Los Angeles Times Interview : Vo Nguyen Giap : The Man Who Led the Tet Offensive Now Talks of U.S.-Vietnam Trade

For close to 50 years, Vietnam’s revolutionary leaders and the United States have had a complex and troubled relationship of extremes. In 1944, there was strong U.S. support for those who sought Vietnam’s independence from the French. But soon after, Washington became an opponent of the communist-led revolution, with an intensity that far exceeded the strength of its initial support. By the 1960s, that intensity, now fueled by vehement anti-communism, led America into the longest war in its history.

Now, 20 years after the Vietnam War, leaders in Washington and Hanoi are finally talking about opening trade relations. Until recently, Vietnam’s economy was in desperate condition, in part due to self-imposed difficulties but also to U.S. refusal to open economic and diplomatic relations. Lifting the embargo would be an important step in accelerating Vietnam’s nascent economic growth.

Throughout these 50 years, one man has remained at the center of events. He is Vo Nguyen Giap, 82, who founded Vietnam’s revolutionary armed forces in 1944. He was at Ho Chi Minh’s side when the communist leader declared Vietnam’s independence in 1945. Also at Ho’s side were U.S. army officers who had provided critical support to Ho, Giap and their revolutionary colleagues in their bid to establish an independent Vietnam.

Twenty years later, the U.S. army would feel the wrath of Giap’s response to U. S. military intervention in Vietnam. In the 1968 Tet Offensive, Giap devastated the U.S. psychologically by orchestrating simultaneous military attacks on 68 locations. He had inflicted the same sort of psychological damage on the French in the trenches at Dien Bein Phu, 14 years earlier.

Giap’s success during the Vietnam War was enhanced by his understanding of America--his relationships with U.S. officers during the 1940s were a profound experience for him and continue to be a reference point even today. Sitting in a conference room at Vietnam’s National Institute for Development Studies, which he chairs, Giap feels quite comfortable quoting Jefferson--here, as always, following the example set by Ho.

*

Question: Vietnam’s leaders have called for the lifting of the U.S. economic embargo and re-establishment of trade and diplomatic relations. Why does Vietnam want this?

Answer: Lifting the embargo will be good for both the U.S. and Vietnam. Many U.S. businesses want to invest in Vietnam because they find attractive opportunities here. Numerous representatives of U.S. business are already here in anticipation of the embargo being lifted. Despite the limitations imposed by the embargo on their activities, the presence of U.S. businesses here demonstrates their belief that the opportunities in Vietnam are very large.

Foreign investment in Vietnam is increasing rapidly. Major investments have been made by Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia, South Korea, France and China. Vietnam welcomes this investment, because we need it to increase the pace of our economic growth. We hope that the U.S. will join with the other leading nations of the world in participating in Vietnam’s economic future.

To paraphrase on old saying, “Those who are late will suffer the disadvantage.” Recognizing this disadvantage, President Clinton issued regulations that allow a small opening for U.S. businessmen to enter Vietnam. President Clinton has the authority to open full diplomatic and trade relations with Vietnam. I call on him to do so.

. . . . The embargo policy is out of date. The time has come for us to put the past behind us and to work together for a better future for both our peoples.

*

Q: In the United States, there continues to be concern about the U.S. servicemen missing in action. How is this issue regarded in Vietnam, and what is being done to respond to U.S. concerns?

A: I want to emphasize most sincerely that I do understand the concerns of American families whose loved ones were missing in action. In response to those concerns, the Vietnam government has done its best to help find information about those missing in action . . . .

Vietnam regards the MIA issue as a humanitarian concern and not a political issue affecting the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations. The reason we regard the MIA issue as a humanitarian concern is because we are looking for our own MIA. Our MIA are nearly several hundred times the number of the American MIA. (More than 300,000 Vietnamese are missing in action.) . . . . Vietnamese families also grieve about those they have lost, and they seek all available information, just as American families do.

. . . Because we share a common problem, Vietnam and the U.S. can benefit by pursuing a common solution . . . . American representatives are free to go anywhere and to contact anyone concerning MIA(s). We have cooperated, and we will continue to cooperate, with U.S. representatives, because we want as much information as possible to be obtained. I have personally met with numerous American representatives about the MIA problem--including Gen. John Vessey and other veterans. This matter is a personal concern of mine.

In return, we hope that American representatives will want to help Vietnam find information about our own MIAs . . . . Our problem is so much larger that a small amount of American help can go a long way toward helping Vietnam with its MIA problem.

President Clinton’s Administration has already given us valuable information about those Vietnamese missing in action who were fighting for the former Saigon government. This has been helpful but we need more information we believe the U.S. government has about this matter.

. . . So we ask President Clinton to help us with whatever additional information can be obtained about the MIAs from the Saigon armed forces, as well as any information that the U.S. government may have about our own MIAs . . . .

But the important point is that both nations stand to benefit by working together in a common humanitarian effort . . . . The common pursuit of MIA information should be another positive reason why establishing trade and diplomatic relations can be beneficial to both nations. The closer the relations between our two countries, the greater our cooperation can be in obtaining information about MIAs of both nations . . . .

*

Q: What is your vision of the future of Vietnam?

A: My vision of the future is based on the perspective of the past. In the past, our greatest challenge was the invasion of our nation by foreigners. As long as foreigners dominated us, we could not determine our own destiny, nor could we deal with our most pressing problems. Now that Vietnam is independent and united we can address our biggest challenge. That challenge is poverty and economic backwardness.

Vietnam is a poor country but its people are rich in spirit. My vision of the future is one in which the rich spirit of the Vietnamese people will cause our nation to prosper. . . . .

You have come to Hanoi on the 21st anniversary of the U.S. Christmas bombing of our capital city. This bombing destroyed the Bach Mai Hospital. I was in Hanoi at the time of the raid. In the many years of U.S. bombing prior to the Christmas raid, I thought that Americans wanted to make our country look like a moonscape. With the Christmas air raid, I began to feel that the target had become the spirit of the Vietnamese people, especially those in Hanoi. Although the Vietnamese people had withstood many challenges over many centuries, the Christmas air raid of 1972 was a new and formidable difficulty. While I was confident that the spirit of the Vietnamese people would prevail, I looked for signs of the demonstration of that spirit.

Shortly after the Christmas air raid, Price Sihanouk of Cambodia and his wife, Princess Monique, came to visit Hanoi. I met them at the airport and escorted them into the city. As we drove from the airport, Prince Sihanouk said that he could see in the eyes of the people along the roadway a sense of pride and a optimistic spirit . . . .

Vietnam is a nation that is several thousand years old. Our nation has survived because our culture is strong. The spirit of our people is strong. Fixed in the soul of every Vietnamese is the strong belief that we will prosper. Some may call this social psychology. But call it what you will, Vietnam will prevail in the future as in the past because of the spirit of our people.

*

Q: Looking back, could conflict between the U.S. and Vietnam have been avoided?

A: This is a very complicated question, which is difficult to give a precise answer. At the end of World War II, Ho Chi Minh wanted peace, but France wanted to regain control over Vietnam after losing its position as a result of Japan’s wartime occupation. France was prepared for war to regain control. We Vietnamese wanted our independence and freedom.

Prior to the collapse of Japanese authority in Vietnam in 1945, U.S. Army officers were sent to our country to help us prepare for our independence. I especially recall Maj. (Allison K.) Thomas, who was a native of Michigan. Ho Chi Minh told Maj. Thomas and other American officers in our country, in 1945, that he saw good relations with the U.S. after the end of World War II.

Ho Chi Minh was initially correct. America did not support the French return to Vietnam. But the American position changed in the 1950s with the adoption of the “domino theory,” in which the U.S. came to believe that what happened in Vietnam would affect all of Southeast Asia . . . .

Looking back in history, there can be no doubt that an important opportunity for good relations between Vietnam and America existed at the end of World War II. Regrettably, this opportunity was missed. Now, nearly 50 years later, there is another important opportunity for good relations between Vietnam and America.

Will a second important opportunity be lost? Let us make sure that this present opportunity is not lost. Let us make sure that Vietnam and America work together to benefit the people of both of our countries.

What lessons can be learned from the past relations between Vietnam and America? It seems to me that there are three. First, do not go to war with a nation that is fighting for its independence. Since America fought its own war for independence, I believe Americans can agree with this lesson.

Second, no matter how large a nation’s military and economic power, there are always limits. Nations that recognize their limits, and act accordingly, are more likely to be successful. An arrogance of power has been the downfall of many great nations. No nation is immune to either the limits to power or the tendency to the arrogance of power. Recognizing the one and avoiding the other can be a lesson all nations should agree on.

Third, whatever the policies of leaders of nations, it is ultimately the people who will decide. If leaders pursue wrong policies, the people will not follow. If leaders pursue right policies, the people will confirm their rightness by giving their support; the more nations follow the decisions of their people, the more successful they will be.