[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.

                          ____________________