Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:07:59 -0600
From:         Max Becherer <becherer@SUNA0.CS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Normalization with Vietnam

> Max's responses to my and Thang's notes suggests both a patronizing
> and insulting tone.  Moreover, it is clear that he really doesn't
> understand what is being said in many cases.

     First of all, it is you, not I who has been, and continues to be
patronizing.  All I am doing is contesting your positions.  I know that
I tend to be sarcastic, but since when is that a crime ?  I have no
apologies.
     Furthermore, I fully understand what is being said, and am quite
capable of following your logic.  Your point is that normalizing relations
with Hanoi and opening the door to trade will cause the regime to reform.
Exposure to Western prosperity and ideals will undermine the regime, and
eventually force it to change.  This line of reasoning is fatally flawed,
and I have been explaining why this is so for the past several postings.


>         The proof of the futility of isolation in the cases of
> Vietnam, Cuba, N.Korea is self-evident.

     This proves nothing.  All three of these regimes face serious
challenges in the years to come; how much stronger would they be now
if they were in the "world community" ?


>         I can't believe there are people still alive in the 1990s
> talking about "Soviet vassal states".  What exactly does that mean?
> Do they send tribute?  Did the xUSSR choose their leaders?  Get off it
> Max, these words don't mean anything.  Go back to Joe McCarthy.

     It means, that when Moscow said "Jump!", Hanoi said "How High ?"
Hanoi, like the now-defunct East European governments, was a puppet
government.  Surely you know what that means.  Hanoi was an exceptionally
faithful Kremlin lap dog for most of it's relations with the Soviet Union.
Only at the very end, when Soviet reforms started to worry Hanoi, was there
some, muted protest on the part of the regime.
     As far as sending tribute is concerned, yes, Hanoi did just that.
For years, the Hanoi regime sent Vietnamese to work in Siberia as, let
us mince no words, slaves.  (I am not talking about the guest workers,
this is a totally different matter).  Thousands of Vietnamese were sent
to work on the Trans-Siberian gas pipeline; many of these people died
a frigid, lonely death in the frozen wastes of Siberia.  This is the
most shocking, but certainly not the only, example of Hanoi selling out
the interests of it's people in favor of those of it's master.

     So yes, the Hanoi regime was a Soviet vassal state.  As far as
nationalism is concerned, Hanoi has hardly lived up to its supposed
nationalist credentials.



>         It strikes me that the cure for communism is capitalism.  Do
> you think that "communism" can continue if a capitalist economy is
> constructed ?  Not even a Marxist would believe that is possible.
> Anyway, I'm not sure that what they have in Vietnam is communism.  It
> certainly is nothing like what Karl Marx had in mind.  What you have
> is a party, an army and a lot of poor people without jobs and with
> very few opportunities.

       The issue is not Capitalism vs Communism, it's Freedom vs Tyranny.
You are right, the Hanoi regime is not the most pious example of Marxist
economics the world has ever seen.  What you have to understand (but
apparently don't) is that the Hanoi regime's most overriding priority is
remaining in power; if that means Marxian economics must be thrown overboard,
then so be it.

>                               Foreign investment, foreign trade and
> contacts between outsiders and Vietnamese will bring fundamental
> changes to the society.

    This is a giant leap of faith.  Constructive engagement has, at best,
a mixed record.  There is no reason to believe that it will work in
Vietnam.

        I never said anything about us teaching the Vietnamese
> anything.  I said that the Vietnamese will, through contact with other
> people from other countries, realize that there are a vast range of
> political, economic and social possibilities open to them.  So long as
> we keep the door to contact shut, we are in fact colluding with the
> Vietnamese government in isolating the people.  They are quite capable

      If we are colluding with the Vietnamese government, then why is Hanoi
so anxious to have the embargo lifted ?

> of making their own decisions in their own time.  Freedom comes in
> through the open door.
        Your view of China is quite short-sighted.  Our contact with
> Beijing goes back to 1970.  Prior to that time, the PRC was a member
> of the isolation ward.  The improvement that has taken place in the
> past 22 years has been considerable.  The events of 1988 in Tien An
                                                      ^^^^
                                    The massacre was in June of 1989.

> Men Square were terrible, but it takes a long time for a people to
> gain their freedom.  We would not help the Chinese democrats by
> slamming the door on them.  Tyranny, like family violence, flourishes
> behind closed doors.  If the doors are open, oppression cannot
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> flourish.  I think China is very good proof that constructive
  ^^^^^^^^
        Strange, it's done quite well in Guatemala, Chile, etc.

> engagement is far more effective than isolation.

        No, China is one of Constructive Engagement's more notorious
failures.  Despite impressive economic reforms, China is still an
Orwellian state, par excellance.

>         In the case of some places like Chile, Guatemala and Haiti -
> the relationship maintained by the US has not been inadvertent.
> Rather those who control our relations with those states have actually
> colluded with the tyrants.

      If the United States developes a strong, vested interest in the
Hanoi regime, do you seriously think that it will not collude with Hanoi
to maintain the status quo ?  If so, then you have far more faith in the
in the purity of the U.S. government's motives than I do.

>                              For people like Ronald Reagan and Jean
> Kirkpatrick, it was okay to kill Indians and peasants and Blacks as
> long as you called them communists.

      The Left is just as guilty of this as the Right is.  How many
people loudly condemn the atrocities of so-called "Right-Wing" regimes,
while whitewashing the behavior of equally brutal "Left-Wing" regimes.
There is plenty of hypocricy to go around.
      IMHO, these labels, Left-Wing and Right-Wing, are misleading and
artificial.  You have heard the saying that "A rose by any other name is
still a rose".  The same is also true for skunks.

>                                     By the way, it was that way in
> South Vietnam before 1975.  It's still that way in Indonesia.  And,
> anyone that the government kills was a communist.  I don't want to
> jump to conclusions, but I hear that mentality in your remarks, Max.  I

        You may not want to, but you did anyway.  I don't think that a
free society has any business dealing with tyrants, regardless of what
they call themselves.  Ultimately, the differences between Communists and
Fascists are cosmetic; they have far more in common than between them.
Like two breeds of dog, they may look and sound different, but they are
fundimantally the same thing.

> don't think it's right to kill communists, or anti-communists.
>         Finally, I think that it is in our, and the whole region's
> intersts that Vietnam is recognized.  I think that there is serious
> trouble brewing in the South China Sea over the Spratley/Paracels
> issue.  China has made the most extra-ordinary claim to control of
> virtually all of the South China Sea.  They know they can get away
> with it, because no one will (meaning the US) will speak up for
> Vietnam's interest and so long as Vietnam is isolated, there will be
> no unity among the Southeast Asian countries that also have interests
> in the seabed (Brunei, Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia).
> So long as there is no unity, China can divide and conquer.  If,

       Interesting, just moments ago, you were talking China up as
an example of successful Constructive Engagement.  As far as the
Spratley Islands are concerned, if China really wants them, it will
take them, regardless of that the "world community" says about it.


> however, China knows that Southeast Asian countries were united and
> had support from the US, it would quickly come to terms.  But, as it
> is, it is much easier for them to stake a claim and expand their
> territory while the rest of us are occupied with fruitless dispute.
>         Isolating Vietnam helps no one but the oppressors and adds to

     Again, if isolation is so good for the oppressors, then whay are
they so desperate to end it.  If what you say is true, the LAST thing
Hanoi would want is an open door.
     I will not go so far as to say that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to
the points you make about the effects exposure to the West will have on
Vietnam.  What I AM saying, is that any destablizing influence will be
far outweighed by the added strength relations will give the regime.  In
other words, the tyrants in Hanoi have far more to gain than they have
to lose if the embargo is lifted.


> confusion in the world.  Anyone who supports isolation only seeks
> further conflict and increased bloodshed by innocent people.

      And you have the gall to accuse ME of being insulting ?  How
would you like me to say that "Anyone who supports normalization of relations
with Hanoi is a Communist ?"  This would be every bit as simplistic and
insulting a generalization as your remark; change the wording a little, and
you sound just like a McCarthyist.  Really, Carl, stupid remarks like this
are unbecomming of you.

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