[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3380-S3381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF PETE PETERSON TO BE AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the Senate consider
the President's nomination of Douglas ``Pete'' Peterson to be the
United States Ambassador to Socialist Republic of Vietnam late last
week. I supported this nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee.
But I did so after careful consideration of the symbolism of this vote
and of the signal it sends to Americans.
Mr. President, the appointment of an ambassador is a normal
consequence of having full diplomatic relations with a given country.
And we have had diplomatic relations with Vietnam since July 1995 when
the President signed an executive order establishing such ties. So,
technically, the Senate's view on this nominee does not represent a
statement of policy. It simply represents the normal procedure by which
the Senate provides its advice and consent to a Presidential
nomination.
There has never been any serious question raised regarding the
President's selection of Mr. Peterson to fill this position. Mr.
Peterson is an outstanding citizen and public servant. He spent nearly
30 years in the U.S. Air Force, including 6\1/2\ years as a prisoner of
war in Vietnam, and has received numerous awards for his valiant
service. As a three-term Member of Congress from the second district in
Florida, Mr. Peterson also has devoted significant energies to working
with both the Bush administration and the Clinton Administration to
bolster the U.S.
[[Page S3381]]
search program for POW/MIA's. There are few people who have as deep of
an understanding of the uniqueness of America's relationship with
Vietnam, so I fully support the President's choice.
This does not mean that there do not remain myriad outstanding
questions and issues in our bilateral relations with Vietnam. One issue
that is of particular concern to me is the human rights record of the
Vietnamese Government which remains poor. According to the most recent
State Department Report on Human Rights Practices, the Government of
Vietnam continues to restrict basic freedoms; of speech, of the press,
of assembly, of association, of privacy, and of religion. Citizens can
be arbitrarily arrested or detained for trying to express political or
religious objections to government policies. And although the
Vietnamese Constitution provides for the right to privacy, according to
the State Department, the Vietnamese Government continues to operate a
``nationwide system of surveillance and control through * * * block
wardens who use informants to keep track of individuals' activities.''
The Vietnamese Government also has in place a policy of forced family
planning.
Mr. President, this is not a country that shares with the United
States the principle that government should exist to promote the
general welfare of its people. Nor is it one that has respect for the
rule of law.
But, as I said in 1995 when the President first announced his
decision to restore diplomatic relations with Vietnam, I believe that
diplomatic relations actually enhance our ability to advocate for
issues such as human rights and political freedoms. Through a
permanent, high-level presence in the country, I believe the United
States can intensify the dialog on human rights, work more closely with
Vietnamese reformers, and more effectively monitor developments in the
human rights situation.
Now I have listened carefully to the veterans in Wisconsin and to the
national veterans' organizations. I recognize that the veterans
themselves have differing opinions on the issue of diplomatic
relations, in general, and of Senate confirmation of this nomination,
in particular. The concerns are two-fold: Does having an ambassador on
the ground in Vietnam actually help advance the accounting of POW and
MIA cases? Or does the dispatching of a President's representative with
ambassadorial rank imply that the United States no longer thinks we
have reason to withhold a special privilege for Vietnam?
Mr. President, it is my view that having an ambassador resident in
Hanoi can serve to better advance U.S. interests, in human rights, as I
said earlier, and on issues related to the continued accounting of our
POW's and MIA's. I salute the efforts of all those who have tirelessly
sought details about missing U.S. service men and women, and, from most
of their testimony, I am inclined to believe that we will enhance our
ability to collect more information about the remaining POW and MIA
cases through fulfilling the President's commitment to full diplomatic
relations.
On the other hand, I think it is equally important to acknowledge
that sending a Presidential representative of ambassadorial rank does
indicate a symbolic change in our relationship with Vietnam that I know
some observers still are hesitant to send. It is my view, however, that
the United States can serve two purposes by that change: Better advance
our interests as described above, and better indicate our concerns
about Vietnam or its government through other actions. For example,
that is why I voted against lifting the trade embargo against Vietnam
and why I have supported congressional efforts to limit United States
assistance to Vietnam.
However, I believe that in an era of global engagement and
integration, it usually makes little sense to refuse diplomatic
relations with a country in the international community. Vietnam is a
large presence in a fast-growing region where the United States has
ever-increasing interests. We can no longer hope to isolate it, nor
will isolation serve to advance any of our goals.
To reiterate, Mr. President, I support the President's choice of Pete
Peterson to be Ambassador to Vietnam because I believe that the United
States best serves its citizens by having a Presidential representative
of the highest order resident in the country. Nevertheless, I remain
concerned about other aspects of our bilateral relations in that
country and I will continue to scrutinize carefully the President's
policies in that regard.
____________________