Dunster Political Review

Most students can agree on two points about the war in Vietnam--that it is a political and military tangle, and that finding solutions for it is not easy. But these points bring us no closer to an understanding of the situation. The first issue of the Dunster Political Review, focused on Vietnam, provides a forum for undergraduate opinion and clarifies some points about the war. It is good to see it takes its place among the other literary, drama, and political publications published at Harvard.

The policy of the Dunster Political Review is to remain uncommitted to any one interpretation of political questions. In the first issue, three students analyze the war in Vietnam from opposing points of view. The editors plan to organize each subsequent magazine around a different important problem. In addition to student comment, every issue will contain an interview with a Harvard professor, miscellaneous essays, and book reviews. This format ensures a diversity of contributions which should keep the Review interesting.

The issue starts ponderously with the three opposing analyses of the war, and picks up speed in its final half. The first three articles carry the uninspiring titles: "Vietnam: A Liberal View, A Moderate View, A Conservative View." They are disappointing only in their lack of originality; the writers are successful in presenting well thought-out interpretations of the United States' position.

Walter M. Licht '67 and Robert LaRocca '68, the liberals, convincingly describe (complete with footnoted sources) a vicious circle of original military commitment which could only have led to further involvement. The authors agree with Hans Morgenthau that the U.S. is caught because of its basic misconception of its role in world affairs. Licht and LaRocca see escape from the circle in total withdrawal of U.S. forces and a Vietnam government led by the National Liberation Front. Many American liberals, however, might object to their designation of the NLF as the sole legitimate representative of the South Vietnamese people.

Ronald L. Trosper '67 seems to refute his label of moderate. After haltingly trying to separate the multiple goals of the U.S. and pointing out the need to pursue those ends with successful means, Trosper offers an immoderate conclusion. If the U.S. is to intervene in Southeast Asia, it must learn to do so effectively, even if in Vietnam this "would have involved great manipulation of the Saigon government." Such a stand is certainly an active form of moderation.

The conservative viewer, William H. Espinoza '67 shares several opinions with the liberal opposition, but finds the war necessary to "protect the security of the United States" a contention he defends no further. Instead, he contends that the question of a threat to our security is "academic" and is "overshadowed by the fact that the commitment has been made" and we cannot afford to back out.

These three arguments have been heard before, but it is a welcome change to see them side by side. The rest of the Review offers newer material. In an interview, Government professor Arthur A. Maass expresses his belief that Congress should and does remain "well-informed" on the Vietnam question. It has not legislated against presidential policies in foreign affairs, probably because it strongly supports the war. F.A. Richman '67, founder of the Review, has contributed an important article on the position China should take in U.S. thinking on Vietnam. Based on the Korean experience, the overwhelming use of Chinese forces in Vietnam seems dangerously inevitable. Richman advocates recognizing that China can hold policies against hostile neighbors and an interest in its own national security. We should recognize China for what it is--a Great Power--and drop our posture of implacable hostility.

An analysis of the current situation in Indonesia and three book reviews complete the issue. Any attempt to comprehend Indonesian politics is welcome, and Henry S. Parker '68 describes accurately the mysterious events of the attempted coup last October. He presents the ultimate challenge faced by the Army leaders in control: to unify and nationalize Indonesia on a basis of economic and social progress. This is a goal which Sukarno, for all his chauvinism, failed to achieve. The choice of books to be reviewed, two interpretations of the Vietnam conflict by war correspondents Robert Shaplen and Marguerite Higgins and Richard Hofstadter's essays on paranoid American extremism reflect the appropriate and timely taste of the editors. The reviewers give good summaries of the books as well as intelligent comments on their contemporary significance.