GOLDBERG: First let me say this what I find lacking in your question, if I may say so is a very simple element. A failure to point out that the regime in the North is not an exact model of parliamentary democracy and free election, and that is a violation of the Geneva courts, which calls, for free elections both ways. Now the freest elections that I am aware of that have been held have been the elections of the constituent assembly which was attended by about the same proportion of South Vietnamese that participated in our National elections, under war time conditions and where the 400 press men from everywhere in the world said that this election was a free election--and they are not to be put off by our American press. So that I don't find your statement about atrocities balances the picture as it must be balanced when you are trying to present a total picture of what occurs in a situation like this. It all reduces itself, it seems to me, to a very simple fact, and that is this. Is there a desire to allow the destiny of this country to be peacefully settled or is there a desire to impose upon people a forceable solution? We said we want a peaceful one and I have said, let's test our intentions by taking up your statements.

JAY B. STEVENS '68, Young Republicans: Ambassador Goldberg you stated today that countries of the world want to be left alone; people of the world want to be left alone. I would like to ask you first of all if the U.S. action in Vietnam and our policy there entail that our government attempt to prop-up regimes around the world against the internal threat of invasion? And secondly, how do you square your own personal sophisticated views of this war with those of the administration?

Test the U.S.

GOLDBERG: I would say that we want people to be left alone and not be forced into another way of life. And, again, I say if that's a view of the U.S. it ought to be tested. The best way to test it is to put it into the conference, get international guarantees... We would be happy to have the U.N. Supervise it and bring in countries not directly involved. As to whether I have a more sophisticated view of the war, I'll let you judge that.

WALZER: I want to raise again the question of the human cost of this bloody war. It's inevitable, I'm afraid, that if we choose to fight against guerrilla forces which have substantial popular support, we are going to kill a lot of people who are not guerillas. That's what we are doing in Vietnam. In a report to the House of Representatives last year, Congressman Zablocki of Wisconsin estimated that about 6 civilians were killed for each Viet Cong guerrilla killed in a significant number of U.S. military operations examined by his subcommittee. That is an extremely high figure. There are other sources, for example, French journalists suggest a much higher one. It is unequal, I think, to any war for which we have statistics. The figures for the Second World War, I am told, are about one to one. If the Representative from Wisconsin's estimate is accurate then we killed one quarter of a million Vietnamese civilians in 1965 alone. I get that figure by multiplying the official estimate of Viet Cong killed by 6. Of course the official estimate is insane but it is not a N.Y. Times figure. I would like to ask you Ambassador Goldberg whether you think our ends in Vietnam can possibly justify the extraordinary brutality of our means? And whether we can maintain the freedom of the Vietnamese by killing them and their choice--their right to choose their own government--by subjecting them to a more significant degree of coersion than any country of that size has ever been subjected to. Isn't it possible that a war that can only be fought and won at such a terrible human cost ought not to be fought at all? May I just say very briefly that I don't want to be told that this war is ugly and that all wars are ugly. Some wars are uglier than others and this one is the ugliest in the history of our country.

No Magic Wand

GOLDBERG: My first comment to you and I hope you take it in good spirits, is I have not tried to tell you what not to say so don't now try to tell me what to say in response. Now if you want my response without being censored in what I have to say, I will say it. That is a very simple response. The world has suffered from too much killing. The world is suffering from too much killing. If you want to analyze the killing that is going on, there are many people that have been killed by the millions, far more than the people who have been killed here as a result of repression, in tolerance, and war. My object in life as a lawyer, as a judge and now, is to try to bring some sense into the world community so that a rule of law will operate in the world. That's why I'm where I am. I know of no better way to do this than by trying to bring people together, to accommodate their points of view, to try to arrive at sense, to try to settle their problems by principles of freedom. I, myself, do not want to live under conditions that are not free conditions. I don't accept the concept that that is the type of life that I am ready to lead. Therefore I think the basic principle that is here which we are struggling with--a very difficult principle--is how to discharge our responsibilities in the world as a world power and permit people, as I said, "to be let alone." If there is any notion that this can be done (as is apparent from your remark) by isolating yourself from the world community, we went through that experience and the experience we had was disastrous. It led to the tremendous holocaust where not one (I don't know what your figures are and where you got them) where not one million people were killed--if you took the figures of the Second World War it amounts to some figure that staggers the imagination. What we've got to do, what all of us have to work for, what all people who abhor the thought of war have got to do, is to try to work for an order where that will not be. Now that order cannot be by just wishing that that order can be. That order can only be if people work and take actions that will insure such a world order. That is what I, personally, am about. That is what we are attempting to do. You cannot, with a magic wand, create conditions of peace which you and I would both hope to serve. Nor can you do it by obviating the great concern. And above all things we must avoid action that would allow a third World War to come about. Sometimes limited action, as we all know from our domestic experiences, can prevent more tremendous holocaust. And if there is a justification for our policy, that is the justification of our policy. That is what has to be argued. Not the question that you have put.