From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 08:30:14 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Davis [mailto:jrd1415@yahoo.com]
"Michael Dickey forwarded some remarks in this thread
from MaxPlumm from the bulletin board. Thank you for
the submission Michael."
Thanks for your comments Jeff, It is interesting to see both sides of this
discussion. I just had some comments on what you wrote in response to
MaxPlumm.
In response to MaxPlumm's comments
> I must take some issues with your interpretations of the 1954 Geneva
Accords. For starters, I cannot see
how anyone can rationally argue that the government of South Vietnam
(already recognized by 30 nations and up
for UN membership at the time of the conference) Should have submitted to an
election to unify the country
with the North...<
You said
"No, there was no "South" Vietnam. There was only Vietnam, an "associate
state" of the French Union. The territory of this state was the combined
area of the 'north' and 'south'--the area associated with the Vietnam of
today. The whole country."
And
"I direct your attention to that last bit: "...Vietnam, of which Cochin
China was then recognized to be a
part." So from 1949 to the onset of the Geneva Conference, Vietnam was all
of Vietnam, the combined regions of Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China. "
And then point to thise site
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861793.html. However, this site also
says
"Two Vietnams
As a temporary expedient after the Vietnamese defeat of French forces,
Vietnam was divided into two parts along a line approximating the 17th
parallel (lat. 17°N). North Vietnam, where the Viet Minh were the strongest,
went to the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh, while South Vietnam was
placed under the control of the French-backed government of Bao Dai. Freedom
of movement between the two areas was to be permitted for a period of 300
days, thereby facilitating the regroupment of Communist forces in the north
and non-Communist forces in the south. During this period some 900,000
people, many of whom were Catholics or individuals fleeing the land reform
program initiated by the Ho Chi Minh government, migrated south. The
unification of the country under one government was to be effected through
general elections, later scheduled for July, 1956. These elections, which
were considered likely to favor the Communists, were never held; the South
Vietnamese government refused to participate on the grounds that it had not
signed the Geneva agreements and was therefore not bound by them."
How can you state that there was 'no south vietnam' and then reference this
site which seems to clearly indicate the existence of a south vietnam? I
suppose it depends on what your definition of nationhood is.
The Geneva agreements, it seemed, allowed a communist country of 17 million
to vote out of existence a non-communist country of 13 million in a 'free
election'. Not surprisingly, the south didn't go for this. I can
understand why, this would be like 10 of my neighbors signing an agreement
that they can hold a 'free election' to kill me and distribute my money
among them. Even though they would let me cast my vote, is that something
you consider a 'free election'? Perhaps I am just missing some facts here,
but how can you call that a reasonable action and support it, or conversely
object to actions taken in opposition to it?
Given the fact that 900,000 north vietnamese fled and I believe only some
10,000 south vietnamese migrated to the north when the boarder was open, it
seems many more people preferred the south over the communist north.
That same site continues
"A few months after the partition of Vietnam in 1954, South Vietnam withdrew
from the French Union and thus attained complete sovereignty. In a
referendum held in Oct., 1955, the electorate deposed Bao Dai as chief of
state and approved the establishment of a republic with Ngo Dinh Diem as
president. The republic, proclaimed on Oct. 26, 1955, was recognized as the
legal government of Vietnam by the United States, France, Great Britain, and
other Western powers. "
So south vietnam was recognized as an independent entity by 30 nations,
including the US, France, Great Brittian and many others, but it wasn't
recognized by China, North Vietnam, or the Soviet Union. So what do you
consider nationhood to be? How many countries must recognize a nation
before you consider it one? It seems you keep claiming that the south was
not a state because the north signed a document that said the south is part
of the north in one unified vietnam? (or rather, a 'free' election would be
held in which the North would be allowed to determine the destiny of the
south) Yet the south, and many western nations never signed.
It continues
"North Vietnam, meanwhile, continued to be dominated by Ho Chi Minh, who
maintained good relations with both China and the USSR, receiving enormous
aid from both countries while skillfully protecting the independence of his
country. A three-year economic rehabilitation program (1958-60) and a
five-year plan (1961-66), financed with Soviet and Chinese aid, were aimed
at improving both industry and agriculture. ... Much national effort was
also devoted to the support of Communist insurgents in South Vietnam (the
Viet Cong), who operated under the leadership of the National Liberation
Front, an organization alleged to be indigenous to South Vietnam."
The north was receiving enormous aid from both China and the USSR and was
supporting forces intent on overthrowing the government of the south, which
was recognized by 30 nations and up for UN membership, and you think it
unreasonable for the US to act in the favor of the people of the south? You
claim to be a seeker of the truth, yet you reference this site that seems to
completely contradict what you hold the truth to be? I am not sure I am
following your reasoning here.
> when
> one considers that
> population alone would've guaranteed the Communists
> victory. With a
> population of 17 million to the South's 13 million,
> the Communists simply
> could've herded more unwilling participants to the
> voting booth to insure
> victory. Forgive my skepticism regarding the North's
> intentions, but perhaps
> you could provide an example of a fair and honest
> Communist election?
"Now the prior error pretty much invalidates everything that
follows--anything premised on separate north and
south prior to the accords--but regarding the election, you must take note
of the fact that representatives from India, Canada, and Poland made up the
International Control Comission, charged with carrying out the peace
agreement, and woulda, shoulda, coulda been there to oversee the elections.
In addition there ain't no one on the planet not being spoon fed in an
Alzheimer's ward who doesn't acknowledge that Ho, as the dominant political
personality and the 'hero' who won independence for his country, was going
to sweep those elections. Fairly."
I am not sure what you mean by 'prior error' considering that site says
"As a temporary expedient after the Vietnamese defeat of French forces,
Vietnam was divided into two parts along a line approximating the 17th
parallel (lat. 17°N). North Vietnam, where the Viet Minh were the strongest,
went to the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh, while South Vietnam was
placed under the control of the French-backed government of Bao Dai."
It seems to me you are saying that the elections would have been 'free' due
to representatives from Canada, Poland, India and others, and that everyone
would have freely voted for a unified vietnam, and that since this vote
never took place and the fight for a free south was supported by the US,
that the US was in the wrong for supporting a independent free southern
vietnam? Considering 900,000 North Vietnamese fled to the south, do you
still consider it a reasonable assertation to believe? And these were only
the people who had the ability to up and move to the south. I am sure the
30,000 peasants killed during the land reforms would have moved as well, had
they not been killed. I still don't understand how someone, let alone a
person who might consider themselves an extropian, could ever consider it
wrong to fight for freedom of the individual. It seems that you think the
south *wanted* to be part of the communist north in a whole unified country,
and that the US blocked that every step of the way. If that was the case,
why wasn't there a mass emmigration into the north by people in the south?
> Another problem I have is your contention that the
> United States 'sabotaged'
> the Geneva Accords. Given that the Accords were
> nothing more than a victory
> lap for the Soviet/Chinese proxy communist entity of
> the North,
"This is just anti-communist dribble."
One could just as easily say your comments 'are just pro-communist dribble'
"Ho was an authentic Vietnamese nationalist and the north was not 'the
north' at the time. Whether or not he was
communist, how much, and of what sort, well, it's all irrelevant. Unless
anti-communism self-justifies
anything it does. (Like say, Wahabism.)"
Given the track record of communist governments (mao, 30 million killed,
stalin, 10 million) I don't see how you could *not* fear the spread of
communism, assuming you prefer freedom and life over non-freedom and death.
The fact that Ho was communist could hardly be considered 'irrelevant'
considering that it entails the enslavement and murder of a good portion of
the population (which had all ready occurred under Ho rule in the norht!)
Compare your statement to "Ho was an 'authentic nationalist' so it does not
matter if he was a Nazi." You seem to assert as long as a person is a
'nationilist' it matters not that he supports a totalitarian collectivized
state which did and will likely result in the slaughter and enslavement of a
good majority of the population.
> As I've noted, the Republic of Vietnam was already
> recognized by 30 countries
> and up
> for UN membership,
"I'd have to see some documentation. I've seen a lot already, but nothing
about this, except for the Soviet
and Chinese recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. I suspect
that the writer of this piece
would not view with favor *those* recognitions. "
Consdiering the track record of Communism, which you seem to not take into
account, I can understand why *any* reasonable person who prefers freedom
and life over enslavement and death which prefer a country be supported by
the US over China or Russia. If South Vietnam was indeed recognized as an
independent state by 30 other nations and up for UN membership, would this
meet your criteria for 'nationhood'? If not, what would? What if 15
nations recognized it as part of the north, while 30 recognized it as its
own independent entity? (How many did recognize it, btw, I am sure there
were at least 3, the North, China, and the Soviet Union, but where there any
others?) Is nationhood based on how many other countries recognize / do not
recognize your independence? Is it based on the population of those
countries? The military might? What?
> so that in my mind gives them the
> right to determine
> their own political future.
"Again, the North and South don't exist at this point in time. There is one
Vietnam, and free and fair elections, as provided for in the Accords, are
the internationally accepted norm for determining a nations "own political
future."
Your statement would be more accurate if you said "according to the North,
the Soviet Union, and China, The North and South did not exist
independantly" and "according to the South, and 30 other nations, and the
UN, the south DID exist as an independent nation"
So with that in mind, why do you take the point of view of the North and 2
other nations, who wanted to determine the political future of another
entity, instead of the South, and 30 other nations, which did want to
determine its own political future?
> of these 'sacrosanct' agreements
> by the North Vietnamese.
> One of the few provisions agreed to by all parties
> in the Geneva Accords was
> the assured neutrality of Cambodia and Laos.
"The writer rejected the accords when it suited him, rejected them based on
error. Now he wants to use
them. OK. Let's see what he's got. "
As do you, which is what he was pointing out. He rejected the accords from
the get go, you supported them (apparently) when they agree with your own
preconeived idealogies (no independent south), and abandon them when they
don't (the north used and attacked Laos and cambodia, which IT signed
accepting its nutrality!!!)
"That's it Michael. Thanks again."
"Anti-communism tortures the facts till they conform to dogma. Intellectual
(not to mention moral and political) integrity embraces the facts and
constructs a world view based thereon."
It seems from my experience that 'pro commumisn' is also guilty of torturing
the facts to conform to its dogma. Given the monstrous history of
communism, I will proudly consider myself 'anti communist' But given the
fact that 30 nations recognized the South and it was up for UN membership
(as MaxPlumm states, I am merely assuming this is valid) does that change
your percieved notion of the 'truth' in any way?
This is obviously a complex subject that I am still learning much about, so
I prefer seeing both sides.
Thanks for you time.
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:45 MST