From: nnguyen@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Nguyen Nguyen)
Subject: Re: Normalization w/ Hanoi
Keywords: Normalize Hanoi
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 17:03:57 GMT


Bravo!!!

Max, I agree with what you wrote below almost 100%.

I'm more of a realist.  I think the embago will be lifted whether people
like it or not.  This is because many big American businesses will lobby
the US government to allow them get into the Vietnamese market.  Case in
point, Boeing is trying very hard to sell its Air Buses to Vietnam.  However,
Boeing's hands are tied because of the embago.  Another example, Vietnam
just granted a bid to a Australian Telephone company to build its telephone
network.  This drives AT&T crazy.  

As a Vietnamese living oversea, I think the question that needs to be asked
is how can the lifting of the embago help the Vietnamese people.  There are
two things that I want to see as the result of the lifting of the embago.

	1)  A multi-party system for the Vietnam.  I'd like to see Vietnam
	    to have a free election.  You might ask what does the lifting
	    the embago has to do with this.  Well, the lifting of the embago
	    will force Vietnam to open its door even more.  This will allow
	    those conservatives see that mono-party system is a dead horse.

	2)  Improve Vietnam economy.  There is no doubt that there will be 
	    exploitation of labor and resources by big companies.  This can
	    be contrained by setting a more formal regulations for business
	    practices in Vietnam.  Right now, there is almost no rule to 
	    protect the lalor, resources and the environment in Vietnam.
	    The regulation must be applied thoughout the country (instead
	    of locally), and it must be flexible enough so that it doesn't 
	    scare away the investors.

For the relationship between US, China and Vietnam, the concept of "A bigger
fish is better than a smaller one" is always used by the US.  That was exactly
why the US dropped South Vietnam like a rock and went to normalize relation
with Red China.  I wouldn't be surprise if the US stand on China's side if
conflict breaks out between Vietnam and China.  For Vietnam, it has to be
wise.  It will cost Vietnam more if Vietnam stand alone to fight China.  I can
see that the ASEAN will stand on Vietnam side if conflict breaks out, because
there is a saying "If mouth is openned, your teeth will be cold".  I'd say
that Vietnam is like a gate to SouthEast Asia.

Nguyen Nguyen


----------- Max's reponse to Carlyle included below -----------------------

becherer@suna7.cs.uiuc.edu (Max Becherer) writes:

>Carlyle A. Thayer writes...I respond!

>-The United States is out of step with Southeast Asian regional states and
>-its NATO allies on the question of diplomatic recognition of Vietnam and in
>-maintaining the trade/aid embargo. Since the signing of the Paris Agreement
>-on Cambodia (October 1991) all of the ASEAN states have restored normal
>-diplomatic relations with Vietnam including Singapore. Vietnam's premier
>-(chu tich hoi dong bo truong) has visited all six ASEAN states at least
>-once.China and Vietnam have normalized relations, while Taiwan and South
>-Korea have established quasi-diplomatic posts in the guise of trade
>-missions.

>    So what if the United States is out of step ?  If you are doing what is
>right, do you stop just because it's not popular ?  Not unless you have the
>backbone of a chocolate eclaire! 

>-The witholding of US diplomatic recognition counts for little. It is mainly
>-symbolic.  Vietnam has opened to the outside world. I attended a
>-Thanksgiving Dinner at the Dan Chu Hotel in Hanoi last November which was
>-attended by 60 or so Americans resident in Hanoi. The concensus of all the
>-Asian-Pacific states mentioned above, and their European counterparts
>-(mentioned below) is that the US should end its aid and trade embargo and
>-restore diplomatic relations.

>     Not true, the embargo is very important, and here's why:

> A: The United States can IMF loans, and many other types of development aid.
> B: The illegitimate regime in Vietnam will use US recognition as a 
>    propaganda tool to try to demoralize its (numerous) enemies at home.
>    You are right, it is symbolic, but symbolism can be VERY important.
> C: See * below.
> D: See ** below.

> As far as the people you met in the hotel, of course they want the embargo
> lifted!  They have vested interests in trade with Vietnam.  Do you really
> think THE most important issue, namely freedom and human rights for the
> Vietnamese people, figures big in their decisions ?  If so, think again!
> 
>-On two recent visits, my eighth and ninth since 1981, I met Viet Kieu
>-(Overseas Vietnamese) from the United States in Hanoi who were negotiating
>-business deals. Indeed in November 1991 I stayed at the Nha Khac Ban Viet
>-Kieu Trung Uong (the Party's Guest House for Overseas Vietnamese). I met
>-information science specialists from France as well as former members of
>-the Thieu regime resident in California negotiating construction contracts.
>-In July-August this year I met many more Viet Kieu in Ho Chi Minh city,
>-including a group from Australia, also doing business. Qantas Airlines now
>-has a direct flight (9 hours) from Sydney to Saigon and it is full of
>-Overseas Vietnamese. Australia's Telecom makes a profit routing calls from
>-Vietnam to America via Australia. You can freely buy the Asian Wall Street
>-Journal (Dow Jones) and International Herald Tribune in Hanoi and on the
>-streets of Saigon. VOA, the BBC, Radio Australia etc. all come in loud and
>-clear and are not jammed.

>    The Vietnamese people have many words for Viet Kieu who go back to VN
>to deal with the Communists; Ban Nuoc comes to mind.  Ban Nuoc literally
>means "sell country", i.e., traitor.  The overwhelming concensus in overseas
>Vietnamese communities is that it is wrong to do business with Hanoi, and 
>that Vietnamese who do so are Ban Nuoc.

>    Once again, talk aplenty about economics; what about freedom and human
>rights.

>-Australian Government officials consider the US embargo the greatest single
>-obstacle to the full integration of Vietnam into the Asia-Pacific *
>-community. The end of the embargo would have two immediate effects: it
>-would permit investment in infrastructure projects and permit US oil
>-companies to invest in off-shore oil exploration. The Vietnamese government
>-expects little else. Australia has restored direct bilateral aid to
>-Vietnam, suspended since Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. France, Italy, the
>-United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland - and others -
>-all provide aid to Vietnam. Japan is about to step out of the line drawn by
>-Washington.

>    * Here you contradict your earlier statement that the embargo counts
>    for little.  

>    Once again, lots of talk about exploiting Vietnam, making a buck, but  
>    no mention of freedom and human rights.

>-Australia fought along side the United States as an ally in the Vietnam
>-War. It too had a number of MIA cases. However, as a result of Canberra's
>-early recognition of the Hanoi regime (in 1973 after the Paris Peace
>-Agreements), Australia has been able to investigate and settle these cases.
>-Australia has developed a robust relationship with the Hanoi government.
>-Australia's Ambassador and visiting Australian Ministers, like their
>-European Community counterparts, regularly bring up human rights abuses in
>-their discussions with Vietnamese officials. Do they have any effect? Well
>-the mercenary Vo Dai Ton, who attempted to violently overthrow the Hanoi
>-government (I use this language specifically to indicate he does not
>-qualify for prisoner of conscience status) was released after having been
>-caught trying to inflitrate the country. He is now back in Australia
>-denouncing the communist regime. French intervention brought the release
>-from house detention of writer and radical critic Duong Thu Huong.
>-Recently, a very senior Minister in the Australian government brought the
>-cased of the United Buddhist Church and detention of several Venerable
>-Monks to the attention of Hanoi. I don't often agree with President Bush,
>-but he argues that the lines of communication must be kept open with China
>-if the US is to have any influence. Why not the same logic for Vietnam?

>      At last! Lip service to human rights.  I may sound cynical, but this 
>IS just lip service, and here's why:

>      Paying lip service to human rights is the Politically Correct thing
>for governments to do when they want to get in bed with a totalitarian
>regime.  Do you really think that all those ucrative contracts would be
>treatened if Hanoi deadpan said that it will not change its treatment of the
>Vietnamese people ?  If so, you are naive.
>      Sure, Hanoi released a few prisoners here and there.  That's tokenism:
>releasing a few well-known prisoners to silence critics abroad.  Releasing
>a few will not threaten the regime, and the basic nature of Vietnamese 
>communism remains unchanged.  Here's a good example:
>      A few years ago, China released dissident astrophysicist Fang Lixi to
>much hoopla in the Western media.  This has been followed up by additional
>releases of carefully chosen dissidents.  Has the human rights situation in
>China changed at all ?  Yes, it has...it's gotten worse.
>     In short, while I am certainly happy for the people Hanoi released under
>foreign pressure, their release is meaningless.  There are tens of thousands 
>of Vietnamese rotting in concenteration camps in Vietnam.  Until they are 
>free, and major changes are made in the way Vietnam is governed, Vietnam's
>human rights record will remain abysmal.

>      I don't know much about Vo Dai Ton, but calling him a mercenary is
>probably a bit harsh.  A mercenary is someone who fights because he is paid 
>to, not because he cares about the cause.  Almost cretainly, Vo Dai Ton was
>fighting for the people, not the paycheck.  

>      Also, I don't agree with President Bush, I say we slam the door on the
>Butchers of Beijing!

>-There are pragmatic grounds for the US to recognize Vietnam and establish
>-diplomatic relations. Firstly, as the Woodcock Mission (sent by President
>-Jimmy Carter) reported in the mid-1970s, the US would make more progress in
>-clearing up the MIA quesiton by having an Embassy on the spot, equipped
>-with vehicles and other tools of the trade and trained specialists, than by
>-not having a permanent presence. Secondly, US business interests are being
>-cut out as an increasing number of countries begin to sign contracts and do
>-deals with Vietnam. Vietnam appears to be holding some off-shore oil leases
>-for US companies, but this won't be the case forever. Finally, while
>-Vietnam is economically weak, isolated, and cut off from military support
>-from the former Soviet Union, it is falling prey to Chinese expansionism in
>-the Gulf of Tonkin and the Spratly Islands. It is in America's interests to
>-see China push itself into the region and upset the prevailing balance? The
>-US has declared it has no interest in this matter. Ask Manila, Kuala
>-Lumpur, Jakarta and Bangkok. They want the US to remain and normalize
>-relations with Vietnam. I think regional stability would be made more
>-secure if Vietnam were permitted to develop closer relations with regional
>-states and not be hobbled by a continued aid/trade embargo. ** I would also
>-like to see the pro-China lobby in Vietnam stymied, East Asian socialism is
>-not dead (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). I have a forthcoming article
>-on this entitled, 'Comrade Plus Brother: Sino-Vietnamese Relations' to
>-appear in the next issue of Pacific Review (London).

>      So, you are willing to sell the Vietnamese people down the drain in the
>name of geopolitics.  Thats very admirable...
> 
>      **Vietnam is hobbled right now (another self-contradiction), and I feel
>that is a good thing.  Any aid given to Hanoi will benefit that illegitimate
>regime, not the Vietnamese people.  The rationale that we should aid Hanoi to
>help the Vietnamese people is tantamount to giving money to a slave owner in
>the hopes that a little will trickle down to the slaves.  

>      You are right, unfortunately, East Asian Communism is not dead. On the
>bright side, however, is the fact that it has no future.  In the long run, no
>system that crushes the spirits of its people can succeed.  (by the way, you
>should add Burma (aka Myanmar) to your list.

>-As for the recent e-mail flurry of instant judgments about the stability of
>-the Hanoi regime, I don't know even where to begin. I spent July-August in
>-Vietnam - Hanoi, Quang Nam-Da Nang, Thua Thien-Hue and Ho Chi Minh City
>-observing the recent elections of deputies to the National Assembly. I find
>-predictions about the imminent collapse of the Hano regime exaggerated.
>-There is little evidence of substantial opposition to the regime or any
>-credible alternatives basd in Vietnam. Anti-Communist Overseas Vietnamese
>-may disagree but I feelthey are sadly mislead bytheir own propaganda.
>-Vietnam is still an authoritarian system, but the number of contacts that
>-Vietnamese-speaking outsiders now have provides information unavailable
>-several years ago. Vietnamese returning from Vietnam  provide little
>-evidence to support the prediction that the regime will collapse as its
>-fraternal allies did in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

>     I think we're using the word 'election' a little loosely here.  There
>was an event in Vietnam which superficially resembled an election earlier
>this year.  Let's take a closer look at it, however.

>       A: All candidates had to be either members of the Communist party or
>one of its front organizations, or they had to be "independants" approved
>by the Party or one of its fronts.  Truly independant candidates were not
>permitted to run.

>       B: The Communist Party counted the votes.  This is a good case of the
>fox guarding the henhouse.  As we all know, the Hanoi regime is not known for
>its honesty.  Would a similar "election" in South Africa be take seriously ?

>       No independant candidates, no independant vote count.  If that's your
>definition of a free and fair election, perhaps I'm missing something because
>it sounds more like a sham to me.

>       You, a non-Vietnamese, have visited Vietnam nine times as a guest of
>the Hanoi regime.  Most of my closest friends are Vietnamese refugees, some
>of whom came to America VERY recently.  They have lived under the Communists
>most of their lives, and seen things Hanoi would prefer you not know about.
>Why should I believe you and not them ?
>       I am not accusing you of lying, please don't get that idea; what I am 
>saying is that you have seen a very biased picture of Vietnam.  You have 
>surrounded yourself with people who support Hanoi, including Ban Nuoc, you 
>have travelled to Vietnam as a guest of the Hanoi regime, and most likely, 
>you want to believe what Hanoi has to say.  No wonder you haven't seen any
>signs of instability or opposition...you've avioded them like the plague!  
>       Let's say that I went to South Africa as a guest of the Pretoria 
>government.  Do you think they'd show me the shantytowns ?  How about the
>prisons where they keep people without trial ?  Or the dark, little rooms 
>where suspects are "questioned" ?  How much would I be told about government
>death squads ?  Would I be shown all the signs of instability in South 
>Africa ?  
>       If I came back saying that everything was fine in South Africa, I'd
>be laughed at, and rightfully so.  The Hanoi regime is far more closed and
>oppressive than Pretoria.  Tell me, did they let you see what REALLY happens
>in a "Re-Education Camp".  Be careful, I know people who've been in those 
>Hell holes!

>-Again, to engage in self-promotion, I suggest a commissioned piece I wrote
>-for the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore entitled, 'The
>-Challenges Facing Vietnamese Communism' which was published in their annual
>-yearbook, Southeast Asian Affairs 1992. I demonstrated that socio-political
>-change is accompanying economic development and that these forces have
>-forced the Communist Party to retreat bit by bit from everyday life.
>-Indeed, the salience of ideology is in decline and Communist Youth Union
>-membership has fallen sharply. Between the status quo and total collapse
>-there are other possible outcomes of this process, the regime may take
>-steps to transform itself and 'get by with a little help from its friends.'

>      To sumarize, all we have seen in Carlyle Thayer's article is 
>rationalizations for aiding Hanoi.  I do not know what Thayer's agenda is,
>so it would be unfair for me to speculate too deeply, but the article 
>certainly dos not place much emphasis on freedom, human rights and genuine
>political change.  You talk volumes about what is best for foreign investors,
>but hwo about what is best for the Vietnamese people. Is it a non-issue ? 
>I think not!

>      The regime in Vietnam actually has very few options.  It's people hate
>it, people don't care about ideology anymore (as you correctly pointed out),
>it's party members are disallusioned (the collapse of the Soviet Bloc has a
>devastating effect on Communist morale), and it has few sources of outside
>aid (certainly not enough to pay the bills).  In short, Hanoi shows all the 
>signs of a dictatorship in decline.  The West should resist the temptation 
>meddle and let nature take its course.  That is the best thing we in the
>West could do to help the Vietnamese people.  Let Hanoi Die.


>          Direct all comments, suggestions and flames to:

>          Max Becherer   becherer@cs.uiuc.edu

>     Nothing Evil Lasts Forever...The Future Belongs To The Free

>PS Carlyle A. Thayer's email address is: cat@COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU
>&