Hanoi Bombing

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31107, 9 July 1966, Page 14

Hanoi Bombing

Sir, —For two years I have carried on exchanges with both liberal American politicians and with North Vietnam. Recently there has been a greater willingness by Hanoi to rationally discuss the issues, together with a concession on a key point which could eventually lead to a settlement. In this diplomatic situation, it would be horrifying if impatient military action by the Johnson Administration brought China into the war. Such a war could easily result in Chinese conquest of most of South-east Asia, just as Hitler’s assault on Communist Russia led to Russian occupation of east Europe. “Hawk” argued that the American escalation would “protect” our “troops.” Since the destruction of some easily replaceable petrol provoked promises of increased Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese military aid, such as improvement might prove very temporary.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER.

July 8, 1966. Sir,—lf “F.W.P.F.” thinks that the bombing of Hanoi will bring the North Vietnamese to their knees, or induce them to come to the conference table just to consent to the partition and occupation of the southern half of Vietnam, then he had better think again. The people of Vietnam did not wage a long and bitter struggle against French colonialism just to fall victim to another form of foreign expansion—United States neocolonialism. “F.W.P.F.” says that there cannot be democracy under a dictatorship. He should ponder this fact well, for the United States gives both moral and material support to a host of military dictatorships and juntas throughout the world, simply because they are anti-Communist. Talk of Communist aggression is a convenient excuse to cover up the growing militarism in certain Western circles.— Yours, etc., CRITICUS. July 8, 1966. TenancySir, —“Lex” may be right in some of his points but it probably would involve costly legal actions to settle the

matter. He must surely admit that there is no law to compel a landlord to renew a lease, even if there is a right of renewal, or that he could impose conditions totally unacceptable to the tenant, while successive owners can vary the conditions so that they bear no resemblance to the original contract between landlord and tenant. My point was that a person who has no financial interest in his home, but merely rents it, has the protection of the Tenancy Act, while another who invests his savings on a leasehold property could be evicted, and lose the lot, without a chance to defend. As for relying on temporary protective legislation, could a law which was in effect from 1936 up to 1964 be classed as temporary?—Yours, etc., H. S. BUTCHER. July 7, 1966.