No Truce in Saigon

More than a year after the signing of the Paris peace accords, American journalists and officials in Saigon have yet to cement a lasting truce among themselves. The current antagonists: New York Times Correspondent David Shipler, 31, one of the most enterprising of the 30 U.S. correspondents remaining in Saigon, and Ambassador Graham A. Martin, 61, a career diplomat who helped negotiate the agreement with Hanoi. As in similar Saigon disputes dating back a dozen years, this one centers on charges that press coverage has given comfort, if not aid to the enemy.

It started with a 3,500-word story by Shipler published Feb. 25. Shipler had spent six weeks studying the scope of U.S. assistance to the Thieu government. He interviewed privately employed American technicians who service South Viet Nam's military hardware--equipment and maintenance paid for by the U.S. He also sought an explanation of U.S. policy from American officials. The ambassador, who has sharply reduced press access to the embassy since he arrived in August, refused to see him.

Splenetic Reply. Shipler's research led him to describe "a vast program of military aid that continues to set the course of the war." His central thesis:

"Whether the U.S. is breaking the letter of the [Paris] agreements could probably be argued either way. But certainly the aid directly supports South Vietnamese violations and so breaks the spirit of the accords." Shipler found that U.S. technical assistance to South Vietnamese military units sometimes takes the form of tactical advice, an activity forbidden by the Paris agreement. He reported other violations: "Although the Paris agreements explicitly rule out advisers to the police force, the South Vietnamese national police continue to receive regular advice from Americans." The article suggested that extensive and sometimes illegal aid to Saigon must continue as long as U.S. policy is linked to the anti-Communist rule of President Thieu.

The story created little stir in Washington, where many of the facts are well known. Ironically, the Thieu government seemed pleased by the article, broadcasting excerpts over state radio and TV as evidence of the regime's solid U.S. backing. But Martin was splenetic and framed a 4,600-word rebuttal, which he cabled to Washington. He concluded: "Embassy believes the Shipler story and this response might well be made available to the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism as a case study of propaganda under the guise of 'investigative reporting.' "

No Advice. Martin does catch Shipler in some factual errors. (One of Shipier's mistakes, the statement that 2,200 U.S. employees of private defense contractors have left Viet Nam since last July, actually weakens the ambassador's argument; Martin says that only 740 have departed.) But the inaccuracies Martin finds do not undercut Shipler's major points. These Martin attacks with invective and some assertions of his own. The "course of the war" is not set by U.S. aid; rather it is set by "the continuous and continuing Communist buildup." In fact, materiel from both Hanoi and the U.S. contribute to the tempo of military action. Martin never directly claims that there have been no South Vietnamese violations of the ceasefire; he attacks Shipler for not presenting "a shred of evidence" of such violations. "The U.S.," he insists, "has no military advisers in South Viet Nam; no advice is given the Vietnamese in contravention of the Paris agreements." He charges that Shipler's claim of U.S. advice to South Vietnamese police is "utterly false and known to be so by the writer"--whom he has never met.

The rebuttal makes much of Hanoi's hope that the U.S. will reduce aid to Saigon. Martin casts Shipler in the role of Hanoi's tool, witting or unwitting. He refused to see Shipler, he says, because he would not cooperate in a "campaign to grossly deceive the American Congress and the American people."

This clanging rhetoric drowns out certain facts. As has been universally reported, both the Communists and the Thieu forces have regularly violated the ceasefire. Nor is there any question that American equipment and know-how are still of help to Saigon's military machine. TIME Saigon Bureau Chief Gavin Scott concludes that "on balance, Martin's elaborate rebuttal does little to demolish the Shipler story's central theme." Scott points out, though, that Shipler might have chosen one key word more carefully. It is difficult to prove that U.S. assistance "directly" supports violations, as Shipler argued. But there can be no doubt about "indirect" support.

Why did Martin react so angrily? For one thing, he is openly suspicious of the Times. "The editorial page of the New York Times" he said earlier, "as is its inalienable right, has long been generally regarded as having a deep emotional involvement in the success of North Viet Nam's attempt to take over South Viet Nam by force of arms." Martin is also fiercely and understandably committed to preserving a non-Communist South Viet Nam. "I do think it is very important," he told Scott last week, "that in the future, America be able to look back and say that whatever were the mistakes of our involvement, in the end we did a few things right, and that it came out all right."

Shipler contends that his story was not written to dash these hopes: "I'm not an advocate of anything. It's a cliche, but the reporter's function is to observe and report. The story took shape only after a lot of legwork." Shipler also has his boss's support. When Times Managing Editor A.M. Rosenthal arrived in Saigon for a visit last week, he declined Martin's offer of an interview.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.