IS THE Vietnam war just or unjust? My answer to this question must be an ambiguous one, not because I lack an opinion but because of the complex nature of international affairs. In so far as we refer to the war's inhuman aspects and atrocities, there can be no hesitation in calling it an outrage or a tragedy. But war has its own logic. Once it starts, it is bound to go its way--out of the control of the engaged. A succession of brutalities and a subsequent accumulation of hostile feelings increases the impetus to war, thereby leading into unexpected expansion.

An attempt to pass a hasty moral judgment on an international conflict is likely to lead us into an oversimplified formula of thinking and we might fall into an endless circular debate. To avoid this, let's adopt a more realistic point of view. The realistic viewpoint in this case requires us first to examine what this local war signifies in the context of international politics and what its possible solutions are.

There is neither absolute good nor absolute evil in the reality of international affairs. What really exists, it seems to me, are the national interests of various countries and the collision of these interests. In some fortunate cases, these conflicts can be solved by peaceful means, but not always. Sometimes they have to be solved through direct confrontation by force. Unfortunately, the Vietnam situation is of the latter case.

Inevitable Tension?

When the United States emerged from World War II as a victor, it began its role as a big power deeply involved in Asian politics. Communist China also appeared, claiming to be a new power center of international politics in Asia. Since the U.S. has kept its concern in this area keen--in terms of seeking better deployment for its national interest, the two powers went very rapidly into rivalry. As is obvious, mutual distrust has ensued.

This is why tension and conflict remain, and have, in fact, increased, in the Asian arena of international politics while the danger in the Western arena has decreased. In Europe the antagonism between the two confronting powers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., climaxed in a series of Berlin crises and in the Cuban crisis. But from the brink of nuclear war, the two powers have turned to peaceful coexistence--so much so that the once-allied European nations seem now to have lost any interest in NATO, the establishment of the cold war era.

Detente, however, has not been brought about in a straight way. We have seen many ups-and-downs and zig-zags on the path to the present thaw in the cold war. But in trudging laboriously along the difficult and dangerous way to equilibrium, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to learn to accommodate themselves with the status quo rather than seek abrupt changes in the balance of power. They seemed to have realized that accommodation with each other is to their common interest.

I WOULD like to compare the Western experience in Europe to the Asian situation today. It is undeniable that the Vietnam war is, in a broad sense, a product of Sino-American collision in Asia. And the two powers behind the present conflict will sooner or later come to realize that they cannot win a complete victory by mere force. The U.S. seems to be aware that it cannot defeat Communist China, the great power reserve behind the Ho regime, without precipitating all-out nuclear war. And China, even before it fell into the present state of confusion, seemed to know that the U.S. is militarily unbeatable. This rational realization will eventually compel both sides to a political settlement of the war.

But the process of reaching a peace is not an easy or smooth one. As yet neither side has been so impressed with the futility of the violent fire war or of escalation to seek a negotiated end to the war. The process involves, perhaps, a few more moves of stepping-up and stepping-back in the war effort before either side is ready to come to peace without complete victory or defeat. If viewed in this same light, a dispatch of Korean troops, sent to Vietnam at the request of the U.S., could be a factor contributing to eventual peace.

No Peace Without Equilibrium?

The Vietnam war is, no doubt, a great misfortune for the Vietnamese themselves, more than for anyone else. The earlier a peace comes, the more happiness they will have. The ideal settlement would be a solution on the principle of self-determination. Realistic reasoning tells us, however, that we can hardly expect an independent Vietnam on that principle without equilibrium first emerging between the U.S. and mainland China. Although this view may not contain any concrete solution to the war, I believe it is nonetheless the objective view of the real meaning of the Vietnam war today.

The Effects of a Rigorous Doctrine

Some Westerners seem inclined to believe that communism with its platform of land reform and intensive mobilization of manpower for industrialization is the most effective approach to economic growth for underdeveloped countries. But I must call their attention to the fact that most of the Asian people are aspiring to political freedom as well as seeking economic development. They are striving to modernize their traditional societies on their own terms. They have become wary of the costly and unhappy results that some Asian countries have had to suffer from the rigorous but ineffective execution of economic programs under the strict doctrine of communism. Ideology has no more appeal for them than it has for people in the rest of the world.

The new tide of freedom-welfare seeking efforts among peoples of the Asia-Pacific community is an eloquent proof or their mounting realization that an extreme doctrinism, of one kind or another, is good only for a few fanatics but doesn't really help the people very much.

This is a significant change in the tendency of Asian, people. More significant is the fact that this general movement towards the peaceful revolution of society has developed rapidly while the U.S. and China have still remained engrossed in the struggle--the final stage of trial before they reach equilibrium and reason. Indeed, the U.S. government, especially since the Kennedy administration, has been awakened to the disastrous shortcomings of its Asian foreign policy and to its deplorable ignorance of Asian psychology. Recent years have seen that American follies, such as an unbalanced stress on military assistance (instead of emphasis upon substantial support for economic development), and a superficial understanding of the indigenous conditions of Asian societies, are being, at last, redressed.

Just as rapprochement between the two major powers, has become the essential factor to the political stability of the Atlantic Community, equilibrium between the U.S. and China is indispensable for peace in the Asia-Pacific community. The Vietnam war has to be grasped in this realistic and historical perspective. Even though the present situation of Asia is still tense, we need not worry too much, so long as the will of the Asian people for peace and prosperity persists and an "enlightenment" of U.S. foreign policy can help it along