Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:00:00 -0600
From:         Max Becherer <becherer@SUNA0.CS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: US-Vietnam Normalization

> I have been reading the comments on the question of US-Vietnam
> relations for some time.  Both Max Becherer and Carl Thayer raise some
> valid issues.  I think, however, that Carl's case is the stronger and
> more sensible one.

    <<<<<<< Deleted Stuff >>>>>>>

>                  In places where autarky and isolation have long been
> the rule (e.g. Burma, Cuba, N. Korea and Vietnam) continued isolation
> is no sanction.  These regimes are just rats in different corners and
> are likely to stay that way until they are brought into the community
> of nations and realize the norms of international life.

    There is no evidence to support this contention.

>         On the other hand, Max simply refuses, as do many
> right-wingers, to admit that many conservative dictatorships and
> tyrants are every bit as bad, if not worse, than left wing regimes

    I do no such thing.  IMHO, "left wing" and "right wing" are
artificial distincions.  Tyranny is tyranny; like different breeds of
dog, they may look different, but they are fundimantaly the same thing.
I feel thet the community of nations should be an exclusive club: tyrannies
need not apply.


> such as  Vietnam's.  The US has maintained relations with vicious
> regimes in Chile, Indonesia, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, the
> Philippines, Pakistan, Bangla Desh - to mention just a few.  And,
> while progress has been questionable in many cases, I think that
> normal international relations have generally ameliorated the human
> rights situations in all of those places.  You must remember, of

     Here you destroy your own argeuments.  The United States has
maitained warm relations with all these regimes for years, and, with
the exception of the Phillipines (which had a revolution, I might add),
progres on human rights has been at best, debatable.  Surely, you aren't
going to argue that China has improved since the blood was mopped from
the streets of Beijing ?  And by the way, have you read about conditions
in Guatemala lately ?  It doesn't make for pleasant reading, I assure you!

     In short, all the things proponents of normalization would like to
see done have been done.  These policies have been tried on a wide variety
of oppressive regimes, many every bit as vile as the one in Hanoi.  With
few exceptions, all it has done is earned the United States more enemies
by inadvertently siding with oppressive regimes in their struggles against
their own people.  Let's not make the same mistake with Vietnam, okay ?


> course, that in places like Chile, El Salvador, the Philippines  etc.
> the US govt even aided in the atrocities committed by the regimes in
> question.  Whatever the case, openess to world opinion and exposure to
> the eyes of the world have never aided oppression.  I personally would
> vote for the normalization of relations with Vietnam together with N.
> Korea, and Cuba.

    You make a big mistake in assuming that Vietnamese somehow need
Westerners to teach them how to hate communists; in fact, there are
plenty of things we could learn from the Vietnamese people about the
true nature of totalitarian regimes.  Furthermore, Vietnamese are aware
that things could be, and should be, much better than they are.  The
idea that they need us Westerners in order to rid themselves of the
Communists is insultingly patronizing.

>         Finally, a couple of other points.  Despite its problems, I
> think that it is important for most outsiders to remember that the
> current Vietnamese government continues to enjoy a certain level of
> domestic tolerance, if not approval, because it was the government
> that secured Vietnam's international independence and which resisted
> foreign domination.  In a world where nationalist credentials go a
> long way toward justifying a claim to rule, this fact still has some
> meaning in a place like Vietnam.

      Hanoi enjoys far more support among Left-wing Western intellectuals
than it will ever have in Vietnam.  True, during the war, many Vietnamese
sympathized with the Communists because they believed them to be Nationalists.
In the eyes of the Vietnamese people, any credit due the Communists has
long since been lost to decades of poverty, broken promises, and crushing
tyranny.  Furthermore, the fact that Hanoi made Vietnam a Soviet vassal state
(while the Soviet Union still existed), hardly did much to help Hanoi's
"nationalist credentials".  In short, those credentials were forged from the
start, and this fact is now common knowlege among Vietnamese.

>                                       Actually, I think that isolation
> only strengthens the regime and forces it to become more rigid.

    Do you seriously think that investing in Vietnam will weaken the
Hanoi regime ?

>         Two very small points.  Max seems to confuse recognition with
> aid.  I don't think that sending an ambassador and maintaining
> "normal" diplomatic and international relations with a country are
> guarantees of "foreign aid".  It is also possible to permit travel and
> trade without extending such benefits as Most Favored Nation status or
> membership in GATT.

      Unfortuantely, whenever the U.S. talks about normalization, aid is
a prominent topic.  There is, however, a more important issue.  With normal
relations would come a lifting of the embergo and an open door to development
loans.  That would be the worst thing we could do to the Vietnamese people.
It would give new life to the dying dictatorship in Vietnam, and while it
would not save it in the long run, the misery of the Vietnamese people
would be prolonged.  Furthermore, Hanoi would spend Vietnem even deeper
into debt in it's attempt to save itself.  This is not good.  Like the
SLORC regime in Burma, Hanoi is an illegitimate government.  The Vietnamese
people do not recognize Hanoi, so why should we ?

                       Personally, I think that giving them one or two
> Lay's Potato Chips will make them hungry for more.  If they don't know
> what they taste like in the first place, they will keep on eating
> boiled peanuts.

     Once again, you are being patronizing.  The Vietnamese people know far
better than any of us just how dreadful Communism is.


>         In any case, I certainly hope that Bush will take advantage of
> his unique situation and recognize Vietnam so that Clinton and the
> rest of the world can get on with life and come to terms with the very
> real problems of oppression and poverty that plague the region.
>                                 Carl

      Unfortunately, Bush probably will.  He is under a lot of pressure
from his Big Business friends to lift the embargo, and we all know that
George Bush cares much more about his business buddies than about human
rights (e.g. his china policy).

&
                       Max Becherer