From: ttran@cv3000.prime.com (T. Tran)
Subject: CALL FOR A DIALOGUE/Reply/Reply KVT2
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Reply-To: @relay.prime.com:ttran@cv3000.Prime.COM
Organization: SCV Relay
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:28:56 GMT


NOTE:  Rereading my own response to KVT, I realize that my comment
       regarding the Khmer Rouge was not as clear as it could be.
       Hence, this updated post. The revised section starts with
       the heading "******* Revised Comments". To make the arguments 
       more explicit I also make slight changes here and there. 
      
       I'd like to request that those who are interested in this issue,
       please read my "[POL] CALL FOR A DIALOGUE" first, before sending
       out comments on someone's comments on my comments ! 

       Also, because of the many serious responses, please give me some 
       time to post my replies. The order of the reply does not always
       follow the order of the response posting : it depends on how
       much time it takes me to think through a reasonable answer. Some
       are easier than others. 

       I want to thank all those who have engaged in this dialogue.  
       Whether you agree with me or not, in the end, does not really 
       matter. The important thing is for all of us to put all the facts
       as we know them on the table, and let the chips fall where they 
       may.

       T. Tran

I will reprint Kim's mail as is, with my comments marked by a double ">".

From KVT's response in "<1992Dec1.155429.7564@news.media.mit.edu>:

It's a good sign that, lately in SCV, we start seeing more and more 
writings on political subjects that really expose coherent schools of 
thoughts. These writings are serious, carefully written, focused more 
on compassing ideas and thoughts than on petty details. They also stay 
away from personal attacks or bickering on "who says what when". These 
attacks and bickerings, not only make the heat level unbearable, tend
to muddle the original issues beyond recognition. Compared to these
exchanges, the expositions, if nothing else, prove SCV can be 
intelligent and thought-provoking if we really put enough effort to it.

In that spirit, I will try to respond the following article by T. Tran.
To be upfront, I'm going to dispute some of his (her?) assertions. 
However, not because I disagree with him I would conveiniently settle 
the differences by giving him a ready-made label among many that we 
often see carelessly tossing around here (ie. Communist sympathizers, 
foreign collaborators, rightwingers, profiteers,...) Doing that
simply leaves the issues in an obscure state such that saying nothing
would be a better response.

>> I agree completely.

In article <1992Dec1.155429.7564@news.media.mit.edu> @relay.prime.com:ttran@cv3000.Prime.COM writes:
# 
# 
#                        A CALL FOR A GENUINE DIALOGUE
# 
# 
# One thing stands out in reading various postings on SCV is that everyone truly
# wishes to see the development of a Prosperous, Free, Democratic Vietnam. But
# there seems to be no consensus as how to achieve it.
# 
# Briefly, people express supports for two or three major approaches:
# 
# 1/ Overthrow the current Communist regime in VN, establishes a NEW
#    non-communist government. This is to be done with the active support
#    of the U.S governement.
# 
# 2/ Demand/Pressure the Communist Party to dissolve itself, create a new 
#    Democratic Alliance to take over. This is to be done with the help of
#    pressure applied by the U.S government.

I myself can be classified as Approach 2 as the goal.

# 
# 3/ Insist on isolating the Communist government of VN, boycott it until
#    it's overthrown or becomes self-destruct. This is to be done with
#    full support from the U.S government.
# 
#  
# I have serious problems with these three approaches, not because there is
# anything wrong with their "high-minded" intentions, but because they simply
# do not work. Not only that, they may end up hurting the very people that we
# profess to care about, the Vietnamese who live in VN.

If none of the above approaches would work, then what would be the
alternative? Status quo? With no pressure/demand from any direction,
do we expect some day the current Communist regime will suddenly
collapse and give up its strangle-hold on Vietnamese people? Or do
we expect some day the Communists repent and become non-Communists
all by themselves? Since this scenario is unlikely, the status quo is 
only keeping the Communist Party in power and that means prolonging
the sufferings of our people. This realization speaks for second approach.

>> My intention is to show that all three approaches will fail because:
>> -- they rely too much on the support of a foreign power
>> -- all pressures from foreign powers on VN will be looked upon as
>>    another sinister plot to compromise VN's independence.
>>    (Based on the checkered history of Chinese, French, Japanese, and
>>     American involvements in VN, who among us can convince those who
>>     have fought for the territorial integrity of VN otherwise ?)  
>> -- who among us, a group of unbelieveably querulous and fragmented 
>>    individuals of all stripes, can assure that once the foreign power
>>    has helped us achieve our objective, it does not impose its own
>>    brand of colonialism ? Haven't we seen what happens in Nicaragua 
>>    with the Chamos government, or Panama after the fall of Norega, or 
>>    Granada after the US invasion ?
>>    (Or much closer to home, what happened to Diem/Nhu when they no
>>     longer fulfilled the tasks expected of them, or Minh/Don, or
>>     Khanh, etc.)
>>
>> What other options do we have ?
>> -- That's precisely the open question, isn't it ? If we at least agree
>>    on the futility of these approaches, then we can come up with 
>>    others. I'm sure each of us will ! 
>> -- To assume that otherwise there is just the status quo, I think, is
>>    a gross simplification of the situation in VN.
>>    There is in VN right now a vibrant and earnest effort by a lot of
>>    people to create a freer, more modern society.
>>    A lot of us do not have any real information about what's happening
>>    inside VN, except those that have been filtered though a narrow
>>    tunnel.
>>    I remmeber during the Chinese campaign to "punish" VN, most news in
>>    the U.S referred to the expansionist tendency of the Ha Noi government
>>    as the cause of the conflict ! 
>>    If there used to be a mistaken belief in the "Free World" of a
>>    monolithic communism, there exists a parallel assumption among a 
>>    lot of us, equally mistaken, of a monolithic Communist Party in VN.
>>
# 
# I'll try to explain where I'm coming from, hoping for a genuine exchanges of
# ideas of all who care for the future of VN. I sincerely hope that those who
# contribute will condemn all "ad hominem" attacks. We're, after all, perfectly
# free to maintain our positions, wrongly or rightly. And if it's a "Free,
# Democratic" VN that we're working for, shouldn't we practice it among ourselves
# first ? If we cannot maintain a civil, rational discourse in an environment
# like this, this "land of the free and home of the brave", how can we expect to 
# create what we don't have somewhere else ?
#  

I quite welcome the spirit. 

>> And I hope others as well.
>>
# 
# I'll discuss the following topics:
# 
# 1/ Who are we ?
# 
# 2/ The Challenges of History
#    We can choose to believe in our own myths, but history has a record.
#    If we insist on imposing our myths on others, we cannot expect to convince
#    anyone, except those who are predisposed to our own illusions.
# 
# 3/ Where do we go from here ?
# 
# 
# 1/ WHO ARE WE ? 
# 
# 
# We're part of about 850K Vietnamese who live in the U.S, most as refugees
# from the Communist government of VN. Most of us grew up in South VN, living
# through the regimes of Ngo Dinh Diem and Nguyen Van Thieu. Both these regimes,
# although outwardly professed to be sovereign governments, were, however, the
# creations of the U.S government, controlled and manipulated by U.S strategic
# interest, which was to build a bulkward against international communism,
# regardless how much it cost the people of Vietnam.
# 
#    This sounds very much like "Communist" propaganda. I grew up in South VN,
# and was used to believe in the myth of a "sovereign" SVN -- lock, stock and 
# barrel. Unfortunately, for those who review the history of VN in the 1858-1975 
# period, that was a fiction, unpalatable as it might be.  
# 
# 
# 2/ THE CHALLENGES OF HISTORY
# 
# 
#    For those who question this, please read the wealth of books in the US
# on the origins of the VN War, the secret deliberations of the US National
# Security Council, Sihanook's autobiography, etc. 
# 
#    The best concise history of this period for me was Huynh Kim Khanh's 
# "Vietnamese Communism, 1925-1945", published by Cornell University Press. 
# 
#    For those who still believe in the causes of the old SVN, let's review
# together a few facts:
# 
#    - The Diem government inherited the entire security and admistrative 
# apparatus of the former French colonial administration. All former resistance 
# activists, whether communist or not, were searched out for imprisonment 
# and neutralization. 
# 
#    - With the US as the superpower protector, the Diem government refused to 
# carry out the provisions of the Geneva Agreement that required a national
# election to be held in 1956 for the US knew that in such an election, Ho
# Chi Minh would certainly win. (Had the election taken place, there would 
# have been NO VN War, NO division of North/South VN, and NO boat people !). 
#  
#    - Nguyen van Thieu himself, as were most of the upper echelons of the VN
# army in its early days, was trained by the French, as part of the colonial army
# to terrorize and control the Vietnamese population. The colloquial term in those
# days was "ddi li'nh cho Ta^y."
# 
#    All of these, of course, DO NOT excuse the failures of the Communist Party
# after 1975 in creating such MASSIVE resentments / fear /and loss of any hope
# for the future that precipated the exodus of Vietnamese from VN. It took 11 
# years, until 1986, for the Communist Party to officially acknowledge the grave
# mistakes it had made. 
# 
#    But at the same time, it gives us, those Vietnamese from South VN, no right 
# to claim the self-righteous mantle of Vietnamese independence. On the
# contrary, if we try to look at the events of the last 100 years objectively,
# we've to acknowledge that despite our professed intentions, we might have been
# a party to the wrong side of history. That certainly calls for a measure of
# humility. 
# 
#    We can dream of an independent SVN under the protection of the U.S, but 
# let's not be suprised if the Communists take a dim view of such illusion.
# Based upon the history of the creation of SVN, we certainly cannot blame them
# for being somewhat skeptical, if not downright incredulous.  
# 
#   If we look at VNese history, filled with epic stories of victory against 
# powerful foreign invaders, from the Trung Sisters, General Ly Thuong Kiet,
# General Ngo Quyen, General Tran Hung Dao, Quang Trung, etc., we have to admit 
# that there was only one time our forefather invited foreign troops into VN.
# It was Le Chieu Thong, the infamous traitor to his people. 
# 
#   Well, history has a way of repeating itself. It was General Giap who led the
# battle that expelled the French from VN, forever and ever, regaining the nation's
# honors that had been sullied by a century of French exploitation. And you know
# who invited the American troops into SVN ! (Had President Kennedy not been
# assasinated, history might have been different !). 
# 
#   And again, it was the Communists that taught China a lesson. (I remembered 
# the myth I was taught in SVN that North VN was just a satellite of China
# and Russia. What a satellite !)
# 
#   For those who dream of overthrowing the government of VN with the help of
# the U.S or China, have we become so oblivious to the lessons of history that 
# we want to subject the people of VN once more to the yoke of foreign manipulation ? 

I found the paragraphs above very misleading.  First of all, the long writing 
above apparently wants to impress readers that the Communists alone have 
Viet Nam's independence in mind, that the Communists are nationalist than 
the Nationalists themselves. Secondly, it takes the concept of independence 
very narrow. Thirdly, it tries to muddle three different approaches by 
attacking the weakest one: OVERTHROWING the Communist government. 


>> The question of Communists versus Nationalists is a complex one. A lot
>> slogans and, to me at least, misconception have been generated to 
>> intentionally justify a rabid brand of anti-communism in SVN. It will
>> take too much ink to go over the issue here. Please refer to Huynh
>> Kim Khanh's "Vietnamese Communism, 1925-1945" for a detailed and
>> well-researched analysis of the meanings of these loaded labels.
>>
>> Briefly, I'll try to summarize a few points: 
>>
>> -- When Nguyen Thai Hoc failed in his revolt at Yen Bai ("Kho^ng tha`nh
>>    co^ng thi` tha`nh nha^n"), we've seen the last of the nationally-
>>    known resistance organized by the non-communist intellectuals in
>>    Vietnam. In fact, all non-communist movements against France shared
>>    the same fate: crushed completely by the security apparatus of the
>>    French colonial adminstration.
>>
>> -- It was then that HCM and his Indochinese Communist Party became the
>>    only significant force left that could challenge Great France (Dda.i
      Pha'p), which it did successfully, booting France out of North VN.
>>
>> -- With the formation of SVN, this was another chance for those
>>    who sincerely loved VN, but could not accept the Communist 
>>    ideology, to work together to create a true alternative to the socialist
>>    government in the North. This was never meant to be, for the U.S
>>    foreign policy required the creation of a fortress against international
>>    communism. All those independent-minded resistance fighters
>>    (whom we may properly refer to as "nationalists"), could not be 
>>    trusted (they would never sacrifice their lives in the service of a
>>    foreign  power), so they were all lumped together as "communists" 
>>    (a potent label then, as it is now), to be eliminated (cf. the Law
>>    of 10/1959 by the Diem government).
>>
>> -- What's left in SVN: a machine created to stamp out Communism, and 
>>    any group that dared to challenge this single-minded, myopic purpose,
>>    regardless of the cost to the people of VN. 
>> 
>> So, to summarize, we can call ourselves Nationalists, even when SVN
>> couldn't control its own fate, and the Communists anti-Nationalists,
>> even when they're the only group that has never kowtowed to any
>> foreign power. We call ourselves Nationalists when we invited 500K
>> US troops into VN, and we call the Communists anti-Nationalists, when 
>> they beated the bezel out one of their most powerful allies, when
>> that ally demanded "submission".
>>

About independence, T. Tran seems to ignore the fact that without military 
aids from the Soviets and Chinese, the Party could not have fought the war as 
it did. He seems to ignore the fact that without Soviet and Chinese economic 
aids at one time or another, the Party would had worked hard for normalization 
much earlier. He seems to ignore that the "independence-minded" Communists
has leased Cam Ranh Bay to the Soviet Pacific Fleet as part of the bargains 
until the USSR  collapsed.  

>> I think I disagree with you on the meaning of "independence". By 
>> independence, I mean to be able to decide for yourself the course
>> of action, not have it decided for you by someone else. 
>> The world is not a charitable club (hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese
>> starved to death during the Japanese/French joint occupation).
>> The HaNoi government might form alliance with other countries, but
>> none of these countries had the ability to force a government of their
>> own choosing down HaNoi's throat.
>> That, unfortunately, was not the case in SVN. 

MIA/POW issues are not new. The Party had refused to cooperate before, so why 
now? Is it giving in under economic pressure of the U.S.? Where is 
its highly-praised independence? Didn't it know that there are thousands
and thousands of North Vietnamese are still listed as MIA or dead with 
remains buried somewhere in Ho Chi Minh Trail while their families are not
notified one way or the other? Why American MIA/POWs are more important than 
"our independence fighters"? Where is "our nationlism"?

>> I think your argument is better directed to those of us who held high
>> the banner of "forcing the HN government to release US MIA" ! 
>> We blame the Communists for failing to raise the standards of living
>> in VN (which we all know, is one of the poorest). And when they take
>> action to end the embargo in order to do just that, then we blame them
>> for succumbing under pressure. We just can't have it both ways ! 

Finally, I question his apparent assertion that because a party is 
independence minded, they have the love for the people. One extreme history
fact comes to mind: Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot. After 1975, Cambodia was closed
to the world and its calendar set to zero year. They are TOTALLY INDEPENDENT 
of any thing OUTSIDE and look at what had happened INSIDE. We're lucky that
the Vietnamese Communist Party is NOT THAT INDEPENDENT.

*****
*****  Revised Comments:
*****

>> I don't think this needs further comment. 
>> However, I have no doubt that the Khmer Rouge is simply a tool for 
>> Chinese foreign policy (without Chinese support for arms and materials,
>> the Khmer Rouge would not be able to continue its existence.) 
>> This is a case where geopolitical considerations superseded any shred
>> of human decency whatsoever. Out of a population of about five millions,
>> they killed two milions of their best people - the entire educated class,
>> a calamity of an unbelieveably tragic proportion. But China, with US's
>> tacit support, is forcing that murderous band down the throat of the 
>> Cambodian people.  
>> 
>> Earlier, China planned to convert Cambodia into a Tibet of Indochina. 
>> With two millions killed -- including practically every Cambodian that
>> could help run a modern Cambodia, and the enormous influx of Chinese 
>> advisers and settlers, a` la Tibet, Cambodia would have turned into a
>> a perennial "brother" country of China, indeed a de facto province of
>> China. Then with Chinese pressure from the North, Cambodian pressure 
>> from the west, China would be able to bring VN to its knees, creating
>> a fait accompli Chinese sphere of influence in the South. 

>> That was one of the major reasons for China's decision to "teach VN a
>> lesson", sending multiple divisions down the plains of NVN, along the
>> traditional routes of attacks in early centuries.
>> For VN's unexpected campaign to overthrow the murderous Polpot's regime, 
>> which at the time was attacking villages along the border of SVN, demanding
>> the return of VN's islands back to Cambodia, put a sudden end to China's
>> dream of dominating Southeast Asia, which was tantalizingly within reach.

>> Why was that, with the coordination of both China and the US, VN was
>> pilloried in the forum of world opinion as a despicable agressor,
>> and China as the defender of the rights of the Cambodian people ?
>> Do the superpowers of the world have any shame ?

>> What lonely voices in the world condemned this brutal modern Hitler
>> regime - the band of Polpot ? Why are Polpot and his cohorts being 
>> welcomed, even now, as leaders of a sovereign government in China ?
>> Why are the United Nations allowed to supply two camps for Cambodian
>> refugees on the border of Thailand controlled by the Khmer Rouge ?
>> Why is the Polpot gang of murderers given an equal footing with Sihanook 
>> and others in the current UN-sponsored plan for Cambodia ? 

>> Has the world any decency left ?

>> Do we, Vietnamese, still dream of relying on the superpowers of the
>> world to "help" us on the issue of human rights and others ?
>> Dare we look at these brutal facts to ask ourselves the question :
>> Do the superpowers of the world REALLY care for OUR interests, or
>> any small country's interests ?
>> Do we just make it really easy for ourselves to pursue these goals,
>> which are like motherhood and apple pies, but ignore the real
>> implication of our alliances ? 

# [... deleted...]
#
#   And how do we look in the eyes of Vietnamese history, when we keep
# invoking the mighty power of our foreign master to browbeat the Vietnamese
# into submission ? If we have grievances with the Communists, then by all
# means pick a fight with them, endeavour to create changes in VN, but as
# Vietnamese among Vietnamese, not calling on some alien power in the manner
# of Le Chieu Thong, "co~ng ra('n ca('n ga` nha`".
# 

First of all, does the above paragraph imply THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS THE
RIGHTFUL LEADER OF THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE? if it does not, then it seems to 
forget that during the war, the Communists constantly made all kinds of 
motions not only in Communist countries but also in neutral countries to put 
pressure on the U.S. and the South Vietnam's government to give in to its 
demands. They appealed to the world's opinion. Now we do the same thing 
toward the Communist regime. Is there a big difference here? Or is it only 
a strong bias in favor of the Communists?

>> No one in his right mind will deny that there are human rights issues
>> in VN. The most celebrated example is the case of monk Tue Sy and
>> his compatriot. What I question is the means to achieve it.

>> As Vietnamese, knowing Vietnamese history, one of the most prominent
>> feature of Vietnam is its unending and indomitable spirit to fight
>> against all foreign invaders. How are we, a band of oversea VNese
>> look to the Vietnamese inside VN, raising high the banner of US
>> threat ? 
>>
>> Besides, a foreign policy only has credibility when it's based upon
>> principle, and universally applied. The Japanese and the European
>> couldn't stop laughing at the US for demanding human rights in VN !
>> Somehow, the VNese community is the only group that takes the U.S
>> position seriously !
>> Let me repeat the section you've deleted:

-----------------------------------------------------
  What moral right should a nation have when it had knowingly supported the
French colonial government to continue its plunder and rape of the Vietnamese
people ?

  What moral right should a nation have when it had dropped more bombs on
a small country like VN than three times of all the bombs dropped in World War
II ?  In the entire history of the Vietnamese people, has any Vietnamese
committed any crime against the American people ? Has anny Vietnamese
destroyed American farms, massacred American civilians, or attempted to
control its destiny ?

  What moral right should a nation have when its own governemnt had deceived
its own people (cf. President Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incident) in order
to
manufacture a pretext to intervene in the affairs of another sovereign country
in the name of an aggrieved party ?

  What moral right should a nation have when it had consistently supported 
or helped put into power the worst violators of human rights (the Shah of
Iran, the Somosa of Nicaragua, the Batista of Cuba, the Pinoche of Chile,
the Marcos of the Philippines, the apartheid regime of South Africa, etc.) ?

--------------------------------------------------

# 3/ WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ?
# 
#  
#   As Vietnamese American, we have a great opportunity to influence American
# policy in a more humanistic direction, but with due respect to Vietnam as a
# sovereign country. As a community, we have tremendous potential to be a force
# both for good and evil. The 1945-1975 period had been a painful journey for
# all of us, which was and still remains a source of great personal tragedy and
# unrelenting anguish. 
# 
# [... deleted...]

By demanding for political change through peaceful means, we indeed
help our people get out of this vicious poverty and join the world's
community in a humanistic way. The second approach does not advocate 
political violence nor military means, nor it demand isolation of
our people from the help of the world, it demand POLITICAL CHANGE AND 
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPROVEMENT AS CONDITIONS FOR ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS.

Now, let's ask ourselves a serious question: After 17 years of 
"failures" in the South and 38 years of "mistakes" in the North, if 
the Communist Party really cares for the people, why doesn't it still 
think Socialism is the way to go? WHO AMONG US IS WILLING TO SACRIFY A
LIFE TIME FOR A "MISTAKE" TO CORRECT ITSELF?

Kim

>>  First of all, I agree that we should work for political change through
>>  peaceful means. Any further violence only prolongs the agony, not
>>  ends it.

>>  Let me respond to your last point first:
>>  - Yes, we can blame the Communists for the many mistakes they made in
>>    collectivization and other economic policies that retard the 
>>    development of VN.
>>
>>    But, let's be fair. Shouldn't we blame French colonialism more --
>>    its hundred years of exploiting and plundering of our country ?
>>    Shouldn't we blame the short-sightedness and blunder of US
>>    foreign policies even more for what happened in the last forty years ?
>>    (The embargo, intended to strangle VN economically, is still on,
>>    as far as I know.) 

>>    Are we arguing that the Communists shouldn't have fought against
>>    the French ? That accepting the rule of Great France, "Da.i Pha'p",
>>    the people of VN, especially the entire native adminstrative class 
>>    the French had set up to "help" it in its "civilizing" of the 
>>    Vietnamese pagans, would therefore have a much "better" life ?
>>
>>    For, all of us, I think, will argree that the entire native admistrative
>>    class the French had set up, which later formed the backbone of the
>>    Saigon governmnent under Diem/Thieu, DID indeed have a MUCH better
>>    life, better than all the peasants and laborers in VN, who unfortunately,
>>    comprised 90% of the Vietnamese population.   

>>    Are we also arguing that based upon what the U.S had done after
>>    the Geneva Agreement, the Communists should have accepted U.S's
>>    de facto control of SVN ? We might, some of us, but let's not blame
>>    the Communists for begging to differ. 
>>
>>    The business of regaining national independence is not a gentleman's 
>>    game, a prosperous enterprise. For those who want a quick passport 
>>    to the "good" life, history has demonstrated time and time again that
      they should stay away from that as far as possible. Look at the black
>>    struggle in South Africa, the troubles Castro is having in Cuba, the 
>>    problems the mullahs face in Iran, the long hard road of Algeria and
>>    Zimbawe ... Or, for the most glaring example, look a the plight of
>>    the Palestinians. Should they just throw up the towels and call it
>>    quit, for the road to self-respect and independence is just too
>>    tortuous ?  Look at the Israelis, do they ever call on the U.S to send
>>    troops in to fight for them ?  
>>
>>    Are we therefore arguing that we should give up our struggle for
>>    independence altogether ?  Are we blaming the victims instead of
>>    the instigators ? If so, let's be upfront about it, for we cannot
>>    have it both ways ! 
>>  
>>  Now, to your first point:
>>
>>  - I sincerely believe that all VNese in this country, especially the
>>    younger generation, truly love VN, and only want to help build a
>>    More Prosperous and Democratic VN, whether they call themselves
>>    anti-communists, nationalists, or whatever. 
>>    Vietnamese, by nature, is patriotic. For if that was not the case,
>>    VN would have never been able to survive ten centuries under
>>    Chinese rule without being swallowed.
>>
>>  - The main point that I'm trying to make is this: Precisely because
>>    of that history of unending struggle against foreign domination,
>>    there is great distrust of foreign collaboration. 
>>    If the Vietnamese community allies itself with the foreign policy
>>    of the U.S, especially if it RELIES on the U.S to browbeat the
>>    Vietnamese, we wouldn't have any standing in the eyes of the
>>    Vietnamese inside VN.
>>
>>    This is NOT a matter of ideology. It's a matter of national character.

>>  - Please keep in mind that the struggle for a Prosperous, Free and
>>    Democratic VN is, in the end, the task of the Vietnamese in Vietnam.
>>    For it is THEIR country, and they know best what they want. No one
>>    can give human rights and freedom to anyone: for what can be given
>>    can be taken away. Freedom and Prosperity is something that the
>>    Vietnamese WILL earn, for they deserve it, and once the struggle
>>    for independence has been at least secured (it'll never be over
>>    for a country as strategically situated as VN is), they will devote
>>    their energy and effort to it. 
>>
>>    Let me repeat one paragraph, with a minor modification, out of the 
>>    sections you've deleted:

----------------------------------
  As Vietnamese American, it would be our right, just as the right of other
ethnic groups, to maintain and develop a close relationship with the country
of our origin. But we have to acknowledge that with the march of time, the
destiny of Vietnam lies with the Vietnamese in Vietnam, not with us. To think
that we, a motley band of oversea Vietnamese, will have the superior wisdom
to set the path for sixty million Vietnamese inside Vietnam, I think, is an
arrogant attitude of the highest order, bordering on lunacy. Vietnam has
existed for thousands of years when it has faced and managed to render powerless
all the colonial superpowers of the world. So, thank you very much, for all
your concerns and solicitous guidance on how they should decide their destiny,
especially when most of your guidance is unabashedly based on the benevolent
intention of a foreign power, whose foreign policy in the areas has been proved
to be far from in keeping with the best tradition of its history. 
-------------------------------------