How We Won in Vietnam

V. Dinh
{"title":"How We Won in Vietnam","authors":"V. Dinh","doi":"10.4324/9781351144889-18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"THE PAST TWO YEARS have witnessed significant developments in United States policy toward Vietnam. High-level congressional delegations to Vietnam led by Sens. Richard Shelby and Chuck Hagel were followed by a visit by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This past March, as Vietnam launched a propaganda campaign to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the communist victory, William Cohen became the first American secretary of defense to visit the country since the end of the war. Over the summer, the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade and investment treaty and opened the door to the possibility of full economic normalization -- a long way from the U.S.-led international trade embargo against Vietnam that started in 1975. The culmination of these developments was President Clinton's trip this November, the first presidential visit to Vietnam since Richard Nixon in July 1969. For any other country of comparable size and stature, this level of attention would be quite extraordinary. But of course Vietnam is not just another country of marginal international significance. It is a name that remains deeply ingrained in the American psyche as a not-so-gentle reminder of our fallibility. The attention showered on this troubled nation on the other side of the earth to a large extent represents not just an exercise in foreign policy but also a national effort to come to grips with a painful history. It is not only about what we are to do with Vietnam; it is about what we are to think of ourselves. Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara touched off a flurry of self-examination with the publication of his book Argument Without End in 1999. \"Reassessment\" and \"closure\" became the code words in this process of collective therapy. The dominant theme of the analyses of the twenty-fifth anniversary of war's end (and the thirtieth anniversary of Kent State) was the recounting of American errors and misjudgments throughout the conflict. In some ways, this analysis was an attempt to cure America of the Vietnam syndrome -- the lingering fear of combat that inhibits American resolve for foreign intervention. Knowing our mistakes, or at least thinking that we know our mistakes, we can go forth unencumbered by the experience. And acknowledging mistakes facilitates reconciliation -- not just between us and our former enemies, but more important, between conflicting parties and among ourselves. This past April, as a guest of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation, I returned to the country I had fled. The visit was filled with symbolism. The same people who built the Wall as a memorial to those who died in defeat were reaching out to those who lived through victory. And we witnessed some truly remarkable moments: American veterans greeting and at times weeping with Vietnamese veterans; American business leaders advising Vietnamese political leaders on economic policy; Vietnamese groups asking for American help on projects ranging from elementary education to land mine removal. But it would be premature to herald a new era of good feelings. Beneath the veneer of symbolism lies a more complicated and recalcitrant reality, and significant obstacles lie on the road toward full reconciliation. Also in April, Sen. John McCain took his \"Straight Talk Express\" to Hanoi. Reminded of his captors' cruel treatment, mindful of the postwar repression by the communist regime, and observing the culture of corruption and mismanagement in Vietnam, McCain declared bluntly, \"The wrong side won the war!\" When leaders of the New Economy such as AOL founder James Kimsey, investment banker Herbert Allison, and E-Trade chairman Christos Cotsakos urged Vietnamese leaders to make immediate improvements in the legal, economic, and technological infrastructure to enable the country to join the world economy, the communist officials responded with a 20-year timetable for reforms. And multimillion-dollar offers of free broadband Internet infrastructure to educational institutions were met with polite refusals c iting the need for government approvals for such projects. …","PeriodicalId":82330,"journal":{"name":"Policy review","volume":"45 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351144889-18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

THE PAST TWO YEARS have witnessed significant developments in United States policy toward Vietnam. High-level congressional delegations to Vietnam led by Sens. Richard Shelby and Chuck Hagel were followed by a visit by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. This past March, as Vietnam launched a propaganda campaign to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the communist victory, William Cohen became the first American secretary of defense to visit the country since the end of the war. Over the summer, the United States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade and investment treaty and opened the door to the possibility of full economic normalization -- a long way from the U.S.-led international trade embargo against Vietnam that started in 1975. The culmination of these developments was President Clinton's trip this November, the first presidential visit to Vietnam since Richard Nixon in July 1969. For any other country of comparable size and stature, this level of attention would be quite extraordinary. But of course Vietnam is not just another country of marginal international significance. It is a name that remains deeply ingrained in the American psyche as a not-so-gentle reminder of our fallibility. The attention showered on this troubled nation on the other side of the earth to a large extent represents not just an exercise in foreign policy but also a national effort to come to grips with a painful history. It is not only about what we are to do with Vietnam; it is about what we are to think of ourselves. Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara touched off a flurry of self-examination with the publication of his book Argument Without End in 1999. "Reassessment" and "closure" became the code words in this process of collective therapy. The dominant theme of the analyses of the twenty-fifth anniversary of war's end (and the thirtieth anniversary of Kent State) was the recounting of American errors and misjudgments throughout the conflict. In some ways, this analysis was an attempt to cure America of the Vietnam syndrome -- the lingering fear of combat that inhibits American resolve for foreign intervention. Knowing our mistakes, or at least thinking that we know our mistakes, we can go forth unencumbered by the experience. And acknowledging mistakes facilitates reconciliation -- not just between us and our former enemies, but more important, between conflicting parties and among ourselves. This past April, as a guest of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation, I returned to the country I had fled. The visit was filled with symbolism. The same people who built the Wall as a memorial to those who died in defeat were reaching out to those who lived through victory. And we witnessed some truly remarkable moments: American veterans greeting and at times weeping with Vietnamese veterans; American business leaders advising Vietnamese political leaders on economic policy; Vietnamese groups asking for American help on projects ranging from elementary education to land mine removal. But it would be premature to herald a new era of good feelings. Beneath the veneer of symbolism lies a more complicated and recalcitrant reality, and significant obstacles lie on the road toward full reconciliation. Also in April, Sen. John McCain took his "Straight Talk Express" to Hanoi. Reminded of his captors' cruel treatment, mindful of the postwar repression by the communist regime, and observing the culture of corruption and mismanagement in Vietnam, McCain declared bluntly, "The wrong side won the war!" When leaders of the New Economy such as AOL founder James Kimsey, investment banker Herbert Allison, and E-Trade chairman Christos Cotsakos urged Vietnamese leaders to make immediate improvements in the legal, economic, and technological infrastructure to enable the country to join the world economy, the communist officials responded with a 20-year timetable for reforms. And multimillion-dollar offers of free broadband Internet infrastructure to educational institutions were met with polite refusals c iting the need for government approvals for such projects. …
我们是如何赢得越南战争的
过去两年见证了美国对越南政策的重大发展。在参议员谢尔比(Richard Shelby)和哈格尔(Chuck Hagel)率领的国会高级代表团访问越南之后,美国国务卿奥尔布赖特(Madeleine Albright)访问了越南。今年3月,越南发起了纪念共产主义胜利25周年的宣传活动,威廉·科恩(William Cohen)成为越战结束以来首位访问越南的美国国防部长。今年夏天,美国和越南签署了一项双边贸易和投资条约,为两国经济全面正常化的可能性打开了大门——这与1975年美国主导的对越南的国际贸易禁运相去甚远。这些事态发展的高潮是克林顿总统今年11月访问越南,这是自1969年7月理查德·尼克松(Richard Nixon)访问越南以来,美国总统首次访问越南。对于任何其他具有同等规模和地位的国家来说,这种程度的关注将是相当不同寻常的。当然,越南不仅仅是另一个在国际上无足轻重的国家。这个名字在美国人的心灵中根深蒂固,提醒着我们的错误。对地球另一端这个陷入困境的国家的关注,在很大程度上不仅代表了外交政策的实践,也代表了国家努力应对一段痛苦的历史。这不仅关系到我们如何对待越南;它是关于我们如何看待自己。1999年,前国防部长罗伯特·s·麦克纳马拉(Robert S. McNamara)出版了《无休止的争论》(Argument Without End)一书,引发了一阵自我反省。“重新评估”和“关闭”成为这个集体治疗过程中的暗语。分析战争结束25周年(以及肯特州立大学成立30周年)的主要主题是重述美国在整个冲突中的错误和误判。在某种程度上,这种分析是试图治愈美国的越南综合症——对战争的挥之不去的恐惧阻碍了美国进行外国干预的决心。知道自己的错误,或者至少认为我们知道自己的错误,我们就可以不受经验的阻碍而继续前进。承认错误有助于和解——不仅是在我们和以前的敌人之间,更重要的是,在冲突各方之间以及我们之间。今年4月,作为越南退伍军人纪念基金会的客人,我回到了我逃离的国家。这次访问充满了象征意义。那些建造柏林墙以纪念战败者的人,正在向那些经历了胜利的人伸出援手。我们见证了一些真正非凡的时刻:美国退伍军人问候越南退伍军人,有时与他们一起哭泣;美国商界领袖就经济政策向越南政治领导人提供建议;越南组织要求美国在从基础教育到排雷等项目上提供帮助。但现在就预示着美好感情的新时代到来还为时过早。在象征主义的表象之下是一个更为复杂和难以克服的现实,通往全面和解的道路上存在着重大障碍。同样是在4月,参议员约翰·麦凯恩(John McCain)乘坐他的“直言快车”(Straight Talk Express)前往河内。麦凯恩想起了俘虏他的人的残酷待遇,想起了战后共产主义政权的镇压,看到了越南的腐败和管理不善的文化,他直言不讳地说:“错误的一方赢得了战争!”当美国在线(AOL)创始人詹姆斯·金赛(James Kimsey)、投资银行家赫伯特·艾利森(Herbert Allison)和E-Trade董事长克里斯托斯·科察科斯(Christos Cotsakos)等新经济领袖敦促越南领导人立即改善法律、经济和技术基础设施,使该国能够加入世界经济时,共产党官员以20年的改革时间表作为回应。向教育机构提供价值数百万美元的免费宽带互联网基础设施的提议遭到了礼貌的拒绝,理由是此类项目需要得到政府的批准。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信