STAR acknowledged on January 3rd that the U.S. policy in South Vietnam “have never been popular here” and “the American losses have mounted in recent weeks and the Vietnamese continued to demonstrate an inability to create a stable government, frustration here has risen.” This, the paper said, was reflected by a number of Senators, in recently
made ‘“‘we-never-should-have-becomeinvolved - in - the - first - place” statements. According to the paper, Richard Russell, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said recently, “I thought we made a terrible mistake getting involved in Vietnam. I don’t know just how we can get out now, but the time is at hand when we must re-evaluate our position.” Senator Frank Church also believed that the United States was “mistaken” when it decided at first to intervene in South Vietnam. “Our present policy,” he said, “is leading us toward the same calamity as befell the French 10 years ago.” —_ Earlier, Senate Democratic Party Leader Mike Mansfield and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee J. William Fulbright had criticised — gently or sharply—U.S. policy in Vietnam.” Some other Senators, however, advocated increasing U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. They even openly called for expansion of the war. The ASSOCIATED PRESS reported on January 6th that only 81 of the 100 Senators responded to its recent survey on the U.S. policy in South Vietnam. “Eight indicated they had no suggestions, and 24 refused to comment at all.” The report added, “there were conflicting undercurrents of Senate sentiment for outright U.S. withdrawal or for expansion of the U.S.-backed warfare. But those views came only from a handful of Senators.” The opinion of many others reflected the present U.S. “dilemma” in South Vietnam; they “reluctantly” expressed their support for the present U.S. policy and “saw it as a temporary measure.” The report quoted Senator Milward Simpson (Republican) as saying, “I do not know precisely what changes should be brought about in American policy in Vietnam, but I do know that we can neither withdraw nor cling to the precarious status quo which is causing us to lose the war in which so many Americans already have died.” Another Senator who did not want to be identified said, “I don’t know how you get off a tiger’s back.”
Jan. 20, 1965 — THE WEEK
SPAIN
Living costs soar
ONTRARY to the optimism about.
the political, economic and
social position of Spain, expressed by
General Franco in his annual New
Year message, “Arriba,” organ of the
Falange movement — the only legal
political party in the country—
admitted on 1st January, 1965, that
the cost of living has increased con-
siderably during 1964. Underlining
that food prices have risen more than
prices for other consumer goods, the
paper stressed that the index had in-
creased by 7.3 per cent. for the
period from January to September
last year.
The real figure, however, is much
higher, and according to expert esti-
mates, the Spanish workers’ cost of
living rose by over 25 per cent. in
1964 while wages remained at the
same level, with small increases in
some industrial enterprises. The
general demand of workers for 150
pesetas (2.50 US dollars or 18 shil-
lings sterling) minimum daily wage
was only obtained in exceptional
cases. According to estimates made
by the Employers’ Association of
Madrid, the daily budget of a married
worker with two children living in
Madrid is 186 pesetas (about 3.10
dollars or one pound two shillings
sterling). The legal minimum daily
wage in Spain is, however, only 60
pesetas (one US dollar or seven shil-
lings sterling).
“Arriba” also revealed that unem-
ployment amongst agricultural
workers has increased. In Septem-
ber 1964 there were 52,000 unem-
ployed agricultural workers, compared
with 24,000 in September 1963.
A few days before delivering his
New Year message, General Franco
promulgated a new law entitled “law
on freedom of association,” which
was passed by the Cortes, the Spanish
version of Parliament, on 22nd
December, 1964. Contrary to its
name, this law is aimed to ban all
organisations opposed to the principles
of the Falange movement and other
basic statutes of the present dictatorial
regime, or to moral or public order, or
which “represent a danger to the
political and social unity of Spain.”
ee
THE WEEK — Jan. 20, 1965 NEW .YORK —
from Fred Halstead Le