Bingham, Jonathan B. "Dr. Martin Luther King: Extension of Remarks
of Hon. Jonathan B. Bingham of New York in the House of
Representatives." Congressional Record 113, Part 7
(April 5, 1967), H8497.
FULL TEXT
"Extension of Remarks of Hon. Jonathan B. Bingham of New York
in the House of Representatives"
Dr. Martin Luther King
Extension of Remarks
Hon. Jonathan B. Bingham of New York in the House of Representatives
Wednesday, April 5, 1967
MR. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I believe Dr. Martin Luther King has made
a tragic mistake in his speech yesterday on the Vietnam war. In my
judgment, his statement will actually do harm to the two causes he
wants to serve: civil rights in America and a peaceful settlement in
Vietnam. I say this with a heavy heart as one who has been a longtime
admirer of Dr. King and has contributed to his civil rights work, and
as one who has consistently urged the administration to take more
vigorous and more courageous steps to achieve an honorable negotiated
settlement in Vietnam, including suspension of bombing in the north.
If all American Negroes were to refuse to serve in Vietnam, as Dr.
King urges, they would be stepping out of the mainstream of American
life. They would be giving aid and comfort to the bigots who want to
keep them segregated and in ghettoes.
I deeply share Dr. King's unhappiness that vital domestic programs
aimed at wiping out poverty and assuring equal rights for all are
suffering because of the fiscal demands of the Vietnam conflict. That
is one of many reasons why I desperately want to see a speedy end to
the conflict. But such a speedy end cannot be achieved by military
action, and it cannot be achieved by a U.S. withdrawal because such
an abandonment of U.S. commitments is as a practical matter out of the
question. It can only come, therefore, through negotiation.
The tragedy is that a statement like Dr. King's represents a setback for
the possibility of meaningful negotiations. Coming as it did on the heels
of Hanoi's rejection of U Thant's cease-fire proposals, which had been
substantially accepted by the United States and South Vietnam, Dr. King's
speech can only be interpreted by Hanoi as approval of its intransigent
stand. Accordingly, Hanoi will be encouraged to continue to believe that
if it goes on refusing either a mutual cease-fire or negotiations,
eventually the United States will get tired of it all and quit.
This is a mistaken conclusion, I am sure, but apparently Hanoi
believes it.
Dr. King's five-point program, while containing some sound proposals,
is in other respects wholly unrealistic. He urges, for example:
The declaration of a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such
action would create an atmosphere for negotiation.
He does not say what course he would favor if his "hope" were
not realized and a bilateral cease-fire and negotiations did not
follow, and if a firm date for U.S. withdrawal had also been set,
as he further proposes, Hanoi would have no incentive whatever to
cease firing and negotiate.
As reported in the New York Times, Dr. King's description of what
is happening in Vietnam is fearfully one sided and distorted. There
was apparently no mention of the important steps recently taken in
South Vietnam in the direction of constitutional and representative
government; no mention of the constructive civil programs being carried
on in South Vietnam by dedicated and courageous Americans of all races;
no mention of Hanoi's consistent rejection of peace overtures made by
U Thant, the Pope, and President Johnson. His description, which is not
based on firsthand observation but on secondhand reports, appears to
proceed on the theory that the information presented by the other
side's propagandists is accurate. He virtually ignores not only all
information furnished by the American Government, but also what has
been reported by most American and foreign correspondents in South
Vietnam.
Finally, I believe that Dr. King is cruel in telling American Negro
fighting men in Vietnam that they are the victims of discrimination.
I am reliably informed that Negroes are being drafted into our Armed
Forces today in almost exactly the same ratio to whites as obtains in
the U.S. population, about 11 percent. The reason the proportion of
Negroes in the fighting forces in Vietnam is higher than that is
because of a very high reenlistment rate among Negroes.
One last point needs to be made: While it is true that the slowdown
in antipoverty and other urban programs caused by the Vietnam conflict
is hurting disadvantaged Negroes, it is also hurting, without
discrimination, other disadvantaged groups in the population,
including the hard-pressed aged, the handicapped, the undereducated
children, the unskilled poor, the slum dwellers. Many of these are
Negro, but more are not.
|
|
|