Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:03:53 +1000
From:         cat@COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU
Subject:      Recognition of Vietnam

The United States is out of step with Southeast Asian regional states and
its NATO allies on the question of diplomatic recognition of Vietnam and in
maintaining the trade/aid embargo. Since the signing of the Paris Agreement
on Cambodia (October 1991) all of the ASEAN states have restored normal
diplomatic relations with Vietnam including Singapore. Vietnam's premier
(chu tich hoi dong bo truong) has visited all six ASEAN states at least
once.China and Vietnam have normalized relations, while Taiwan and South
Korea have established quasi-diplomatic posts in the guise of trade
missions.

The witholding of US diplomatic recognition counts for little. It is mainly
symbolic.  Vietnam has opened to the outside world. I attended a
Thanksgiving Dinner at the Dan Chu Hotel in Hanoi last November which was
attended by 60 or so Americans resident in Hanoi. The concensus of all the
Asian-Pacific states mentioned above, and their European counterparts
(mentioned below) is that the US should end its aid and trade embargo and
restore diplomatic relations.

On two recent visits, my eighth and ninth since 1981, I met Viet Kieu
(Overseas Vietnamese) from the United States in Hanoi who were negotiating
business deals. Indeed in November 1991 I stayed at the Nha Khac Ban Viet
Kieu Trung Uong (the Party's Guest House for Overseas Vietnamese). I met
information science specialists from France as well as former members of
the Thieu regime resident in California negotiating construction contracts.
In July-August this year I met many more Viet Kieu in Ho Chi Minh city,
including a group from Australia, also doing business. Qantas Airlines now
has a direct flight (9 hours) from Sydney to Saigon and it is full of
Overseas Vietnamese. Australia's Telecom makes a profit routing calls from
Vietnam to America via Australia. You can freely buy the Asian Wall Street
Journal (Dow Jones) and International Herald Tribune in Hanoi and on the
streets of Saigon. VOA, the BBC, Radio Australia etc. all come in loud and
clear and are not jammed.

Australian Government officials consider the US embargo the greatest single
obstacle to the full integration of Vietnam into the Asia-Pacific
community. The end of the embargo would have two immediate effects: it
would permit investment in infrastructure projects and permit US oil
companies to invest in off-shore oil exploration. The Vietnamese government
expects little else. Australia has restored direct bilateral aid to
Vietnam, suspended since Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. France, Italy, the
United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland - and others -
all provide aid to Vietnam. Japan is about to step out of the line drawn by
Washington.

Australia fought along side the United States as an ally in the Vietnam
War. It too had a number of MIA cases. However, as a result of Canberra's
early recognition of the Hanoi regime (in 1973 after the Paris Peace
Agreements), Australia has been able to investigate and settle these cases.
Australia has developed a robust relationship with the Hanoi government.
Australia's Ambassador and visiting Australian Ministers, like their
European Community counterparts, regularly bring up human rights abuses in
their discussions with Vietnamese officials. Do they have any effect? Well
the mercenary Vo Dai Ton, who attempted to violently overthrow the Hanoi
government (I use this language specifically to indicate he does not
qualify for prisoner of conscience status) was released after having been
caught trying to inflitrate the country. He is now back in Australia
denouncing the communist regime. French intervention brought the release
from house detention of writer and radical critic Duong Thu Huong.
Recently, a very senior Minister in the Australian government brought the
cased of the United Buddhist Church and detention of several Venerable
Monks to the attention of Hanoi. I don't often agree with President Bush,
but he argues that the lines of communication must be kept open with China
if the US is to have any influence. Why not the same logic for Vietnam?

There are pragmatic grounds for the US to recognize Vietnam and establish
diplomatic relations. Firstly, as the Woodcock Mission (sent by President
Jimmy Carter) reported in the mid-1970s, the US would make more progress in
clearing up the MIA quesiton by having an Embassy on the spot, equipped
with vehicles and other tools of the trade and trained specialists, than by
not having a permanent presence. Secondly, US business interests are being
cut out as an increasing number of countries begin to sign contracts and do
deals with Vietnam. Vietnam appears to be holding some off-shore oil leases
for US companies, but this won't be the case forever. Finally, while
Vietnam is economically weak, isolated, and cut off from military support
from the former Soviet Union, it is falling prey to Chinese expansionism in
the Gulf of Tonkin and the Spratly Islands. It is in America's interests to
see China push itself into the region and upset the prevailing balance? The
US has declared it has no interest in this matter. Ask Manila, Kuala
Lumpur, Jakarta and Bangkok. They want the US to remain and normalize
relations with Vietnam. I think regional stability would be made more
secure if Vietnam were permitted to develop closer relations with regional
states and not be hobbled by a continued aid/trade embargo. I would also
like to see the pro-China lobby in Vietnam stymied, East Asian socialism is
not dead (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). I have a forthcoming article
on this entitled, 'Comrade Plus Brother: Sino-Vietnamese Relations' to
appear in the next issue of Pacific Review (London).

As for the recent e-mail flurry of instant judgments about the stability of
the Hanoi regime, I don't know even where to begin. I spent July-August in
Vietnam - Hanoi, Quang Nam-Da Nang, Thua Thien-Hue and Ho Chi Minh City
observing the recent elections of deputies to the National Assembly. I find
predictions about the imminent collapse of the Hano regime exaggerated.
There is little evidence of substantial opposition to the regime or any
credible alternatives basd in Vietnam. Anti-Communist Overseas Vietnamese
may disagree but I feelthey are sadly mislead bytheir own propaganda.
Vietnam is still an authoritarian system, but the number of contacts that
Vietnamese-speaking outsiders now have provides information unavailable
several years ago. Vietnamese returning from Vietnam  provide little
evidence to support the prediction that the regime will collapse as its
fraternal allies did in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Again, to engage in self-promotion, I suggest a commissioned piece I wrote
for the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore entitled, 'The
Challenges Facing Vietnamese Communism' which was published in their annual
yearbook, Southeast Asian Affairs 1992. I demonstrated that socio-political
change is accompanying economic development and that these forces have
forced the Communist Party to retreat bit by bit from everyday life.
Indeed, the salience of ideology is in decline and Communist Youth Union
membership has fallen sharply. Between the status quo and total collapse
there are other possible outcomes of this process, the regime may take
steps to transform itself and 'get by with a little help from its friends.'

Cheers,

Carl






Carlyle A. Thayer
Associate Professor & Visiting Fellow
Dept. of Political and Social Change
Research School of Pacific Studies
The Australian National University
GPO Box 4
Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia

Phone: 0011 61 6 249 4453 office; 0011 61 6 251 1849 home
Fax 0011 61 6 257 1893 office; 0011 61 6 251 3749 home
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU