The first discussion evening at the University of Oslo was concerned with the most popular and crucial international subject of the day; namely, Vietnam, a sufficiently controversial theme to allow for abundant response and even more abundant thought. The purpose of the evening was not to pat solutions to a complex problem but rather to hear three opposing opinions, ponder these views, and thereby create some sort of order out of the mire of facts.
The first guest, Mr. Frank Bjerkholt from Morgenbladet, independent conservative Oslo daily, assumed a decidedly more charitable attitude toward the United States than did the others on the panel. He stated that “the war in Vietnam is no longer a civil war” but an openly aggressive conflict between two powers. The basic motive of the United States, Mr. Bjerkholt said, was to put a stop to this aggression. A particularly impressive observation was that he, himself, knew of no Asian government which wanted the United States to withdraw. Mr. Bjerkholt closed by saying that he thought that Asia, including South Vietnam, would be well able to find its own identity once armed intervention from all interested parties had ceased.
The “greed for power and self-interest” was the root of the problem in Vietnam said Mr. Kjell Landmark of the Central Committee of the Socialist’s People Party. Mr. Landmark based this statement on the belief that the division between the developed and developing nations (the “bamboo curtain”) was the crux of the entire situation. He suggested that had the United States invested economic aid when she financed the French war in Vietnam, she might have accomplished much more. His judgment of the situation now, however, was that “the United States is on its way to destroy a whole nation.” He predicted that the problem in Vietnam would arise again in other times and places because this was a “symptom of a world in change and a new world to come.” The poor countries needed to decide for themselves the kind of government they wanted and then have that government.
Mr. Per Frydenberg, Deputy Director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, took an unusual position by ignoring all moral, ethical, and ideological concepts as being totally irrelevant to the Vietnamese war. He explained that the war was an “attempt to establish new spheres of interest.” In a world where large, powerful states—have been trying to influence the smaller nations. Concerning the United States, he questioned whether it had clear-cut aims, whether these goals were attainable, and whether the costs involved merited a war. Mr. Frydenberg stated in conclusion that the issue would have to be solved through an agreement among the three major powers.
The evening of contradictions and conflicts of opinion resulted on numerous questions and even dissertations from the audience. Many left the discussion still clinging staunchly to their original ideas, but hopefully there were flickers of doubt that encourage re-evaluations of judgments hastily formed.