From: becherer@SUNA0.CS.UIUC.EDU (Max Becherer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Subject: Re: US-Vietnam Normalization
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:22:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> There you go again Max.  You don't really pay attention to what people
> say.  You say I think that the Vietnamese will learn from the West.  I
> never said that.  I said they would learn from the rest of of the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> world and make their own decisions.  That's what I said.  Please don't
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      The Vietnamese people do not need the rest of the world, Western or
  otherwise, to know how evil Communism is.  What WOULD help is a Radio
  Free Asia which would tell them about the collapse of Communist regimes
  around the globe, and of support for their cause outside Vietnam.  This
  would give hope to democratic forces in Vietnam.  Hope and Truth are the
  two greatest enemies of tyranny.  Normalization, however, would send
  exactly the opposite message.

> misquote me and turn me into a patronizing snob like yourself with
> your kneejerk reactionism.     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Tell me, Carl, have I ever called you, or anyone else names like
  this ?  Let's keep this civil and not stoop to childish insults, OK ?

> Whether or not the Vietnamese government is "legitimate" , it is the
> de facto government of the place.  It won power the way that every
> other government in th world has won power - it fought for it.  In
> that sense, it is legitimate as well as de facto.

     You have just crucified yourself, Carl.  What you are saying is
 that Might makes Right.  By this reasoning, the Indonesian government
 is the legitimate ruler of East Timor (I KNOW you don't believe this!),
 in fact, by this reasoning, any tyranny, no mater how vile, is legitimate.
 Are you suggesting that the United States engage in constructive engagement
 with EVERY tyranny in the world ?
     You are right when you say that Hanoi is the de facto government of
 Vietnam, that fact is inescapable.  It is not, however, legitimate.  The
 true test of a govenment's legitimacy is not how many foreigners regognize
 it's right to rule, but whether or not it's people recognize it; by that,
 far more important standard (the only one that really matters), Hanoi is
 utterly illegitimate.  It has power, but has no right to it.

>                                                    You may have some
> reason for suggesting that it has not fulfilled its promise, it thus
> remains for the Vietnamese people to deal with that question in their
> own time.


     Hanoi has broken virtually every promise it has ever made.  You
  are correct when you say that the Vietnamese people will deal with the
  problem in their own time, but regardless of what we do, we have an impact,
  as even inaction is, in it's own way, action.  The question is, are we
  to be part of the solution or part of the problem ?   By giving aid to
  the Hanoi regime, we will only help it preserve what remains of it's
  power.

>         I still say that contact with the outside hastens the collapse
> of the system while outside opposition rigidifies it.  The regimes of
> Eastern Europe and the USSR did not collapse as a result of being sat
> in the corner like naughty children until they had jumped through your
> hoop.  They changed because of the cumulative weight of outside
> influence which encouraged the people to stand up.  They knew they wer
> not alone.

     Actually, it was information, like that gotten from Radio Free Europe,
  not foreign investment and aid which helped undermine these communist
  regimes. If anything, the loans and aid given the Soviet Bloc forstalled
  their fall.
     Tell me, what do you really think Hanoi will do with development aid and
  loans from the United States and elsewhere ?  Do you really think they will
  use it for the betterment of the Vietnamese people ?  If so, you are very
  naive aboute the nature of totalitarian regimes.  Just look at what Saddam
  Hussein did with U.S. grain credits!  Hanoi will, like any tyranny, abuse
  aid given it; it will use the aid to shore up it's power, not to help the
  people. I am willing to concede that a small fraction of aid and loans may
  reach the people, but at the cost of prolonging the life of the Hanoi
  regime, and the misery of the Vietnamese people.  It's just not worth it.
  It would be just like if we gave aid or granted loans to the SLORC in Burma.

>         So long as the Vietnamese people are made to think they
> struggel in darkness alone, they will be dominated.  And people like
> yourself will keep them there.  I repeat.  It is no sophistry, it is
> no exaggeration, you are contributing to the tyranny!
>                                 CTROCKI


     Normalizing relations with the Hanoi regime is not the way to stand
  behind the Vietnamese people in their struggle.  No, Carl, far from showing
  the Vietnamese people that they are not alone, what you propose will
  demonstrate to them that we acre more about economic ventures than freedom
  for the Vietnamese people.  I simply cannot see how trading with the enemies
  of the Vietnamese people is supposed to be a show of support for their
  struggle for freedom.
     Think for a moment what kind of message U.S. recognition, trade and
  aid will REALLY send to the Vietnamese people. It will be a propaganda
  windfall for the Hanoi regime.  Hanoi will use the lifting of the embargo
  and the normalization of relations as a political weapon with which to
  demoralize it's enemies at home by showing the people that the United
  States doesn't really care about democracy in Vietnam.  "See!" Hanoi will
  say, "America only wants to make money, so forget about resisting us.  The
  United States supports us!"  Look at what China has been doing when foreign
  dignitaries visit: Beijing crows loudly every time, drumming in the fact
  that Chinese democracy is not very high on the agenda of foreign govenments.
     Certainly, this is not the message the United States would like to send
  the Vietnamese people, but I would contend that what we would like to send
  is irrelevent: it is the message they receive that matters.  Furthermore,
  just look at the issues the U.S. brings up when talking with Hanoi; rarely
  are human rights mentioned, and when they are, there is little conviction
  behind our criticism of Hanoi's human rights record.  Pro-normalization
  elements in the U.S. government seem all too content to gloss over human
  rights in Vietnam.  This should not be surprising; since when has human
  rights been an imortant priority in U.S. foreign policy ?

     So what SHOULD we do ?  Instead of jumping to lift the embargo, I would
  fund a Radio Free Asia; it is news, not foreign investment, which helps
  undermine tyrannies.
     As far as contributing to tyranny in Vietnam is concerned, I regret to
  say that it is well-meaning but misguided people like you who are the
  real contributers.  Again, if foreign investment were such a dire threat
  to Hanoi's stability, there would be no open door; the door would be
  welded shut.

                                    Max Becherer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU