X-Envelope-to: SEASIA-L@MSU.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"SEASIA-L@MSU.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CTROCKI
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:44:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Trocki" <CTROCKI@GUVAX.BITNET>
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.
        I see two problems with Max's argument.  First he seems to
think that isolation of offensive regimes is a workable solution
toward the improvement of their domestic policies.  There is no
evidence that this works.  South Africa was, in fact, never really
isolated.  Rather, large sections of the South African economy had
come to depend on the international economy, and the threat of
sustained barriers to open trade, were instrumental in bringing the
regime to heel.  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.
        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
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
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.
        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.  Actually, I think that isolation
only strengthens the regime and forces it to become more rigid.
        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.  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.
        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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU