Bài
Phỏng Dịch Tiếng Anh
The
Vietnam War and Two Concepts for Building Society
International
Conference
The
Vietnam War
and Europe 1963 - 73
Paris,
January
24-25, 2003
Dear
Colleagues,
Ladies
and
Gentlemen,
It
is an honor
to be here with you today, participating in the International
Conference
"The Vietnam War and Europe", and I'd like to thank the organizers
for their kind invitation.
Thirty
years
after the Paris Treaty, I believe that we have had enough time for the
contribution of ideas relating to an historic war that that devastated
my
country in those previous decades. I hope that these contributions will
help
everyone gain a clearer understanding of the events that transpired
and, if
possible, result in a few good lessons for the future. This conference
is an
admirable initiative of the Diplomatic and Strategic Association and
the
European Historical Center for the 20th Century.
I
have been
invited to participate in the subject debate "An American War". I
have quite few ideas on the subject and will present them later.
However, the
conference has been organized to both coincide with the 30th
anniversary of the signing of the Paris Treaty and to review the roles
played
by Europe during the Vietnam War period.
Therefore I cannot ignore the memorable special atmosphere of
the May,
1968 time frame in Paris.
Paris - May 1968
At
that moment
it was springtime and everyone expected and hoped for peace after
enduring a
long and destructive war. It was a joy to have Paris as a site for
negotiations
by the parties involved in the war. Indeed, in all quarters of Europe,
as well
as everywhere else, it had been agreed that Europe, particularly France
because
of her neutral stance toward the war, was the most appropriate nation
to host
the meeting. It had been hoped for that due to relations with both
sides France
could secretly facilitate the negotiations.
But,
due to
several unfortunate historical events, France was in a chaotic state
when the
first negotiations between the American and North Vietnamese delegates
began.
The streets of Paris erupted in demonstrations by students and
agitators of the
so-called "68 generation." Barricades were erected throughout the
Latin Quarter, the location of most of the universities, as well as the
site of
the most volatile student demonstrations.
It was if France was paralyzed and there was a question as to
whether
this was the beginning of a revolution. During that period, my office
was in
the United States and I began a weekly shuttle between the two capitals
of Washington
and Paris. But due to the unusual situation, my flight from New York
had to
land at Bretigny, a military airport, instead of Orly airport. And many
times I
had to drive all the way up to Brussels to board my flight back to the
United
States.
I
mention these
memories only to recall the special atmosphere at the time of the
negotiations.
Furthermore, the demonstrations weren’t a phenomenon peculiar only to
France.
The disorder caused by students and agitators was no less throughout
Europe,
particularly in Germany and by the anti-war faction in the United
States. In
reality, this was a social phenomenon, a rebellion of a generation
against the
society that raised it. The Vietnam War opposition might have a
political
flavor, but the overall background was that of a chaotic society not
connected
to the Vietnam War and Vietnam was merely an excuse.
At that time, we were still a long way from
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the legacy of Communism,
therefore, no one
was surprised if those demonstrations seemed to support the leftists in
Europe
and else where, because of the thought that this was a modern trend.
The efforts of Europe
as an
intermediary
The
negotiations on Vietnam began in such a special environment public
opinion saw
them as a concrete effort to find a solution for the ongoing war
without
realizing that in several past instances intermediaries had attempted
to
arrange contacts between the adversaries. The efforts by Europe to
mediate on
this matter were numerous, this we all know, and the fourth negotiating
session
of the conference would have time to explore the matter in detail. I only want to review, as I recall, a few
cases that I followed to commend Europe's efforts at peace.
In
1966, while
the war was intensified and rampant, Poland, through its representative
in the
International Control Committee (ICC), together with Italian
representative in
Saigon, tried to find a way to narrow the distance between the
viewpoints of
the parties involved. At a higher level, at the beginning of 1967,
British
Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Soviet Union Prime Minister Alexis
Kosygin
also tried to organize a peace conference. Since 1965, France had
secretly
facilitated meetings between Hanoi’s representative, Mr. Mai Van Bo,
and an
American diplomat, Mr. Edmond Guillion. In this same spirit, and
perhaps with
the implicit agreement of the French it seemed to have the naturally
consent of
the French Foreign Ministry, two Frenchmen, Mr. Aubrac and Mr.
Marcovich,
agreed to cooperate with Doctor Kissinger (a quasi-official American
representative at the time) to deliver a memorandum from Washington to
the
leadership in Hanoi. There were many less important efforts, such as
Sweden's,
that did not achieve concrete results; they all reflected the serious
concerns
of Europe toward the Vietnam War. And if the conference, today, wants
to review
the role of Europe in the peace efforts for Vietnam then it is
justified.
An American War
In
the 60's,
70's and thereafter, the leftists or anti-American faction and the
majority of
international media often labeled Vietnam War as "an American War".
The intensified involvement of American in Vietnam, particularly since
1966,
could explain the reason for such labeling, and not far from the truth.
In
fact, who could deny the presence of half a million American soldiers
in South
Vietnam? But although this presence was obvious to me (and many
independent
historians that I knew) it was neither the most profound nor sole cause
of the
war. Back in time, the 1954 Geneva Treaty concluded the first Vietnam
War (the
so called Indochina War) and divided Vietnam into two regions at the
17th
parallel, one could easily see that America had a limited concern about
Vietnam. It was only after the treaty was signed that the concern was
increased
with the establishment of the South East Asia Treaty Organization
(SEATO). This
concern continued to intensify with the tension of the Cold War,
particularly
after the Korean War, and following the unsettling actions of Mao
Tse-Tung in
China and especially after the Communist International Organization
openly
supported the North Vietnamese regime.
Vietnam - Two Countries
Naturally,
the
1954 Geneva Treaty recognized the independence and unity of Vietnam as
one
nation and one people. But this treaty also divided Vietnam into two
regions
and defined the national mechanism for each region. For our side, the
Saigon
government held powers in the South, and the same was also true for the
Hanoi
government in the North. Therefore, there were two Vietnams that were
officially recognized internationally. The Republic of Vietnam in the
South was
recognized by the free world, and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in
the
North was recognized by communist nations in the North. We should
remember that
before the Geneva Agreement divided the country, the nation of Vietnam
was
recognized by 35 countries, and in September, 1952, despite a veto by
the
Soviet Union in the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations
General
Assembly cast 40 votes for and 5 votes against, with 12 abstentions for
a
resolution accepting the nation of Vietnam into the United Nations. After the Geneva Accords the nation became
the Republic of Vietnam, an independent nation in the South.
Historical View of
Division
In
considering
the aspirations of the Vietnamese people the continuously hoped for a
united
country. The division of the country
into two parts by the Geneva Agreement was situation of the time that
no one
wanted, but had to be tolerated due to the historical and international
conditions. As a matter of consolation,
one can recall the period when the country was divided into North and
South at
the 18th parallel over two centuries ago, and could only be
reunified by Emperor Gia Long at the beginning of 19th century. Moreover, this wasn't a unique case if one
considers the division of East and West Germany or South and North
Korea.
Therefore, after the Geneva Treaty, the people in South Vietnam
accepted
reality and hoped that the two independent nations could maintain the
status
quo until such time as conditions permitted a peaceful reunification,
such as
in the past.
Foreign Intervention
However,
the
situation of these two independent nations didn’t last. Conflict
between the
two began early on, and remained smoldering during the early 60’s
before
becoming an open war. In Vietnam’s special environment with the Cold
War
intensifying the United States intervened in accordance with its
containment
policy in stopping the communist wave. The same was true for the policy
of
expansionism and multi-unity of the Communist bloc with the brotherly
socialist
countries supporting the North. If there
was a divergence it was that a strong overt support to the South in
almost all
areas, while at the same time in the North intervention was cleverly
disguised. Therefore, the wartime
presence of some 200,000 Chinese troops in the North only belatedly
came to
light after the war concluded.
It
is not my
intention to take sides with such kind of support from the United
States. To the contrary, during the years
I worked in
America I had the opportunity to see the awkward political machinations
of the
United States replete with contradictions and mistakes. But in case of
Vietnam,
the claim that the United States aspired to expand its territory or
power
leading to the conclusion that the Vietnam started as a result of
American
intervention is absurd and far from the truth.
If
the presence
of American Forces in the South is now seen as a hindrance to the
independence
and unity of Vietnam I would like to remind you that as of October 1966
at an
international conference in Manila, the capital of the Philippines
seven
nations allied with South Vietnam merged to strongly urge the inclusion
of a
provision in the Joint Communiqué asserting that all foreign
troops,
specifically the American troops first, must withdraw from Vietnam six
months
after the war ceased and this request was approved by the conference. Additionally, if the 1973 Paris Treaty was
perceived by the parties involved as binding, and this document
definitely
resolved the issue of United States troops in Vietnam, meaning that the
“United
States War” was over, and it was no longer the American War, then the
question
remaining is why did the war continue for two more years?
An Ideological Struggle
Due
to its
boisterousness and strength American support had, indeed, misled the
essence of
the war in Vietnam while covering over one of the main causes of the
war. Truly, if every Vietnamese had hoped
for
independence at the beginning of the previous century, at the time the
France
colonist government still controlled all of Vietnam, there was a
remarkable
difference between the patriots and other political groups on the
methods for
struggle against the colonists for the future of Vietnam. The
Vietnamese
Communist Party wanted to construct a society according to Marx - Lenin
(the
struggle of the classes, dictatorship of the proletariat, land reform
etc.)
while the national parties, although vague, wanted to build a society
respectful
of individual freedom. On the one side
the omniscient model was so simplistic that only afterwards could one
be able
to realize its cruel nature, and on the other side were the experiments
of a
multifaceted nature in political plurality that were criticized by some
as
being less effective. Hence, from the
beginning, the main factor here was a conflict of thought and ideology,
especially when each patriotic organization had to carry separate
struggles in
secret to avoid the watchful eyes and oppression of the French
Colonialists.
The two events clearly reflecting these two tendencies both occurred at
the
same time in 1930, the uprising at Yen Bai of the Vietnam Nationalist
Party and
the Soviet Nghe-Tinh incident of the Vietnam Communist Party.
As
time went
by, this ideological struggle evolved into an uprising, especially
after the
Communist Party seized control of the administration in August 1945.
And if
during the war against the colonialist French the Communist Party could
hide
under the guise of researching Marxism, and then later change to the
Labor
Party with the administration of this party only talking about a joint
national
government then its objective was to mobilize the masses, rather than a
true
desire to cooperate with the other forces in the movement against the
French to
gain independence. And then the Bao Dai
solution was born. The rift between the Nationalists and Communists
deepened
and became more manifest with the Geneva Agreement dividing the
country. Now it
became more of a legal question of an international nature more than a
domestic
issue governing the relations between the two sides, with each side
having its
own life style and own political regime.
This situation was also accepted by the nations of the Communist
Bloc,
because in January 1957, the Soviet Union proposed that the United
Nations
accept both regions, South and North into the United Nations as two
separate
and independent nations.
But the unification
issue still
remains
Naturally
there
was still the unification issue, an issue that the governments of both
sides
held different concepts. While the South wanted to temporarily maintain
the
status quo in order to have time to heal the wounds of war and rebuild
the
nation for the first time with independence reluctantly returned by the
French,
and therefore seek a solution for future reunification, the North was
obsessed
with the ambition of exerting Communism throughout the country even
with the
cost of a fratricidal war of mutual destruction. In other words, one
side
envisioned a passive reunification and one side reacting drastically
due to
blindly believing in revolutionary doctrine and “international duty” of
the
Communists. Thus the war between the two regions became inevitable,
regardless
of whether or not there was foreign intervention.
The
situation
actually happened that way, to the grief of an entire people
Within
the
confines of the conference and due to the limited time I cannot express
all the
grief, suffering and destruction borne by the Vietnamese people in both
regions
during and after the war. Hundreds of books and analyses that have been
published addressed this issue. But for
this particular conference please allow me to present a few views of my
own regarding
the record of the Vietnam War.
The Paris Treaty
Firstly,
concerning the Paris Agreement, one could clearly see that the
agreement did
not bring about peace, but to the contrary it was a continuation of the
war. The North got what it wanted: U.S.
Forces withdrew completely from the South while they were able to
maintain
their forces in the South. The United
States didn’t receive anything other than the return of
Prisoners-of-War as a
small consolation. In his recent book
“No Peace, No Honor” American author Larry Berman, who participated in
the
conference, evaluated the conference as an American betrayal of
Vietnam,
because the war continued after the signing of the document.
At
this point I
must say that I do not intend to invoke a debate as to the
responsibilities of
the various parties involved in the war, a debate which I believe is
not
beneficial since the war concluded some 30 years ago.
Since then too much water has flowed under
the bridge and many present generations do not remember or do not know
that a
war occurred. But we must remember that
in the framework of the Cold War the war in Vietnam was a confrontation
between
the two doctrines of communism and nationalism, and between total
dictatorship
and freedom and democracy.
Like a person, a country also has an individual fate. The fate of Vietnam was right after World War II when the Communist Party took advantage by seizing power in the North in 1945 and by implementing resistance against France until the 1954 Geneva Accords. Thereafter, for more than 20 years there was an effort to viciously attack the South under the banner of reunification concluding with the collapse of Saigon in 1975. The Communist Party must bear responsibility before the people and history concerning what happened in the homeland for more than half a century in the North, and for more than a quarter century this party has governed both regions. At this point perhaps I should add that intoxicated by victory, the communists often boast of driving out both the French Colonialists and the American Imperialists, and that they are the paramount of mankind. But shortly after the victory one could see the humiliating reality and long series of frustrations. Following the victory, for one entire decade the Communists totally applied Marxist-Leninist theory throughout the nation, invaded Cambodia to complete their “international duty” and self-isolated themselves, putting the nation in chaos, and pushed the people into poverty. In the meantime, on the international front, history surpassed the expectations of many: Communist China escaped the fervor of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution, carrying out reforms beginning in 1978 and the following year gave brethren socialists in Hanoi a bloody lesson. Afterward came the collapse of Communist regimes in Europe, and finally the disintegration of the Soviet Union. All at once, the world suddenly realized that Communist models were no longer appropriate for modern times, meaning total bankruptcy as Dang Xiaoping, and in turn, Gorbachev later admitted.
Victory becomes defeat,
defeat
becomes victory
After
the Paris
Treaty in 1973 and the victory in the style of Pyrrhus “conquer in
order to
lose,” the Vietnamese Communist Party, due to their mistakes, led the
country
into a serious crisis toward the end of the 80's. Standing on the brink
of an
abyss, the party searched for ways to reverse course.
For the previous few years it was often said
that there was some progress by Vietnam on the path to “Doi Moi”
(renovation,
or new change) making life easier than before for the people. But some
forgot
that such progress stemmed from libertarian measures that the Communist
Party
had denounced and sought to nullify. Facing the realities of today’s
world, the
Vietnam Communist Party realized that their plan for constructing
society had
become worthless and obsolete. But
non-communist Vietnamese both at home and abroad expressly hoped that
this
obvious condition would become more readily apparent. They didn’t
desire to
assert their own doctrine, or attempt to rationalize that such doctrine
(political democracy, free enterprise, and respect for human rights),
was more
worthy than the doctrine of the communists.
They only wanted implementation of basic conditions for the
benefit of
the Vietnamese people, a nationality that had been subjected to
numerous
hardships in the past and deserving of a better future.
Bui
Diem
Paris
- January
24-25, 2003
