Nation: Thieu: Determined and Defiant

How does South Viet Nam’s President Nguyen Van Thieu feel about his own role in the U.S. debate over the war? In an unusually candid hour-long interview with TIME Correspondent Marsh Clark last week, Thieu stoutly defended his government and insisted on its continuance at least until the elections scheduled for 1971. Among the questions and answers:

Q. Our side has been making concessions—stopping the bombing, redeploying troops, offering to let the Communists participate legally in political affairs in South Viet Nam. Do you think this has led to any progress in Paris?

A. Up to now, I do not see any signs of progress. Why? I believe the Communists are convinced they cannot win this war. And so they are counting on the impatience of the American people. They are playing up to those who will accept peace at any price.

Q. Do you believe that this strategy will be successful?

A. I don’t know whether it will be successful or not, but I hope that American public opinion will be patient. I think we have made enough concessions. I have made honorable proposals to end the war. And I believe I cannot do anything else without surrendering the country.

Q. Two of the Communists’ main points are these: 1) there must be a complete withdrawal of American troops from Viet Nam, and 2) there must be a change of government in Saigon. First, do you think it is possible for American troops to be withdrawn completely prior to a ceasefire?

A. We feel capable of replacing you gradually. We are ready to do our best to replace your forces not in one year, but over a period of years.

Q. But how long is this going to take? You say over a period of years. That scares Americans.

A. You came here to help us repulse the aggressors. As long as we are not capable of doing this by ourselves, you must remain to help us.

Q. Can you conceive of any circumstance in which you would agree to their demand for a change in government?

A. We must not fall into their trap to, in effect, overthrow ourselves. I do not see any circumstance in which we must change the government, except when the people of South Viet Nam say, “We don’t want Thieu and Vice President Ky any longer.” And if they don’t want Thieu and Ky any longer, they have the opportunity to say so in the elections in 1971.

Q. Can you conceive of any circumstance in which there would be a change of government before the 1971 elections?

A. I don’t see any possibility. That is, unless the Americans withdraw all troops, refuse to furnish us ammunition and weapons, and cease altogether helping us fight the Communists. Then we could be overthrown by the Communists.

Q. Do you see anything we can do to get negotiations moving? Some people mention de facto ceasefire.

A. I don’t believe this is a practical way. We would like to have frank negotiations to settle the war, which will bring a solution to the conflict as a whole. A cease-fire is only the beginning step which leads to a real cessation of hostilities. We must not fall into their trap to have a cease-fire in advance of a solution of the overall war. The Communists will exploit the ceasefire to strengthen their forces, to promote the war. Instead of ending the war, you prolong it.

Q. Going back to yourself, has the suggestion ever been made to you by the American Government that the only way to end the war is to have a new government in Saigon?

A. No.

Q. Do you see any possibility that the pressure of public opinion in the U.S. to end the war might force the Nixon Administration to push for new leadership in Saigon?

A. I must make this clear. The U.S. says it has come here to help the people of South Viet Nam determine for themselves their way of life, their choice of government. So you must not interfere in our internal affairs.

Q. May I ask the question again: Do you see any signs or any possibility that American public opinion will force President Nixon to accede to the Communists’ demand that you and Vice President Ky . . .

A. Suppose the Americans would do so. Suppose President Nixon would do so. But you cannot force the South Vietnamese people to do so.

Q. What you are saying, then, is that it is mandatory that your government remain in power until replaced under the constitution?

A. Yes.

Q. Let us consider a hypothetical proposition. If someone came to you and said, “If you resign, I can guarantee that peace will be restored and South Viet Nam will have the right to determine its own fate,” would you resign?

A. I have no reason to resign. I am doing well.

Q. What do you see now as the scenario of what will happen?

A. We must continue to promote democracy, promote social reform, strengthen our nation in all fields. We will permit the men who are fighting against us to become full citizens under a liberal, democratic regime. What happens? They reject that. They continue the war. They will lose the war. We want to stop the bloodshed. I don’t believe in wars, ancient or modern. Nobody could be more generous in offering solutions than we are toward people who have been killing the people of South Viet Nam for many years. We are ready to become friends from today, from tomorrow.

Q. And you don’t see the possibility that American public opinion, which is verv vocal . . .

A. I hope, I request, that American public opinion will understand. I hope it will understand that we are not the invaders. We are the defenders. We have not invaded North Viet Nam. We have not asked them to replace Ho Chi Minh. Why should we change the government of Thieu-Ky, the legal government? They won’t stop making demands after the overthrow of Thieu and Ky. You can put Mr. A or Mr. B or Mr. C in this government, and this won’t stop the demands. They are not trying to overthrow the man. They are trying to overthrow the legal government, because the legality is our strength. Since the beginning of the war, the Communists have told their people: “We have two goals to achieve—to repulse the foreign aggressors, who are the Americans, and to overthrow the legal government elected by the people of South Viet Nam.” If we permit them to do that, then they have reached the ultimate goal. They won a war in Paris in 1954, not at Dienbienphu. And this time they are trying to win the war in Washington, while they are losing it in Viet Nam. We must not let them continue to play this game.

And if some day the Americans say, “We are withdrawing all our troops and leaving you alone,” do not believe that only Thieu and Ky will continue to fight on. Vice President Ky says that if a coalition government is put in Saigon, the army will overthrow it. I say, “No, not only the army but 17 millions of people will overthrow the coalition.” We will continue to fight until we win —or until we lose.

Q. If the war went along as it does now, with the Communists keeping up the same level of hostilities but not intensifying the war, how long would it take before most of the American troops could be withdrawn? Are we talking about two years, five years?

A. I have a very clear plan. If they don’t intensify? I can tell you that if you help us get ready to fight the enemy, in 1970 we can replace the bulk of American troops in Viet Nam.