From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 07:19:08 MST
>From MaxPlumm again, posted on the BBS but not showing up on the mailing
list. Those concerned with 'truth seeking' might see this as a progressive
discussion. - Michael
Re:Noam Chomsky (was RE: joinThe American Peace Movement)
< Reply #35 on: Today at 05:11:55 >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- #Thanks for the criticism, Jeff, I always appreciate it. However, I must take issue with a large portion of your argument. You began: "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. A short summary of who, in the period 1945-1954, had what part of indochina and when--cast of players here: French, Vichy French, Japanese, Nationalist Chinese, British, Ho & Co., French again--can be found at: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861793.html Note the following excerpt: In Mar., 1946, France signed an agreement with Ho Chi Minh, recognizing Vietnam as a free state within the Indochina federation and the French Union. ..." # I find it fascinating that you, or more specifically your source, cut off the statement here. In full, it continues "In that which concerns the reuniting of the three 'Annamite Regions' [Cochinchina, Annam, Tonkin] the French Government pledges itself to RATIFY THE DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE POPULATIONS CONSULTED BY REFERENDUM. (Frederik Logevall, The Origins of the Vietnam War, p. 100) Obviously, there were no such referendums ever held, meaning the French government was under no obligation to hand Vietnam to Ho Chi Minh and thus it became a dead letter. "However, differences immediately arose over whether Cochin China [the southernmost of the three regions--Tonkin, Annam, and Cochin China] was included in the independent state of Vietnam; in June, 1946, France supported the establishment of a separate republic of Cochin China. <snip unnecessary stuff> the French in 1949 reinstalled Bao Dai as the ruler of Vietnam, of which Cochin China was then recognized to be a part." -----end of excerpt------ # I submit all of this is "unnecessary stuff". It is irrelevant what differences "came up", given that the agreement that you base your assertions upon was never ratified by the French government nor were the terms of the agreement carried out. "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." # You have previously stated that the 1946 agreement that Ho Chi Minh signed with Jean Sainteny was the legally binding force with regard to Vietnam, which I have clearly established it was not. Yet here, you acknowledge the legitimacy of the 1949 Elysees Agreement between Bao Dai and French President Vincent Auriol, which established that Tonkin, Annam, and Cochinchina were part of Vietnam in addition to acknowledging Bao Dai as chief of state. I should note this agreement was ratified by the Frech government on March 12, 1949. Given that we both apparently agree that Bao Dai was a legitimate head of state, then you should have no objection to the fact that he formed the Republic of Vietnam in 1954. Additionally, when one reads the text of a letter President Auriol sent to Bao Dai shortly thereafter, one finds that the President refers specifically to: 1- The reuniting of South Vietnam to the rest of the Empire will be accomplished according to the following procedure: Vote by the French Parliament of the law creating the Representative Territorial Assembly of South Vietnam provided for by Article 77 of the French Constitution and charged to give its opinion on the changing of the status of the territory in question(18). Vote by the Representative Territorial Assembly of South Vietnam on the changing of the status referred to above and the integration of South Vietnam with the rest of the Empire(19). Vote by the French Parliament of the law provided for in Article 75 of the French Constitution sanctioning the changing of the status of Cochin China(20). The National Assembly will be consulted according to the procedure of urgency as soon as the Representative Territorial Assembly of South Vietnam has made its opinion known. Note, clearly, a reference to a South Vietnam in 1949. As opposed to 1954, when you claim it was dreamed up. > 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." # Again, if there are any errors or lack of facts here, it is clearly on your side of the discussion. But to address your seemingly unending faith in the International Control Commission, Iet us examine how well they fared during the period of mass migration during 1956, in which 900,000 northerners fled south, while only 10,000 made the trip north. Several Canadian observers believed the number leaving the North would have been even larger, if not for the fact that: "Soldiers, political cadres and local militias were frequently stationed in the houses of the Catholic population with instructions to prevent them from leaving their homes in order to contact the teams." (Ramesh Thakur, Peacekeeping in Vietnam: Canada, India, Poland, and the International Commission, p. 134) As factually impressive as your "Alzheimer's ward" analogy is, you still have not refuted my contention that the sheer population advantage in the North would've provided Ho with victory, nothing else. Again, please provide an example of a fair and honest Communist sponsored election. > 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. 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.)" # Please explain why Ho Chi Minh's communist affiliation is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting that "communism self-justifies anything it does." > it is not > surprising that neither the U.S. or South Vietnam > ratified them. "Again, ain't no South Vietnam at the time." # Again, there clearly was, as you have acknowledged. "However, an interesting note. The Geneva Conference began in May and ended on July 21, 1954. In June, in the middle of the conference, France declared Vietnam a completely independent nation, free from the legal strictures of membership in the French Union. Can you guess why, boys and girls?" # Probably for the same reason that the Soviet Union and China attempted to get the elections held when 1956 rolled around. > 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." # Please document the source that provided you with the communist nations recognition of North Vietnam and yet made no mention of the recognition of the Republic of Vietnam. (see again Ramesh Thakur's book in regard to documentation of recognition) Again, your tone would lead to me to believe that recognition by the USSR is somehow legitimate, while recognition by the US et al is not. > 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." # Again, they clearly did exist, and South Vietnam was not bound to submit to any election. And, for that matter, explain how you came to the conclusion that the elections provided in the accords were the internationally accepted norm? > You are strangely > silent, however, on the > blatant violations "Blatant" violations? Absent facts, crank up the rhetoric. Fine. I can do facts *and* rhetoric simultaneously." > 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." # You are incorrect. I have asserted, correctly, that the United States and South Vietnam rejected the Geneva Accords, while they were supported by the Communist powers and their North Vietnamese proxy. Therefore, given that the North Vietnamese blatantly violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia (to borrow from you, I believe everyone not in an Alzheimer's ward has heard of the Ho Chi Minh Trail) after accepting said neutrality in the accords merely illustrates how farcical and pointless the agreements actually were. > This > neutrality was respected > by the United States and South Vietnam, but was > constantly trampled on by > the North Vietnamese. "Oh, yeah, riiight. Bombed the livin' shit out of Laos, so that it's a hell hole of unexploded ordinance to this day. Concurrently, the CIA overthrows the govt of Cambodia replacing Sihanouk with Lon Nol, bombing the living shit out of Cambodia, bringing war with the Khmer Rouge, and then the Khmer to power." # Let's stop right here. Provide one piece of evidence that the CIA overthrew the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. The Khmer Rouge was founded with the aid of the Vietnamese communists. Hanoi snuck communist trainees, aid and materiel in and out of Cambodia throughout the war. (see David Chandler, Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot) More importantly, is was not the bombings, but the attacks on Lon Nol's forces by NVA regulars that brought his regime to the brink of collapse. As Chandler himself puts it: "Until the end of 1972, (Pol Pot's) troops were armed, trained, and often led by the Vietnamese. The defeats suffered by Lon Nol in 1970-71 had been at the hands of Vietnamese regular forces. Pol Pot in large measure owed his victory to the Vietnamese." And tell me, who was the United States bombing? Could it have been the North Vietnamese, who had violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, to construct the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Again, let me refer back to your sacrosanct Geneva Accords: Article 12: In their relations with Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, each member of the Geneva Conference undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the independence, the unity, and the territorial integrity of the above-mentioned States, and to refrain from any interference in their internal affairs. I do not believe the terms could be anymore clear. The United States did not interfere in the rest of Indochina until after the North Vietnamese incursions. Beyond that, the United States did not accept the terms of the Geneva Accords to begin with, but respected the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia until the North Vietnamese interfered. "Yeah, that's respect for their neutrality. The same way the writer respects the truth. And the same way I respect the writer. I've heard enough. He's outta here." # Everything I have provided is easily verifiable, and I'm not the one quoting websites that provide half a document. <snip the remaining dribble, go take a shower> # Interesting that pointing out that South Korea provides a better standard of living for its citizens than North Korea is dribble in your opinion. Much like pieces of documents that contradict your opinion, I imagine. "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." # Who's providing incomplete documentation again? Regards, Max Plumm 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 - 17:58:47 MST