Letter from Paris

The letters column of a newspaper presents its readers with a public forum in which to judge the quality of its journalism--if they choose to write and if the paper chooses to publish their letters. Last week, with a remarkable display of willingness to let its critics speak, the New York Times printed a column-long letter containing one of the sharpest attacks to date of its coverage of the war in Viet Nam. The writer: Frederick E. Nolting Jr., 55, a U.S. diplomat for 17 years, former U.S. Ambassador to South Viet Nam, and now a Paris-based vice president of the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. Excerpts from his letter to the Times:

"Twice in recent months you have published news articles from your correspondent in Saigon, Charles Mohr, which tempt me to comment. In his news article about elections for the Vietnamese Constituent Assembly, Mr. Mohr said: 'It was a momentous event in the history of a people who have never had representative, honestly elected self-government.' Again, in the edition of Oct. 2, Mr. Mohr wrote from Saigon: The members of the Assembly have been chosen in the first really free and fair national election ever held here.' These statements, I think, carry on a tradition ot" misleading and prejudiced reporting on Vietnam by certain New York Times correspondents extending over a number of years."

"Why Distort?" "Your correspondent and your editors undoubtedly know of the two elections in South Vietnam (1955 and 1961) in which Ngo Dinh Diem was elected and then re-elected President of the Republic of Vietnam. You must also be aware that the National Assembly was for eight years the elected legislative body of South Vietnam, functioning under the Vietnamese Constitution, until the overthrow of the Diem Government on Nov. 1, 1963. Elections were held for the National Assembly as late as October 1963--a month before a group of Vietnamese generals, encouraged by the United States Government, illegally seized power (and assassinated President Diem).

"The attempt to define representative government is as old as Plato, but, by any reasonable definition, the Vietnamese people certainly had more of it under President Diem--than they have had since his overthrow. They had a Constitution (modeled on that of the United States), they had an elected legislative body, they had a Cabinet of responsible ministers, they had a Supreme Court, they had an elected President. Even though the minds of the people had been attuned for generations to authoritarian rule, they were beginning to learn the rudiments of self-government through institutions developed during Diem's eight years as constitutional President.

"Why does The Times continue to distort the record on Vietnam? The reason, I think, is clear. The overthrow of Diem--which left a vacuum so great that 300,000 Americans and $2 billion a month seem insufficient to fill it--was due in no small part to the influence of The Times. A weak Department of State would not stand up to the pressure. The Times attacked the Diem Government directly in its editorials and inferentially in its news reports. President Kennedy became sensitive to the charge of supporting a 'Catholic' government in a 'Buddhist' country. In the fall of 1963 American support was withdrawn from President Diem, and the elected constitutional government of Vietnam was overthrown.

"Our country has been paying increasingly in blood and treasure ever since. Neither The Times nor the Administration admits this unpleasant background, but the deaths each week of 100 dutiful American soldiers should keep us from forgetting it."

By Cable, Too. Nolting went on to urge "a strong and effective military shield" to protect the new development of democracy in Viet Nam and argued against any compromise with North Viet Nam. "On this point also," he concluded, "I find myself in opposition to the prevailing views of The Times."

The Times printed the letter without comment, noting only that "the writer served as U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, 1961-63." But the paper and the ambassador are old acquaintances. "He has been criticizing our position for years," said Editorial Page Editor John B. Oakes, "back to the time he was ambassador. He tried to get us to change our position at the time. By cable, as a matter of fact."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.