February 10, 1994
Thank you Chairman Ackerman for holding this hearing and affording me the opportunity to testify. The issue of missing US service personnel is one that cannot be allowed to go away now that President Clinton has lifted the embargo. It is now even more imperative that we step up our efforts to aggressively pursue all possible means to pressure Hanoi to resolve any and all outstanding cases of missing servicemen. I am hopeful this hearing will assist us in finding ways we can continue to pressure the Vietnamese now that the embargo has been lifted.
With the lifting of the embargo, it is only a matter of time before a full normalization of relations with Vietnam will occur. It is my hope that the President will proceed with extreme caution to the next level or recognition. In addition to a greater display of cooperation by Hanoi on the POW/MIA issue, I also feel that there are other outstanding issues which must be resolved before we can normalize relations with Vietnam.
I am here today to not only give my full continued support to the families of POW/MIA's in their quest for a full accounting of their loved ones, but also to speak for the many American citizens who possess legitimate claims against the government of Vietnam for property that was seized without compensation.
After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the Vietnam government expropriated all American property and never compensated the victims of this confiscation in a clear violation of international law. These assets included real estate interests of both corporation and individuals, personal property, bank account balances, and natural resource concessions. Many of these claimants remained in Vietnam at the specific request of the U.S. government. Not only did the U.S. government originally encourage investment into South Vietnam, it also urged these investors to stay on longer than many would have liked.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which was established within the Department of Justice to adjudicate the claims of U.S. nationals against foreign countries, has examined the question of Vietnam claims. Starting in 1980, the Commission took six years to painstakingly receive testimony and conduct hearings to determine the validity of these claims. After hearing 534 claims, only 192 were found to meet the extensive evidence requirements of the commission. These awards had an aggregate total principal value of almost $100 million. The Commission allows for 6% simple interest brining the modern day total to over $200 million. These claims are legally valid and recognized by the United States government.
Fortunately, the United States controls the means to achieve an equitable settlement to these claims. In 1975, the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued regulations, pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act, that froze all assets of the South Vietnam government in U.S. financial institutions. According to a 1983 OFAC survey, the total value of these blocked assets at the time exceeded $150 million. It is reasonable to assume that the aggregate amount of blocked assets is now at least $200 million. Whatever the exact amount of the claims and blocked assets, it is clear that there are more than enough funds to cover the full amount of the claims. I believe this is the first time in history where this is the case.
At the same time, I am urging the Administration to take prompt action on these claims, I would also urge it to refrain from negotiating these claims in conjunction with the United States government's own set of claims against the Vietnamese government. The dollar amount of government claims is unknown and to jointly pursue the claims would greatly jeopardize the satisfactory resolution of individual claims and would be contrary to State Department precedent.
The historical practice has been to negotiate the public and private claims seperately. In fact, a 1980 GAO report that urged Vietnam claims to be jointly pursued was strongly opposed by the State Department. In fact the State Department reported that "Adoption of the GAO recommendation would make it extraordinarily difficult in many cases to conclude settlements of private claims on terms acceptable to the claimants and the Congress."
I would also urge the Administration to seek the full value of the claims of private citizens. Historically, the Department has weighed several factors, including the strategic importance of reaching an agreement with the country, the morality of obtaining justice for U.S. citizens, and the availability of funds to satisfy the claims to determine the percentage of claims settlement. In the present case with Vietnam there would appear to be no legitimate reason why the Department would accept a figure that is less than the total principal - and interest of the awards. There exist sufficient funds to satisfy the claims, the claims of the U.S. citizens have been adjudicated, and there is no strategic importance to justify accepting a lower settlement.
The U.S. government is the sole representative of our citizens' claims and has an obligation to them to reach the fairest possible settlement. These citizens have no legal recourse outside of the government's action. I urge the Clinton Administration to be as responsive to these citizens as they were to the government twenty years ago. We must forcefully assert the right of the American claimants to full compensation.
The Clinton Administration has argued that the Vietnamese have been sufficiently forthcoming with information about our missing servicemen to justify a lifting of the trade embargo. We must demand that they also be cooperative with respect to compensating the Americans whose assets they seized. Until they are so forthcoming, we cannot consider a full normalization of relations.