This morning I read an article regarding U.S.-Vietnamese trade relations. At a glance the article seems positive, but having worked on Abandoned Allies for two years now I better understand how this news article should be much different.
Read this article first, so you can follow along with the rest of this blog post. When you return, we will continue...
First, let me preface this by saying that the matter is not really about politics, Republicans or Democrats, racial differences, or even differences of opinion about energy (especially nuclear energy, which is the basis of the AP article). If you distill it down and look at the bigger picture you might see what I see: a big contradiction. Try to stick with me on this for a while, I'll walk you through it.
The article states that the U.S. and Vietnamese governments signed an agreement that "may pave the way for U.S. firms to help build nuclear plants in the Southeastern Asian country." Sure, that seems agreeable so far, right? It could lead to prosperity for both countries, no matter how you feel about the use of nuclear energy. Vietnam needs more energy, American businessed wouldn't mind building plants there, so the deal seems agreeable on the surface.
"This is an important moment in our bilateral relations," U.S. Ambassador Michael Michalak said during a signing ceremony with Le Dinh Tien, Vietnam's vice minister of science and technology.The problem, though, is that Vietnam is a communist government that has major human rights problems. People are not permitted to speak out against the government. Political refugees fleeing to other countries are being turned back, facing certain abuse or even death in some circumstances. And yet our government is signing an agreement that is a "'key step' in advancing nonproliferation goals and developing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Vietnam," Michalak said.
You see, here is a key fact. Just last month, on March 11, 2010, the U.S. Department of State released a report on human rights in the world, stating that in Vietnam, the "governtment's human rights record remained a problem." Our government officials are signing an agrement with Vietnam, knowing that the human rights record in that country remains a problem. Here's the bottom line: our country is willing to trade with Vietnam, but not willing to require that human rights improve?
"Michalak said it was 'only fitting' for the former foes to deepen their cooperation this year, 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War and 15 years after they re-established diplomatic ties."Yes, the U.S. and Vietnamese governments can work together. Yes, our country can build connections with Vietnam. Yes, this type of trade may lead to prosperity. Yes, this can be a way to deepen our connections and re-establish diplomatic ties. Yes, this seems like it's relatively positive.
Until you look at what this ultimately means. By agreeing to trade with Vietnam, we thereby give them an unwritten approval to remain treating the people of their country so poorly. The U.S. Department of State's 2009 Human Rights Report: Vietnam states that
Citizens could not change their government, and political opposition movements were prohibited. During the year, the government increased its suppression of dissent, arresting several political activists and convicting others arrested in 2008. Several editors and reporters from prominent newspapers were fired for reporting on official corruption and outside blogging on political topics, and bloggers were detained and arrested for criticizing the government.
Did you read that? That means that if I were living in Vietnam, I could easily be arrested, detained, or abused for writing and publishing this blog post. Because I live in the U.S., I have a right to criticize what my government is doing. I have a right to say that we shouldn't trade with a country that treats its own people so poorly. Criticizing my own government is a right that I have as an American citizen, yet how often do we actively do so?
There must be a compromise in our relationship with the Vietnamese. We, as American citizens, can tell our politicians that we do want to trade with Vietnam, but only if the human rights record improves. We value life so dearly here in the States, so why are we turning our backs on the allies that saved American lives during the war?
In the grand scheme of your daily life, I know this is not likely a priority. I'm an optimist, but also a realist. Most of you are thinking about what's for lunch or dinner, the relationships in your life, your promotion at work, or one of the other more pressing matters in your life.
I ask only that you open your mind to the possibility that we can make change happen. We can help make improvements for the lives of the allies we abandoned so long ago. They're still waiting for us to keep our promise. I'm so grateful to the cast of Abandoned Allies for taking the time to show me these things. It's undoubtedly changed my life forever.
"Don't fail to do something just because you can't do everything."
- Bob Pierce
1 comment:
To this day, [Colin] Powell has avoided criticizing the Vietnam War other than to complain that the politicians should not have restrained the military high command. Powell also was not one to blow the whistle on wayward superiors.
Powell even sided with one Americal Division general who was accused by the Army of murdering unarmed civilians while flying over Quang Ngai province. Helicopter pilots who flew Brig. Gen. John W. Donaldson alleged that the general gunned down the civilian Vietnamese almost for sport.
A senior investigator from the Donaldson case told The Consortium recently that two of the Vietnamese victims were an old man and an old woman who were shot to death while bathing. Though long retired from the Army -- and now quite elderly himself -- the investigator still spoke with a raw disgust about the events of a quarter century earlier. He requested anonymity before talking about the behavior of senior Americal officers.
"They used to bet in the morning how many people they could kill-- old people, civilians, it didn't matter," the investigator said. "Some of the stuff would curl your hair"...
For eight months in Chu Lai during 1968-69, Powell had worked with Donaldson and apparently developed a great respect for this superior officer. When the Army charged Donaldson with murder on June 2, 1971, Powell rose in the general's defense. Powell submitted an affidavit dated Aug. 10, 1971, which lauded Donaldson as "an aggressive and courageous brigade commander." Powell did not specifically refer to the murder allegations, but added that helicopter forays in Vietnam had been an "effective means of separating hostiles from the general population"...
[T]he investigator claimed that "we had him [Donaldson] dead to rights." Still, the investigation collapsed after the two pilot-witnesses were transferred to another Army base and apparently came under pressure from superiors already stung by the negative P.R. from the My Lai massacre. The two pilots withdrew their testimony, and the Army dropped all charges against Donaldson.
"John Donaldson was a cover-up specialist," the old investigator growled.
Post a Comment