence stating “I have never
heard a reliable report of torture.” He
later qualified his statement: “Well, let’s
say it’s very rare,” according to Hill.
Hill then asked: “In general, how
would you characterize the treatment of
POWs by the Saigon government?”
“I think it is as good as you can expect
from Asiatics,” Hauser was quoted as
having replied.
“Does it meet the standards of the 1949
Geneva Convention?” Hill asked.
Written by whites
“You have to remember,” Hauser
reportedly replied, “that the Geneva
Convention was written by white people
white people who had little experience
with Negroes and yellows. Rules for white
people are one thing; we’re civilized. But
in these countries things are different.
Asiatics have a different attitude toward
suffering and death.”
Hill then reminds the reader that
“Hauser speaks for the International Red
Cross. If he says everything is all right,
then, officially, everyting is all right.”
Contention No. 4 was that Hanoi should
allow the International Red Cross to in
spect its POW camps. Clearly this con
tention is also false. It would be politically
and militarily unwise for North Vietnam to
do so; by doing so it would be endangering
the security of its people; by doing so it
would be providing potential propaganda
for the U.S.; and it would be subjecting
itself to inspection by an organization
guilty of racist statements and pursuits.
Letters
Kude l row cl
It is a testament to Neil Young that he
was able to come through with such a
beautiful and moving performance Sunday
despite his mauling at the hands of one of
the rudest audiences ever seen south of
Corvallis. There was an ugly odor of in
cipient violence about McArthur Court, fed
by the rumor that there had been a pre
show threat on Young’s life, and repeated
clashes between police and gate-crashers
Various sectors of the crowd bitched
loudly about the lighting and the assembly
in general continued to applaud
mechanically throughout the opening of
each song despite Mr Young's obvious
displeasure In fact the people, albeit
unbelievably, remained in a state of
mindless unawareness throughout, despite
the performer’s incisive comments Their
receptiveness was summarized by
Young's comment addressed with a level
stare to one of the front rows, "Why didn't
someone bring them something to read?"
A complete transcript of the comedy
would be impossible (one had to be there),
but a bit will suffice:
Neil Young leaves his chair and goes to the
piano, followed by applause.
Young: "What are you clapping for,
exactly?”
Laughter and applause from audience. (To
show that they’re hip to the people who
were clapping).
Young addresses the piano stool: “Who's
been screwing with my seat?"
laughter from audience
Young: “Maybe that's the level.” (you’re
at)
He winces as he regards the list of songs
taped to the side of his guitar to see how
many are remaining.
Young: “See these papers? . . . One is for
Carnegie Hall, the other for Eugene.”
Laughter and applause from the audience.
Young sighs heavily and begins almost
mechanically to strum the first chords of
the next song.
Finally, much of the mob laughed
through "Every Man Needs a Maid," a
song which was not meant to be funny.
Joking aside, even the glamorous
Youth Culture and Youth Revolution can
have a bad night. Maybe the ASUO can
bring us a really groovy band next time.
Someone more, well, dynamic. Like Led
Zepellin or Grand Funk perhaps? Are you
hip, brothers?
Russell Norris
Sophomore, English
Segal’s Abortion
Having yet to see the book, I will admit
to having read the movie. I do not think
Mr. Smith’s monologue somehow con
necting New Left ideology and Eric
Segal's abortion, Love Story, is the least
bit relevant Segal’s volume (not book)
seeks to exploit the reader’s least in
telligent perceptions. It is a pollyanna
view of a world much too complex to be
seen with such moronic simplicity. The
protagonists. Jenny & Oliver Barrett, are
non-persons They are literary silouettes,
with nothing inside. And have no fear, Mr.
Smith, Segal is not conspiring with the
lefties to take away everyone’s sugar
plums. More likely he was inspired by the
good old almighty buck.
Joshua K. Marquis
Political Science
Danger
“Eachus concluded, ‘The President
has obviously perceived that Leggett
would be a danger to the University. A
decision made on this basis is not in the
best interests of the University.’”(Quote,
Ron Eachus in the Jan. 15 Emerald.)
While one might question whether or
not Clark’s decision was valid, I haven’t
yet been able to convince myself that what
is dangerous to the University is in the best
interests of the University, or vice-versa.
You didn’t mean that, did you Ron?
Allan Walton
Senior. Liberal Arts