[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 11, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E 1406]]


            COMMENDING AN ARTICLE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

                                 ______


                           HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 11, 1995
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to the House an 
article in today's Wall Street Journal. Written by the very thoughtful 
and articulate Bruce Herschensohn, it details, concisely, just what the 
President is giving away by recognizing the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam.
                          Don't Reward Vietnam

                        (By Bruce Herschensohn)

       This week, President Clinton plans to give full diplomatic 
     recognition to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Most of the 
     controversy surrounding the move has focused on the POW/MIA 
     issue. While this is important, it obscures the real 
     significance of the administration's decision: By recognizing 
     Vietnam now, Mr. Clinton would send a message to foreign 
     governments that it's unnecessary to keep agreements with the 
     U.S.
       U.S. troops were removed from South Vietnam because of the 
     agreements initialed on Jan. 23, 1973, by Henry Kissinger for 
     the U.S. and Le Duc Tho for Vietnam. Before we make any new 
     agreements with Hanoi, wouldn't it be worthwhile to remember 
     the contents of this treaty, the last one between the two 
     countries?
       Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Paris Accords states that ``the 
     South Vietnamese people shall decide for themselves the 
     political future of South Vietnam through genuinely free and 
     democratic general elections under international 
     supervision.'' Article 11 guarantees the ``democratic 
     liberties of the people: personal freedom, freedom of speech, 
     freedom of the press, freedom of meeting, freedom of 
     organizations, freedom of political activities, freedom of 
     belief, freedom of movement, freedom of residence, freedom of 
     work.''
       The accords were taken seriously by the American side. When 
     President Nixon informed the nation of the signing of the 
     accords, he said. ``The people of South Vietnam have been 
     guaranteed the right to determine their own future without 
     outside interference.''
       But to this day, more than 22 years later, the Paris 
     Accords remain unobserved by the Hanoi government. Not only 
     did the North violate the treaty by invading the South in 
     1975, but since then the government has denied to the people 
     of Vietnam every one of the liberties enumerated in the 
     accords.
       The pro-Hanoi lobby doesn't seem to care. Many business 
     people in the U.S., it seems, ignore the moral aspects of 
     recognizing Vietnam and look at it only as a means to fatten 
     their wallets. They justify this approach by arguing that 
     opening ties with Vietnam will pave the way for democracy and 
     human rights.
       Please. We've heard it all before.
       That was the business lobby's argument for giving ``most 
     favored nation'' status to the People's Republic of China. 
     Today, along with hundreds of thousands of others who suffer 
     at Beijing's hands, the imprisoned American human-rights 
     campaigner Harry Wu can testify that these arguments were 
     false.
       They've always been false. I have on my desk an old and 
     tattered book published before our entry into World War II. 
     Its title is ``You Can't Do Business With Hitler,'' by 
     Douglas Miller. Many American business people ignored this 
     advice then, just as many would ignore a book today called 
     ``You Can't Do Business With Le Duc Anh.'' But it remains as 
     true today as in the 1930s: The U.S. shouldn't open ties with 
     dictatorships that respect neither their own citizens nor 
     foreign treaty obligations.
     

                          ____________________