- Latest articles
- |
- RSS
- |
- Search
- Home
- About Viet Tan
- Newsroom
- Commentary
- Take Action
by Greg Rushford
posted on September 21, 2009
Vietnam attracted an impressive $8 billion in foreign direct investments last year, according to a report that was released on Sept. 17 by the UN’s Conference on Trade and Development. Indeed, the UNCTAD report revealed that overseas investors saw Vietnam as a more attractive investment opportunity than all of its ten Southeast Asian neighbors, save only Malaysia (also $8 billion), Singapore ($22.7 billion, and Thailand ($10 billion). And the beneficial results of FDI flows into Vietnam in the past decade show. When I first visited Vietnam in 2000, it was still very much a backward, impoverished country, and looked like the classic Marxist-Leninist economic basket case that it had become. But on my most recent visit last Sept., Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) sparkled. And when I spent several days driving around the Mekong Delta, the signs of rising prosperity were visible everywhere, most notably on the faces of ordinary Vietnamese people going about their work peaceably on those ubiquitous motorbikes. Even its strongest critics must acknowledge the economic progress that Vietnam’s (communist) leadership has made in in the last decade, as it has moved away from a Soviet-style command economy.
Overseas investors, notably the American Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam, rightly can claim a large share of the credit for Vietnam’s emerging modernization. AmCham members have always maintained that when they encourage Vietnam to honor the sanctity of commercial contracts, they are encouraging the country along the road to the rule of law, which will encourage political liberalization as well. After all, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Covenant, to which Vietnam is a signatory, is also a contractual obligation between the government and its citizens. The problem is: the authorities in Vietnam pay the covenant little respect. Despite the visible signs of economic growth that that I saw one year ago, September, 2008 also marks the beginning of a new crackdown on Vietnamese citizens whose “crimes” are basically that they believe they ought to enjoy the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is supposed to protect. So far, more than twenty of these brave people have heard the midnight knock on the door in the past year. And this is the point where the story directly touches — and becomes awkward for — the American Chamber of Commerce.
On June 13, a prominent Vietnamese lawyer named Le Cong Dinh — an active AmCham member in Ho Chi Minh City and a respected advocate for the rule of law both on commercial- and human rights fronts — was arrested and tossed into jail, where he remains locked away. Dinh was the managing partner of DC Law, a prominent law firm in Ho Chi Minh City with a client roster that includes major foreign investors in Vietnam. Now, he has been disbarred from the practice of law. (In classic communist fashion, Dinh has been disbarred before the official “investigation” has been completed, and before there has been a “show” trial.) Dinh’s “crime” is basically that he engaged in peaceful exercise of the freedoms that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the Vietnamese government to honor. Specifically, Dinh ran afoul of Article 88 of the Vietnamese penal code, which criminalizes “propaganda” against the state — as defined by the Politburo. In the eyes of the Politburo, Article 88 and similar statutes trump the international human rights covenants. As for the eyes of the American business community in Vietnam, well, they are looking away. The American Chamber of Commerce in Vietnam has turned its back on Le Cong Dinh, who has become an inconvenient man.
The story illustrates the difficult situation that foreign investors face as they try to do business in dicey Third World countries where the rule of law is fragile. And for the American Chamber in Vietnam, it’s hopes to maintain a low public profile on important rule of law issues, even when AmCham’s own best-and-brightest members are involved, are fraught with risks. Perhaps encouraged to believe that it can safely violate its citizens’ freedoms of speech without serious objections from the business community, the authorities in Hanoi have recently squared the circle. Now, Hanoi is also threatening the freedoms associated with commercial speech — including academic research on important economic issues, if that research might run counter to the communist party line. So by its silence on the injustices that are being perpetrated upon Le Cong Dinh and other pro-democracy advocates, the U.S. business community has helped encourage forces that are now threatening its own direct interests. Moreover, AmCham has to worry about the signal that it has sent to human rights advocates on Capitol Hill.
Here’s why:
By deliberately averting their eyes, even when the abuses of fundamental notions of due process hit one of their own, AmCham’s leaders have given the authorities in Hanoi reason to believe that their crackdown enjoys the tacit support of the American business community. At the same time, by refusing to point out the contradiction between Vietnam’s draconian Article 88 and the country’s obligations to adhere to the international legal norms that define civilized societies, AmCham has also sent a signal to trade skeptics on Capitol Hill. Critics like California’s Sen. Barbara Boxer would deny Vietnam its duty-free trade privileges with the U.S. pursuant to the Generalized System of Preferences, on grounds that despite Vietnam’s undeniable progress on the economic front, the country’s human rights record remains dismal. By its silence, AmCham has handed the congressional human rights advocates clear evidence to support their accusations that when it comes to human rights, the business community will put profits before principles.
On Oct. 1, 2008, one month into the current Vietnamese crackdown, Sen. Boxer framed the issue succinctly. “Like many of my Senate colleagues, I had hoped that strengthening our relationship with Vietnam on the trade and economic front and supporting Vietnam’s integration into the international community would dramatically improve Vietnam’s human rights record,” she declared upon introducing legislation that would strip Vietnam of its GSP privileges. “But that has not turned out to be the case.”
Now, with the arrest of AmCham member Le Cong Dinh and other peaceable democracy advocates, the senator has more ammunition to press her legislation.
The American Bar Association has spoken out about the obvious abuses of due process involving Dinh and other pro-democracy advocates who have been caught up in the current crackdown. So has the American ambassador in Hanoi, Michael Michalak, who has pointed out that Dinh and the others have been arrested for “activities that, in many places in the world, are regarded as normal, usual discussions aimed at strengthening rule of law in Vietnam.” Human Rights Watch and other respected advocacy organizations have also been eloquent in saying that Article 88 and similar laws of Marxist-Leninist origin ought to be piled in history’s communist dustbin. But not the American Chamber of Commerce — the one voice that would be heard loud-and-clear in Hanoi.
“AmCham certainly supports a more transparent legal system and better rule-of-law in Vietnam,” Adam Sitkoff, AmCham’s Hanoi-based executive director, told me in what turned out to be a testy exchange of e-mails. “However, we don’t have any statement or public opinion on the Le Cong Dinh [case].” When I asked if upon further reflection, he thought that it might better help convey AmCham’s seriousness of purpose issues by speaking out when it sees injustices, Sitkoff shot back: “I appreciate that you are trying to put words in my mouth.”
Said Virginia Foote , a prominent member of AmCham’s board of governors who is widely respected both in Hanoi in Washington, D.C. for her efforts to foster closer commercial ties between the two countries, in a Sept. 1 e-mail: “I don’t know enough about this case to comment — I have been in US for several weeks now.”
Dinh’s law firm, DC Law, lists Foote’s investment firm, Vietnam Partners, as a client. Asked if she was concerned that one of her own lawyers had been caught up in Hanoi’s crackdown, Foote replied: “I don’t know if he has ever been a lawyer for Vietnam Partners — we use a different firm normally — and I don’t know what you refer to.” AmCham, Foote said, “has commented many times on instances where the Board or members disagree” with either the U.S. government or Vietnam’s.
Foote played a leading role in the creation of the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement and then Vietnam’s WTO accession. She was awarded Vietnam’s Medal of Friendship in July, 2007 by President Nguyen Minh Triet.
While AmCham members aren’t exactly falling all over themselves to acknowledge it, there is little doubt that before he became an inconvenient man to the U.S. business community, Dinh was one of AmCham’s most visible personifications of Vietnam’s progress along the road to law.
Until June 13, when the security police picked him up and accused him of being an enemy of the state, Le Cong Dinh, 41, was considered one of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’s shining success stories. Dinh’s resume sparkled: Graduate of Saigon University, then Hanoi Law School. Fulbright scholar at Tulane University, where he received a Master of Laws degree in 2000. International trade lawyer at a powerhouse American law firm, White & Case, where in 2003 he defended the Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters in the anti-dumping case brought by the US catfish lobby against Vietnam. Co-founder in 2005 and managing partner of D.C. Law, with headquarters in Ho Chi Minh City. Married to a former Miss Vietnam who is known for her brains as well as her beauty, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Khanh, since 1998.
Dinh was a man with connections, most of which centered on promoting the development of the rule of law in a still-communist country where political power is concentrated in the communist party and a Politburo. As vice-president of the Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association from 2005 – 2008, Dinh spearheaded efforts to develop commercial legal reforms in his native country. DC Law’s impressive client list includes Yahoo, Intel, Toshiba, Hyatt International, and Toyota, as well as Vietnam Partners, Ginny Foote’s investment banking boutique. Dinh was also an active AmCham member. He frequently attended Am Cham networking receptions in Ho Chi Minh City, and also AmCham events aimed at developing a deeper appreciation of the rule of law in Vietnam.
Dinh also was not shy in pointing out that the emerging rule of law in Vietnam extends beyond just the sanctity of commercial contracts. He defended several well-known pro-democracy advocates. He became an outspoken critic of the top authorities in Hanoi, including the president. Dinh also tapped into politically potent nationalist anti-Chinese sentiment (the resentments stem from 1,000 years of Chinese domination of Vietnam), by accusing the government of offering too many concessions to Beijing to mine bauxite in the central highlands.
Dinh, who is skilled at using the Internet to spread his pro-democracy message widely, also became friendly with organizations outside Vietnam like Viet Tan (for Vietnam Reform Party) that are also skilled in modern communications. Viet Tan began in 1982 as an underground movement that broadcast short-wave radio programs into Vietnam, according to news reports. The organization has offices in California, and also Paris and Australia, and also claims members inside Vietnam. The reform party’s basic political message is a peaceable one: that Vietnam should become a liberal democracy. (Despite Viet Tan’s advocacy of democracy and rejection of violence, Hanoi regards it as a “terrorist” organization.) Along with such pro-democracy advocates, Dinh became involved in efforts to draft a more modern model constitution for his country — one that guaranteed the freedoms of expression and assembly. That’s what got Le Cong Dinh into trouble.
On June 1 — just twelve days before he was arrested — Dinh was elected secretary of the Democratic Party of Vietnam, which advocates “national unity based upon the principle of freedom, democracy and equality.” In Vietnam, that’s considered a criminal offense.
A Vietnamese pro-democracy advocate confirms that Dinh attended a seminar on non-violent struggle that the Viet Tan organized in Thailand in March. When he was arrested the next month, the Vietnamese authorities found in Dinh’s home a text in Vietnamese of a booklet entitled “From Dictatorship to Democracy, that had been translated and distributed inside Vietnam by Viet Tan. The Kafkaesque Article 88 was made for such “crimes.”
Presently, Dinh’s connections basically extend to his jailers and whatever “freedoms” they permit him in the confines of his cell in some undisclosed location. He could get 20 years, or he could be exiled. Meanwhile, Dinh — who made an (unconvincing) “confession” that he had violated Article 88 that the Vietnamese authorities broadcast on YouTube — must be wondering how he will ever put his life back together.
Last month, another Vietnamese dissident was arrested, her crime being that she wore a T-shirt with a politically incorrect slogan that protested the Chinese bauxite mining project, and the Chinese in general.
If such low-tech speech like simple slogans on T-shirts frighten the authorities in Hanoi, imagine how they fear modern communications that bring news and information to the Vietnamese people that the communist party considers politically incorrect. There are the Internet’s news channels, newspapers like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, BBC’s Vietnamese Radio Service, the Voice of America, Vietnam’s active blogosphere, Twitter, cell-phones, text messaging, and so forth. Dinh, like most of the other pro-democracy advocates who have been arrested, is said to be very skilled at using the Internet to spread powerful ideas.
During Vietnam’s long struggle for independence, it was the communists who successfully controlled the message and the spread of ideas. During the civil war with the south that ended with the communist victory in 1975, Ho Chi Minh’s forces were freedom fighters. They were nationalists who first fought the French imperialists, then the Japanese during World War II, and after that the French again, and then the Americans, until they prevailed. But these days, dissident organizations like Viet Tan, with their skill at using the tools of using modern communications, control the message — and now it’s the communists who look backward. On Sept. 14, for example, Viet Tan organized a “virtual rally” over the Internet, focusing on their objections to Chinese bauxite mining in the Central Highlands and China’s influence in Vietnam. If one’s aim is to overthrow the communists in Hanoi and open up the country politically as well as economically, the most powerful “weapons” are no longer guns. The communists have the guns, but they no longer have powerful political ideas.
I asked the Vietnamese minister of justice, Ha Hung Cuong, and Vietnam’s ambassador to the United States, Le Cong Phung, if they would allow me to interview Le Cong Dinh to hear his side of the story. I asked if they would help me get in touch with Dinh’s Vietnamese lawyer. They wouldn’t. I also asked whether they agreed that it is reasonable to make it a crime for a group of Vietnamese citizens to band together to take the political position that the sooner that Vietnamese people are allowed to select their own leaders, the better. They wouldn’t answer that question, either.
An intrepid lawyer in Hanoi named Le Quoc Quan was not so reticent. Former lawyer, as it turns out. Quan, a respected democracy advocate, was arrested on March 3, 2007 after he returned from a stint in Washington, D.C. with the National Endowment for Democracy. He was released several months later after an international outcry that included Americans like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Sen. John McCain.
Like his friend Le Cong Dinh, Quan was disbarred while in jail, before an official investigation had been completed. “The police handed the disbarment decision to me while I was in the cell, “ Quan relates. “I did not have opportunities to consult with my lawyers but I found that it did not comply with the law. Then I borrowed the pen of the police to write my complaint. I was not taken to court for trial, my complaints are pending without answer.”
When I told Quan that I was wondering how the Vietnamese authorities would deal with Gandhi, if he were Vietnamese and living in the country these days. His reply was as touching as it was brave: “Kakaka...it is interesting and sound ’naïve’ thinking,” Quan replied. “I like Gandhi and his struggle style very much and last year I organized an English class in Thai Ha Church. I brought a document in English talking about ’Gandhi.’ I requested my students to translate into Vietnamese. The police later threatened me and all my class members. They are so afraid to learn something about non-violent struggle for democracy and justice.” There could be no “Gandhi in Vietnam these days,” Quan concluded.
I asked Quan if he had received any support from the American business community when he was arrested and disbarred. His indirect reply turned the question back on Dinh’s case. “Dinh is my friend. I supported him totally and would like anyone to help him. I think the voice from Business community can be a good help as Vietnam is trying to do more and more business with the world.”
As for the American business community, AmCham and its foreign investors now face another assault on free speech – and this time, that speech threatens to affect financial bottom lines directly, as it explicitly links economic- with political rights.
On July 24, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung signed a directive called “Decision 97” that ought to have sent alarm bells off in AmCham offices. The directive bans scholars and researchers from public discussion of various subjects that might cause discomfort to the communist party. As Associated Press reporter Ben Stocking has reported, the decree “limits scientific and technical research to 317 approved topics and prohibits groups from publishing research on policies of the communist party and the government.”
The restrictions even included macroeconomic research — obviously aimed at banning public discussions and analyses of Hanoi’s (inept) policies that have contributed to worrisome inflation. Last week, a Hanoi-based independent think tank, the Institute of Development Studies, decided it had no other choice except to shut down because of Decision 97, according to Stocking’s AP report. When it was set up two years ago, IDS attracted international attention because its membership roster included some of Vietnam’s most prominent intellectuals, some with close communist party ties. As Le Cong Dinh learned the hard way, the intellectuals have now experienced the limits of free speech and thought. “With this new decision, we can hardly operate,” economist and IDS vice president Pham Chi Lan declared. It would be very difficult for us to raise our voice as an institution. That’s why we decided to close.”
There is a certain dark irony that the crackdown on free speech that first caught up pro-democracy advocates like AmCham member Dinh has now expanded to threaten free speech on economic issues like Vietnam’s rising inflation — economic issues that greatly concern AmCham and other foreign investors in the country.
“International trade is one of the chief instruments by which you bring along the rule of law,” explains leading Columbia University economic theorist Jagdish Bhagwati. The professor quickly adds that “the rule of law is also essential in extending human rights and economic development, alongside.”
There is a new Vietnam War going on, this one over ideas. The U.S. business community, sooner or later, will have to decide which side it is really on — and where, in the long run, its own enlightened self-interest lies.
http://www.rushfordreport.com/2009/090921Inconvenient.htm
23/09/2009 @ 22:48
Leave No Man Behind
by Garnett ’Bill’ Bell
Leave No Man Behind: An eyewitness account of the Vietnam War from its early stages through the last day of the Republic, 30 April 1975. A startling new look at the postwar era and the issue of America’s unreturned veterans listed as POW/MIA, an issue that has haunted America since the beginning of American involvement. Shrouded in controversy, a subject of great emotion amid charges of governmental conspiracy and Communist deceit, the possibility of American servicemen being held in secret captivity after the war’s end has influenced U.S. policy toward Southeast Asia for three decades. Now, the first chief of the U.S. Government’s only official office in postwar Vietnam provides an insider’s account of that effort. The challenges he faced in dealing with U.S. politicians, including Vietnam veterans, Senators John McCain and John Kerry, are an ardent reminder of the many similarities in the wars fought by American troops in both Vietnam and Iraq-Afghanistan. In an illuminating and deeply personal memoir, the government’s top missing persons investigator in Southeast Asia, who later became a member of the U.S. Congressional Staff, discusses the history of the search for missing Americans, reveals how the Communist Vietnamese stonewalled U.S. efforts to discover the truth, and how the standards for MIA case investigations were gradually lowered while pressure for expanded commercial and economic ties with communist Vietnam increased. Leave No Man Behind is the compelling story of a dedicated group of professionals who, against great odds, were able to uphold the proud military traditions of duty, honor and country.
Every American fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan should read ’Leave No Man Behind.’
As the US Marine Corps helicopter lifted from the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon at daybreak on April 30, 1975, I thought about the carnage that would result from a heat-seeking missile fired by Vietnamese Communist forces gradually encircling the besieged capital of the dying Republic of Vietnam (RVN). Exhausted by a lack of sleep for the previous several days, I no longer felt fear, only curiosity. Tears welled up in my eyes, perhaps due in part to the anguish of witnessing the tragic events unfolding before me, but also from caustic smoke belched out of rooftop incinerators glowing cherry-red from reams of frantically burned secret US Government documents. Feeling a sense of relief, I nevertheless harbored an even stronger sense of guilt. On the Republic of Vietnam’s final day, as I looked down into the gradually diminishing compound and into the terrified eyes in the upturned faces of hundreds of Vietnamese nationals and citizens of other countries friendly to the United States, who were being left behind, I knew that I would be haunted for many years to come. As the venerable ’Sea Stallion’ throbbed its way through the damp morning air toward a helicopter carrier anchored off the coast at Vung Tau, blazing multicolored tracers rising from the dark-canopied jungle below bade farewell to America and to an era known as the Vietnam War.
During the more than 30 minute flight into the future I sat angry and confused after some 10 years of involvement with a faraway place called Vietnam. I wondered whether the sacrifices in lives and national treasure made by America had been worthwhile or in vain. After contemplating the issue for many years, I believe it is now time to take stock of the American War in Vietnam so that Americans, especially those of us who served there, can finally decide whether or not we now have cause for a celebration or the lingering agony of defeat.
With the fall of the RVN, as many analysts had predicted, jubilant communist forces quickly invaded and occupied the populated areas. Hundreds of thousands of former military and civilian officials were required to be screened, classified and registered as enemies of the revolution to be detained in remote, isolated concentration camps under horrific conditions. Thousands died due to disease and malnutrition, many never to be heard from again by family members. At the same time, the communist leadership insisted that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and the Provisional Revolutionary Government in the south be united as one.
From that day forward, according to the constitution, only one political party, the Vietnam Communist Party, would be allowed to exist. On official letterheads of government stationery the three previously used terms comprising the national motto of the communist north: ’Freedom, Independence and Democracy’ were changed forever to read ’Freedom, Independence and Happiness.’ To the Vietnamese people this change in terminology, especially the reference to happiness, would provide one of the few sources of humor during a desperate time. To add insult to injury, the graves of fallen RVN military personnel were razed by bulldozers in cemeteries across the country. Typewriters, radios, televisions and anything that could be used for propagation or communication were required to be registered with the ’Military Management Committee’ responsible for political security under the new ’Socialist Republic of Vietnam.’ As interest began to wane, occasional references to the Vietnam War coined phrases such as ’a noble cause’ or ’an unnecessary war.’ The question as to whether the Vietnam War was or was not necessary was just as divisive in postwar debate as it was during the days following the 1968 ’Tet Offensive.’ In my own assessment of both the necessity for and the outcome of the Vietnam War two primary considerations were the U.S. national interest at the time and the mission of the U.S. Military Forces that fought in Southeast Asia.
The overall mission of U.S. military forces for the latter part of the 20th century began to take shape shortly after the conclusion of World War II. At that time the policy of the United States was one of containment of Communism. I believed that this policy was fully justified, because it was obvious that the Communist International, especially Russia and China, sought to ’liberate’ the entire world. This policy of containment became known as the ’Cold War.’ Although there were numerous clashes involving air crews during missions involving special operations and reconnaissance, the first major battlefield of that war erupted in 1950 on the Korean Peninsula, where the successful accomplishment of the mission of containing communism there was dubbed by the media as a ’stalemate.’ At the beginning of the War in Vietnam, the basic mission of American soldier worldwide was to kill, destroy, or capture the enemy, or repel his assault by fire. Over one million men and women answered their nation’s call, and they did their level best to carry out their mission in Southeast Asia. As a result, some 58,000 Americans and some 225,000 allied personnel made the ultimate sacrifice, while by comparison, communist Vietnam suffered the loss of over 1,300,000 personnel, including 150,000 personnel who were killed-in-action but never recovered. I personally witnessed the strongest blow struck at communist forces by hard-fighting American and South Vietnamese troops that occurred during the January 31, 1968, ’Tet’ offensive. The bodies of thousands of communist personnel were stacked in piles around installations throughout South Vietnam, and losses were so heavy for the communist side that the entire military rank structure was temporarily abandoned and cadre selected to command and control units were assigned based on position or job title only, rather than actual military rank. The loss of life to the communist side was nothing less than staggering, and any U.S. military commander whose losses approached even a small percentage of actual communist fatalities at that time would most likely have been relieved of command and drummed from the service.
Even though America’s servicemen and women fought valiantly during the 1968 ’Tet’ offensive, the U.S. and international media nevertheless managed to reshape their hard-earned victory into a political defeat. Vietnamese communist propaganda experts were so skillful that they were able to convince many members of the media and even some military analysts that two separate governments, the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the North, existed side by side and that both were involved in a ’civil war.’ It has since been proven that both the NLF and the DRV were tightly controlled by the Vietnam Communist Party and both governments were actually one and the same. Moreover, personnel of the two purported military organizations of both illusionary governments, the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the Viet Cong (VC), were in reality members of the Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN).
Admittedly, in terms of national treasure the Vietnam War was not cheap. Depending on which expert’s figures are used, the total cost of the Vietnam War to America was somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 billion dollars. By comparison the overall U.S. defense budget during postwar, peacetime years exceeded that amount annually. In reality one million men could not have been trained at U.S.-based training centers for a 10 year period, even using blank ammunition, for a lesser amount. While the Vietnam War was certainly a drain on the U.S. economy, during the decade of our of engagement there the former Soviet Union also provided significant amounts of financial and material support to communist forces deployed throughout Southeast Asia. Support by the USSR to Vietnam, the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and a badly managed, centrally controlled economy all combined to bring the former Soviet Union to its knees and bring about the collapse of the Communist Party. Ultimately this collapse led to the end of the Cold War. Veterans of the Cold War, especially those who fought in Korea and Vietnam, now enjoy the gratitude of the peoples of many European, East Asian and Southeast Asian nations. It is now clear that as a result of the sacrifices made by American and allied veterans, today the people of Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia are living under freely elected governments. This accounts for one quarter of the earth’s population.
Obviously, the true losers of the Vietnam War are the Vietnamese people, not just the people of the former Republic of Vietnam, but citizens from all areas of the country, including the north. Although millions of Vietnamese ’voted with their feet’ by escaping on small boats across dangerous ocean currents, resulting in staggering losses to mankind, today millions more freedom-loving Vietnamese still yearn to be free. I believe that the two most important bilateral issues remaining between the U.S. and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam are an accounting for the almost 1,800 Americans still missing from the Vietnam War and democracy for the Vietnamese people.
Successive administrations in Washington, D.C. have pressed for democracy in many countries around the world, including Russia, Haiti, South Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq. But there has been very little interest shown in gaining democracy for Asians, and this double standard is difficult to understand. It is almost as though we Americans have a collective mentality whereby we believe that peoples with yellow skin cannot manage freedom, and that tight control is the only option available.
The American business community, aggressively buying up cheap products manufactured in Asia for resale on the U.S. market, is blinded by the lack of labor unions, cheap wages and fear of violent reprisals against labor strikes. It is ironic that after some 58,000 fine young Americans died in Vietnam while fighting for democracy the American business community is now steadily developing the economy of communist controlled Vietnam, insuring that the Vietnam Communist Party will not only remain in power, but that it will increasingly have the ability to maintain an even larger and more powerful military force. Concerning the plight of the families of Vietnam War POWs and MIAs, democracy can also go a long way to help in this regard. I believe that most Americans, especially Vietnam veterans, will agree that for the most part the Vietnamese people are honest and hardworking. Like our people right here at home, I can’t imagine a situation where the people of Vietnam would be willing to hide the remains of anyone’s loved one in order to extort money from them. Although during the past 30 years the ruling communists have gradually doled out bits and pieces of skeletal remains and personal effects in return for large monetary sums, once the Vietnam Communist Party has collapsed the Vietnamese people will rise to the occasion and provide whatever assistance is necessary to resolve the issue of our missing men. We should all be doing everything we can to make sure that day comes.
Garnett ’Bill’ Bell, a retired GM-!4, DoD, went to Vietnam as an infantryman in 1965 and served four tours there. Bell was awarded 20 individual decorations and numerous unit awards. Bell later served as an instructor in the Department of Exploitation and Counterintelligence, U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School. During his career Bell served in the 327th Airborne Battle Group, 101st Airborne Division, the 1/35th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, the 2/506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, the 101st MI Company, the 525th Military Intelligence Group, the Defense Language Institute, the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, the 6th Special Forces Group, the Joint Casualty Resolution Center (JCRC), the Four Party Joint Military Team (FPJMT) and the Joint Task Force Full-Accounting. Bell’s wife and son were killed and a daughter critically injured in April 1975, when the families of U.S. officials assigned to the American Embassy in Saigon were evacuated in conjunction with the ’Operation Babylift’ program. After being evacuated by helicopter from the roof of the American Embassy on the final day of the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) (30 April 1975), Bell returned to postwar Vietnam as the first official U.S. representative after the war ended when he was assigned as the Chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi. He served more than 12 years on the POW/MIA Search Teams. An Airborne-Ranger and Jumpmaster, Bell eventually became a member of the Congressional Staff, U.S. House of Representatives. Fluent in Vietnamese, Thai and Laotian, Bell is a graduate of Chaminade University and the author of ’Leave No Man Behind.’ Bell is employed as an investigator in the 12th Judicial District, western Arkansas.
- Bill Bell
28/06/2010 @ 06:21
Good Day!
I am a student of organizational communication and we are in the process of doing our essay writing studies as a final requirement this term. I still have not yet chosen a topic that I will follow because I would really like to work on something that I am greatly interested in.
Reading this article really gave me a lot of ideas. A part of studying organizational communication is to handle how the public domain to which the people will formulate their own opinion about a certain issue. Its been my ambition to work for the government and to do a research regarding policies that involve the government with be a great thing to do.
- Phi Carst
With members inside Vietnam and around the world, Viet Tan aims to establish democracy and reform the country through peaceful means.
Home
| About Viet Tan
| Vietnam Today
| Press Releases
| Articles & Speeches
| Guest Forum
| Take Action
| Viet Tan in the News
| Voices of Conscience
| Multimedia
| Contact Us
|
Copyright (c) Việt Tân 2010 -
www.viettan.org/en | 
