News-Info-Alerts

To: ALL

From: Andi Wolos & Bob Necci
(POW-MIA InterNetwork)

Re: Cronauer Response to VFW Support of Jackson-Vanik Waiver

Date: July 27, 1998

Forwarded courtesy of Dino Carluccio

TO: DENNIS CULLINAN, Director
National Legislative Service
Veterans of Foreign Wars

CC: All US Senators & Representatives

DATE: July 26, 1998

I was astounded to read the text of the letter you sent to members of the US House and Senate in which you claimed to "express the views of the 2 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars regarding the impact of the President's renewal of Vietnam's waiver under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 on the Prisoners of War (POW) and Missing in Action (MIA) issue in Southeast Asia."

I am a life member of the VFW and I want you to understand in no uncertain terms that you DO NOT express my views on this subject.

The issue of POW/MIA accountability is one on which many veterans--including VFW members--hold differing views. Just as I firmly believe it is wrong for labor unions to use their money from all members to advocate political positions many members do not support, I also believe that for you to presume to speak for me and for all 2 million of my fellow VFW members on this highly controversial political issue is an outrage.

Because of the name recognition I have received due to the film "Good Morning, Vietnam!" and because many veterans tell me they look to me for leadership, I have long believed that I have an obligation to use my name value to espouse issues and causes in which I believe. Unlike you, however, I do not presume to speak for other veterans--especially on controversial issues such as this. If, however, you continue to misrepresent to our political leaders in Washington that you speak for all VFW members on this issue; I will feel obliged to use whatever notoriety I may have to personally counter such falsehoods.

For example, and contrary to your letter to our Senators and Congressmen, I and many other veterans believe:

1) Extending the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment for Vietnam will not facilitate achieving the fullest possible accounting of our POWs and MIAs.

2) On the other hand, disapproving the waiver will most likely result in improved cooperation from Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue.

3) Vietnam has not been adequately cooperating with the United States in the full accounting process for missing Americans.

4) Since the establishment of diplomatic relations, there has been only a cosmetic (not substantive) increase of US or Vietnamese efforts to account for our missing men.

5) There is some reason to believe that current US government policies on trade were resulting in a negative impact on the MIA accounting process.

6) Current US trade policies have not resulted in either gradual improvements in U.S.-Vietnamese relations in general or proportional improvements in the effort to account for missing Americans in particular.

7) There is reason to believe that the "fullest possible accounting" effort has diminished after the lifting of the embargo and establishment of diplomatic relations.

8) I would suggest that your cited observations may have been "stage-managed" and the JTF-Full Accounting personnel and other US government officials with whom you had conversations during your visit to Vietnam may have been self-serving and may not have been thoroughly forthcoming.

9) I believe that current trade relations with Vietnam have hindered rather than helped the full accounting process for missing Americans.

10) Therefore, since it is highly questionable that we can reach our goal of the "fullest possible accounting" by improving or expanding U.S.-Vietnamese trade relations, we ought not to do so.

My many contact with Vietnam veterans across the country have convinced me that a large number of VFW member, like myself, support the position of Senators Smith, Helms, Moseley-Braun, Reps. Rohrabacher, Gilman, Sam Johnson, Chris Smith, etc...against Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam, and we disagree with the VFW national leadership position expressed in your letter, and instead support the position of the American Legion, VVA, NVVC, and countless veterans' groups, refugee assistance groups, Vietnamese-American coalitions, POW/MIA families, etc...

There are a number of true "veterans" issues for which the VFW is qualified to speak for its members and I support your efforts in these areas. In the future, though, do not presume to represent yourself as speaking for me on such a controversial political issue.

Sincerely,

/s/

Adrian Cronauer
VFW Life Member 1395874
acronauer@burchlaw.com