VVAF - Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation
February 10, 1994
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I appear before you as a veteran of the Vietnam War, as well as the president of an organization that, for more than a decade, has been working toward finally putting that terrible conflict to rest, and bringing about reconciliation between the United States and the countries of Indochina. Over the past 14 years, my organization and I have presented testimony on this issue on several occasions, before this committee and others in both houses of the Congress. However, this is the first time I am testifying with optimism that the United States is finally on the road toward healing the wounds of that war, and is now on a course that can positively affect relations between the peoples of the United States and of Vietnam. An entire generation of American and Vietnamese children have grown up with little more than negative stereo-types of each other. We can now begin to change those perceptions.
Mr.Chairman, exactly one week ago today, President Bill Clinton made the courageous and heroic decision to lift the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam. It was an historic decision, one which will have far-reaching consequences. In announcing this significant change in U.S. policy toward Vietnam, the PresidentÙÉ defined his reasons for lifting the embargo within the confines of the MIA issue. We all recognize the importance of the issue of our missing servicemen, and the priority this nation must place on bringing about the fullest possible accounting of the missing. President Clinton stated he was absolutely convinced that lifting the trade embargo offers the best way to achieve the fullest possible accounting. I totally agree with the President and have been advocating this position for more than a decade.
No competent discussion of U.S.-Vietnam relations can overlook the MIA issue. However, the President's momentous decision of last week will have numerous additional positive effects on U.S.-Vietnam relations. This move clears the way for potential progress on a wide range of issues including, human rights, regional security, trade, U.S. claims against Vietnam and refugees. Further- more, opening of consular offices and normalizing diplomatic relations would further enhance the resolution of all these issues. There is also the underlying understanding and friendship that will inevitably result between the peoples of the United States and Vietnam.
Thus, while the President framed his decision within the confines of the MIA issue, his decision will have significant and far-reaching consequences.
THE MIA ISSUE:
There is no doubt that Vietnam has been extremely cooperative in recent years in assisting the United States in our goal to achieve the fullest possible accounting for our MIAs. Admiral Charles Larson, commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific recently traveled to Vietnam and declared that Vietnam's cooperation, "across all fronts has been excellent...the fact that I'm here shows that there's been a level of cooperation that has been very good. Certainly if the level was not good, I would not be here. I feel a heavy responsibility coming as the first senior American officer."
There are those who say that the only reason the Vietnamese have cooperated was due to the trade embargo, that this was the only leverage we had over Vietnam to induce their cooperation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is over the past several years it has been the U.S. and not Vietnam, which has been adversely affected by the embargo. Indeed, Vietnam's level of cooperation is directly the result of the U.S. finally realizing that in order to resolve this issue it must be a "two way street."
Several years ago, before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs was formed, there was no permanent office in Vietnam; there was no interviewing military commanders or generals; there was no ability to go to the military bases or prisons, let alone do it unannounced; there was no access to theÙÉ archives; and the list goes on. Now, the U.S. can do all that and more. Why, because of people like General Vessey, the Senate Select Committee and others in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations who fully understood that only by showing mutual respect and regard for mutual interests would the two countries be able to put together the cooperative effort necessary to bring about the tremendous results of the past two years.
Lifting the embargo is not taking away leverage -- it is about further opening the doors which have been closed for too long.
HUMAN RIGHTS:
I was pleased to hear President Clinton announce last Thursday that he has decided to open a liaison office in Vietnam with one of its explicit purposes being pursuing a human rights dialogue with the Vietnamese government. In fact, just prior to last weeks lifting of the embargo the U.S. and Vietnam signed an agreement to begin a discussion on human rights issues. Also, ten Senators led by Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) wrote the President to press," ... for human rights improvements as [the U.S.] proceeds toward open trade and political normalization with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam... In seeking human rights improvements globally, the United States cannot exempt Vietnam from scrutiny and criticism for not meeting internationally recognized human rights norms."
While Vietnam has moved to liberalize its economy, the government has sought to retain a strict monopoly on political power and expression. The State Department's 1993 report on human rights stated that Vietnam continues, "to limit severely freedom of speech, press, assembly and association." The lifting of the embargo and the establishment of liaison offices will now enable the U.S. to engage, on a daily basis if necessary, this issue.
However, I would like to note that I believe economic decentralization, over time, begets political decentralization. Independent decision making, the basis of success for economic reform, cannot be sustained indefinately without corresponding reforms in the political sphere. Economic development, togethe with the effects of outside political and economic relations, cannot be artificially isolated from society as a whole. The accoutrements of development, which come in the form of advanced communication and transportation, combine with the spread of ideas across borders and tend to undermine the ability of governments to function monopolistically.
Unfortunately, this process is usually slow, and at times, painful. Many countries thorughout Asia-including some of our closed allies--are only beginning to move toward the democratization. They often continue to operate asÙÉ one-party states and many of America's fundamental freedoms are lacking. But by constructively engaging these countries change has occurred. The same will be true of Vietnam.
REGIONAL SECURITY AND STABILITY:
Southeast Asia is as peaceful and stable as at any time in recent memory. The successful elections in Cambodia and the subsequent formation of a new government has removed one of the greatest points of friction in the region, at long last bringing some measure of peace to their benighted country.
Underneath this surface calm, however, there remain some flash points of instability. Conflicting claims over the potentially oil-rich Sprately Islands continue to create tension; increasing military build-up by China and other nations adds uncertainty; and Asian neighbors watch warily as Japan plays a more assertive role in regional issues.
There are many in the Congress and the Administration who recognize the importance of Asian stability and the need for the U.S. involvement to promote security. Indeed, Assistant Secretary Winston Lord has testified that, "The post-Cold War period invites dialogue to prevent arms races, the forging of competing alignments, and efforst by one power or group of powers to dominate this strategic region. Our voice will be crucial." Last week, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) stated, "It is not in our security interests to have China achieve economic and military dominance in the region....[Vietnam is] seeking to live within the margins of balanced relations with the superpowers while simultaneously prusing close and compatible relatioins with ASEAN nations. We should do whatever is necessary to encouarge them on this sensible course."
It is, Mr.Chairman, in the interest of the U.S. to promote and foster a secure and stable southeast Asia. And positive U.S.-Vietnam relations are crucial to ensuring stability.
TRADE:
During the President's remarks last Thursday, in response to a question regarding the effect lifting the embargo would have on U.S. trade, the President responded, "I wanted to make sure that the trade questions did not enter into this decision. So, we never--I never had a briefing on it and we never had a discussion about it. I thought it was important that that not be a part of this discussion."
Regardless of the President's disavowal of the trade considerations behind his decision, the positive effects are undeniable. Billions of dollars inÙÉ trade and investment opportunities have already been ceded to our closest allies and fiercest economic competitors. Indeed, just last month Vietnam awarded a multi-million dollar contract to Airbus Industries of France for planes. A U.S. corporation will never get that contract back. Recently, a Boeing representative stated that Boeing could sell "$3 to $5 billion" worth of aircraft and equipment to Vietnam, which translates into tens of thousands of jobs here in the U.S.
But America's economic losses in Vietnam are more than the sum of the individual contracts forfeited. After decades of war, isolation and mismanagement, Vietnam has had to essentially start from scratch economically. Whole industries are being built from the ground up, and American companies can now partake in this crucial initial stage of development.
U.S. CLAIMS AGAINST VIETNAM:
In April, 1975, American citizens and companies fled the former South Vietnam in the face of advancing Communist forces, leaving behind their personal possessions and their businesses. The U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has completed its examination of these U.S. nationals' claims against Vietnam and has made its determination on the number and amount of these claims. It is very important toward the development of relations between the United States and Vietnam that this issue be resolved.
In addition there is also the issue of the U.S. government's claims against Vietnam, and Vietnam's frozen assets in the United States. While the amount of Vietnam's frozen assets could be used to cover the claims of the U.S. nationals, it is not enough to satisfy both government and private claims. The two countries are scheduled to hold discussions on these issues next week in Hanoi.
It is imperative that the claims of the U.S. nationals be given priority over government claims. The U.S. government must assure that its citizens are compensated for property which has been unjustly expropriated. It should be noted that this issue must be resolved, as a matter of law, before a normalized economic relationships between the two countries can be realized.
The Bush Administration recognized the importance of this issue, and discussion of the claims issue was included in "Phase I" of its "road map" for normalizing relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. The U.S. and Vietnam held their first meeting to discuss claims in New York in November 1991, following the signing of the Paris Peace Accords on Cambodia. It is our understanding that the administration used this meeting to press the issue of the U.S. government's claims, while relegating the issue of private claims to a back-ÙÉ burner. Congress should urge the adminstration to keep the U.S. nationals claims at the forefront of all future discussions on this issue.
Last week, President Clinton made the welcome gesture of announcing the exchange of liaison offices between the U.S. and Vietnam. There are many benefits to be accrued from increased and consistent relations.
Americans have been travelling regularly to Vietnam for years. I myself made my first trip back to Vietnam in 1981, and have returned several times since. In December, 1991, President Bush lifted the restrictions on travel service providers for Vietnam. In December, 1992, President Bush eased the embargo further to allow U.S. companies to open representative offices in Vietnam. Now that the trade embargo has been lifted, even more Americans will be traveling to Vietnam. Americans need and deserve the same consular protection in Vietnam as we are accorded all over the world.
The ability to issue visas, the right to visit imprisoned nationals, the ability to care for the needs of the country's nationals living abroad, all these benefits will result from exchanging consular relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.
Vietnam has, for all intents and purposes, joined the international community. Over 120 countries have normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam. The United States is one of the few countries which does not. The fact is, having normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam will do more to protect and promote America's interests in Vietnam and the region, giving the U.S. increased leverage.
REFUGEES:
The tragedy of the "boat people" fleeing Vietnam persisted for more than a decade. However, since the inception of the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) in 1989, under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the flow of "boat people" has slowed to a trickle, and over 50,000 have voluntarily been repatriated to Vietnam. However, the CPA is drawing to a close. There are still over 70,000 Vietnamese languishing in the first asylum camps of Hong Kong, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Phillipines. A majority of these "boat people" have been classified as "economic migrants" (as opposed to true refugees fleeing political persecution), and will not be resettled by third countries. Both Hong Kong and Indonesia have indicated that they expect to return all the Vietnamese from their camps before the end of 1994.
President Clinton's momentous decision of last week will make the decision toÙÉ return more tolerable. A Hong Kong refugee officials said lifting the embargo "will reinforce the message...for non-refugees that their future lies in Vietnam and not in a detention camp in Hong Kong." And in the words of a UNHCR official, lifting the embargo "will have a positive impact in helping people to make up their minds to go home, especially those who are sitting on the fence."
CONCLUSION:
Mr.Chairman, let me conclude by stating once again my firm conviction that the President's decision to lift the embargo was not only the right decision for achieving the fullest possible accounting of our MIA's, but it was also the right decision for achieving a host of other goals of the United States in our relations with Vietnam.
Many people are referring to the President's decision of last week as an "end," and in some respects it is. It is the end of thirty years of armed and economic warfare between our two nations. More importantly, however, I firmly believe that the President's decision is a "beginning." It is the beginning of a new relationship between the governments of the United States and Vietnam, and of the people of the United States and Vietnam which will help resolve our many differences and finally bring peace to both our countries.