From: becherer@SUNA0.CS.UIUC.EDU (Max Becherer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Subject: Re: US-Vietnam Normalization
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:37:18 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


   A few days ago, Carlyle Thayer posted an article entitled Light at the
End of the Tunnel: US-Vietnam Relations.  I would like to respond to some
of the things said in this article.  It is about the likely lifting of the
U.S embargo and normalizing of relations with Vietnam following the
momentous release of Hanoi's copious archives on American prisoners.

   Mr. Thayer is right, the embargo will probably be lifted soon, and that
will be a sad day for the Vietnamese people.  The United States maintained
the embargo for so long because of the MIA issue, and (though no one will
admit it) out of spite because America lost the war.
   Neither MIA's nor wounded American pride are, in my eyes, valid reasons
not to normalize with Hanoi. The REAL reason the embargo should be maintained
and, for that matter, reinforced, is human rights.  The Hanoi regime is one of
the most oppressive in the world today, a tyranny in the same vein as those in
Burma, North Korea and Cuba, to name a few.  No nation should give aid to
regimes which brutalize their people, as it will only serve to prolong the
suffering of the oppressed citizens.  The same rational that was applied to
the Apartheid regime in South Africa should also be used on regimes like
Hanoi (whose behavior is far worse than Pretoria's already abysmal record).
    In short, for many years, the United States was doing the right thing for
the wrong reason. Now that the misguided rationales for the embargo are being
resolved, the embargo will fall, and Hanoi will celebrate at the Vietnamese
people's expense.


> It would seem unlikely that a lameduck Bush Administration would advance
> the normalization process. Immediately after the October 'major

   I disagree.  George Bush has nothing to lose politically by normalizing
relatons with Hanoi. When it comes time to take the heat, he will be enjoying
his retirement with his grandchilderen.

> breakthrough' was announced, a number of American politicians and
> Vietnamese-American lobby groups voiced their opposition to normalization.
> They argued that Vietnam should respect human rights first and that
> normalization should occur only after the communist regime was removed from
> power and freedom and democracy restored to Vietnam.
            ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
   These are PRECICELY the conditions under which the United States should
restore relations with Vietnam.  What, I would like to ask, is wrong with
that ?  Why shouldn't freedom and human rights be preconditions to normal
relations ?  That's the problem with so many Western countries; we are all
to willing to overlook the abuses of our allies and trading pertners, and
then we wonder why we have so many enemies.

> The domestic debate in American contrasts sharply with that in Australia.
> Since 1983 the Labor Government has avidly sought to develop a robust
> relationship with Vietnam. After the signing of the Cambodian Peace
> Agreement, Australia was the first Western country to restore direct
> bilateral aid. Australia is presently the fourth largest investor in
> Vietnam. Australia has also opposed punitive US actions in the World Bank
> and International Monetary Fund to deny Vietnam development assistance.

   I realize that, and it is very unfortunate.  Who does this help ?  Not
the Vietnamese people. Tyrannies do what is in their best interests, and
their interests and the interests of their people rarely mesh. By fostering
relations with such an oppressive regime, the Australian government is
prolonging the suffering of the Vietnamese people.

> While there is some merit in this view, the Australian Government has taken
> the position of encouraging the United States to end its embargo. According
> to a senior government advisor, in remarks made to the ANU's National
> evelopment Studies Centre earlier in the year, 'Vietnam does not deserve
> to be isolated, nor to have its basic and overwhelming development needs
> thwarted.

    Hanoi does deserve to be isolated, because the Vietnamese people will
never know prosperity and happiness under it's brutal rule.  Hanoi is the
root of most of Vietnam's problems, and only when Vietnam is free will it
be possible to rebuild Vietnam.

>           In this regard it is in Australia's interest for Vietnam to break
> out of this economic isolation and achieve its potential even if this were
> to mean that Australia would be a smaller fish in a bigger pond rather than
> big fish in a puddle.'

    As I said, only when Vietnam is free will it's tremendous potential be
realized.  Untill then, it will remain just a puddle.


    Once again, never were freedom and human rights directly mentioned in
this article. In fact, Mr. Thayer trivialized the importance of these issues
when he portrayed freedom-loving Vietnamese and their American friends as the
villains in the normalization arguement.

    What is wrong with expecting progress on human rights in Vietnam before
we send aid?  Aid implies approval, and I'm sure none of the people supporting
aid to Hanoi would approve of similar aid and trade for Pretoria.  Why the
double standard ?

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