Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part-VI-A.djvu/57

listing US public statements concerning a desire for unconditional negotiations it added "but as soon as the DRV Government declared that the two sides could have a talk after the United States had stopped for good and unconditionally its bombing of North Vietnam, it (the US) immediately changed its language." all US protestations of willingness to talk "are merely aimed at fooling the people of the world and the American people and covering up their escalation acts." A February 15 Nhan Dan editorial scored the US for demanding a reciprocal act from the other side for a cessation of bombing. It asserted "by this it wanted to use military pressure to force people to talk with them." (VNA, 15 and 16 February)

On 1 March, Nhan Dan accused the US of "changing its tune." The article said in January, McNamara had said the US would be willing to stop the bombing "without any action on their part preceding it, with no firm guarantee as to what they would do, but with just some general indication of how they would act." Yet when "... Trinh showed the DRV Government's goodwill to be ready to talk with the US on the condition that the latter stop definitively and unconditionally its bombing raids and other acts of war against the DRV, the Johnson clique immediately changed its tune and in response ... escalated further." Nhan Dan said Trinh had expressed this goodwill in the Burchett interview. It claimed the US was trying to force the "Vietnamese people to hold negotiations under (US) conditions," said this could not happen and asserted "the best alternative for the US is to recognize the four- point stand of the DRV Government." (VNA, 1 March 1967)

SOVIET press response to the bombing resumption was one of disappointment that the US failed to accept Trinh's proposal. One item criticized the President for ignoring the DRV's constructive proposals, another reported on the critical disappointment expressed by various prominent American and foreign politicians. A story from Hanoi characterized as a deliberate lie the attempt by the US to justify the bombing on the grounds that Hanoi had showed no effort toward a peaceful settlement. In this connection, it referred to Trinh's statement, and a series of "other serious steps," as well as to Ho Chi Minh's reply to Pope Paul. Kosygih, Podgorny, and Brezhnev stressed the importance of Trinh's statement in speeches given during early March. Kosygin called it "an extremely important peaceful initiative" and

castigated the United States for failing to respond. He said the recent escalation showed the US is not interested in peace. Kosygin also accused the Chinese Communists of "disregarding" Trinh's statement. Podgorny said the "Mao Tse-tung group is opposed to the proposal and... its designs in connection with the war in Vietnam do not correspond with the views of the DRV Government."