"FREEDOM IS AN INDIVISIBLE WORD"

After accepting the first Freedom House award ever given to a President while in office, Lyndon Johnson delivered a tersely eloquent restatement of U.S. aims. Excerpts:

Wendell Willkie, Franklin Roosevelt's opponent in the campaign of 1940, shared his belief that freedom could not be founded only on American shores or only for those whose skin is white. "Freedom is an indivisible word," Wendell Willkie said. "If we want to enjoy it and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone--whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not; no matter what their race or the color of their skin." That was Republican policy 25 years ago. It was Democratic policy 25 years ago. It is American policy tonight.

Tonight, in Viet Nam, more than 200,000 of your young Americans stand there fighting for your freedom. But in these last days there have been questions about what we're doing in Viet Nam.

Open Pledges

Some ask if this is a war for unlimited objectives. The answer is plain. The answer is no. Our purpose in Viet Nam is to prevent the success of aggression. It is not conquest, it is not empire, it is not foreign bases, it is not domination. It is, simply put, just to prevent the forceful conquest of South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam.

Some people ask if we are caught in a blind escalation of force that is pulling us headlong toward a wider war that no one wants. The answer--again--is a simple no. We are using that force--and only that force--that is necessary to stop this aggression. Our numbers have increased in Viet Nam because the aggression of others has increased in Viet Nam. There is not, and there will not be, a mindless escalation.

Some ask about the risks of a wider war, perhaps against the vast land armies of Red China. And again, the answer is no. We have threatened no one, and we will not. We seek the end of no regime, and we will not. Our purpose is solely to defend against aggression. To any armed attack, we will reply.

Men ask if we rely on guns alone. Still again, the answer is no. From our Honolulu meeting, from the clear pledge which joins us with our allies in Saigon, there has emerged a common dedication to the peaceful progress of the people of Viet Nam. The pledge of Honolulu will be kept, and the pledge of Baltimore stands open--to help the men of the North when they have the wisdom to be ready.

Is It Worth It?

Men ask who has a right to rule in South Viet Nam. Our answer is what it has been here for 200 years: the people must have this right--the South Vietnamese people--and no one else. Washington will not impose a government not of their choice. Hanoi shall not impose a government not of their choice. We will insist for ourselves on what we require from Hanoi: respect for the principle of government by the consent of the governed.

Men ask if we're neglecting any hopeful chance of peace. And the answer is no. Our undiscouraged efforts will continue.

Some ask how long we must bear this burden. And to that question, in all honesty, I can give you no answer tonight. If the aggressor persists in Viet Nam, the struggle may well be long. Our men in battle know and they accept this hard fact. We who are home can do as much.

Finally, men ask if it is worth it. I think you know that answer. It is the answer that Americans have given for a quarter of a century wherever American strength has been pledged to prevent aggression. We keep more than a specific treaty promise in Viet Nam tonight. We keep the faith of freedom.

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