Wednesday, April 19, 2017

A Reflection on Revisiting Vietnam

Carol and I spent three weeks visiting Vietnam, traveling the length of the country from south to north. We enjoyed an early morning breakfast on a small boat in Can Tho’s Floating Market in the Mekong Delta, met old and new friends, visited the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, and traveled north by train with stops in Quang Ngai and the My Lai Memorial, Hoi An, Hue and the Peace Bridge in the former DMZ. We stayed in Hanoi’s old quarter near Hoan Kiem Lake, met leaders of Vietnam friendship organizations, visited the Women’s Museum and Temple of Literature, watched a performance by the famed “Water Puppets,” and delighted in an overnight boat trip into hauntingly beautiful Halong Bay. This was my fifth visit to Vietnam.

In July 1970, I led a delegation of student and religious leaders to South Vietnam, investigating repression. Our government finally had been forced to acknowledge 50,000 political prisoners being held by the US-backed Saigon regime. During Christmas week that year, I was one of a three-person Committee of Liaison delegation who carried mail between their families and American POWs in Hanoi. In August 1974, I traveled with an AFSC delegation to visit the Quaker Rehabilitation Center in Quang Ngai, drove from Hanoi south to the DMZ to visit an underground hospital following-up delivery of Quaker medical aid, and took part in discussions that led to Lady Borton going to live in Hanoi.

In 1995, I attended the Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration of the Vietnam-USA Friendship Society in Hanoi with three other middle-aged anti-war activists and octogenarian former OSS (predecessor organization of the CIA) officers who had served with Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnamese forces fighting the Japanese occupation during the closing months of World War II. The American officers supported Ho’s appeal to President Truman urging US support and recognition for Vietnam’s independence. Truman never replied. Instead, the US financed the French military campaign to recolonize Vietnam.

This current trip with Carol was my first visit that focused on seeing and enjoying the beauty of Vietnam, as well as connecting and reconnecting with Vietnamese friends.  Inevitably, given our personal connections with the US war in Vietnam, my reflections are not just about the present, but involve the past, present and future. 

On our next to the last day in Ho Chi Minh City, we met Madame Ton Nu Thi Ninh, a leading intellectual, born in Hue, educated in Vietnam and France, who served as Vietnam’s Ambassador to the European Union. Currently in retirement, she chairs the HCM City Peace and Development Foundation, headed nationally by Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, famous for representing the NLF/PRG delegation in the Paris Peace Talks.

Leaning forward intently in a way that underlined the importance of what she wanted us to understand Madame Ninh said, “Even more terrible than all the bombing and killing was the way America imposed a destructive division on our country and on Vietnamese people.” On one level, geopolitically, Ninh was speaking about the temporary North/South division embodied in the 1954 Geneva Accords, followed by the US-installed Diem regime in Saigon which blocked holding the Accords-mandated elections in 1956 to reunite the country. But she was also speaking about the deeper, divisive political and cultural effects of America imposing its anti-Communist credo on Vietnam.

Given Ho Chi Minh’s success at blending nationalist and communist ideologies in the struggle against French colonialism and Japanese occupation, if elections had been held in1956 the results would almost certainly have been a united, independent Vietnam with Ho as President. Instead, America poured money, arms and eventually half a million soldiers into the country generating horrendous violence and division, including divisions within Vietnamese families.  While Madame Ninh supported the side of the National Liberation Front, her brother became a Captain in the American-backed ARVN military. After the war ended, these divisions made the process of reeducation and reconciliation much more difficult and painful.  While serving in the postwar Vietnamese government, possibly motivated in part by her own family situation, Madame Ninh publicly challenged the severity and length of the compulsory reeducation program. Her work for national reconciliation has included visits to the US where she tried, often without success, to address embittered Vietnamese who fled the country after the war.

Vietnam was not the only country in which America’s “good vs. evil” anti-Communist credo distorted realities with disastrous consequences. The unresolved division since the 1950s from the war in Korea poses dangerous threats today. During the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, struggles for democracy and social justice in many African and Latin American countries were more destructive and deadly as a result of American anti-Communist interventions. Our policies today run similar risks relying on “counter-terrorism” and “anti-radical Islam” as rigid policy guidelines. We should have learned from Vietnam how these simplistic, fear-driven frameworks frequently reveal more about our own ignorance and biases than they help us respond wisely to realities in any other country.

Meeting with Madame Ninh and Ngo Thi Phuong Thien, daughter of Ngo Ba Thanh, prominent attorney and Third Force (not NLF) anti-regime, anti-war activist in Saigon during the war, combined with our visit to the Vietnam Women’s Museum in Hanoi, reminded us of the major roles of women with different political views in the Vietnamese struggle for independence. Some believe Ho Chi Minh’s early advocacy for the role of women was inspired in part by his living briefly in New York and Boston, where he witnessed activities of the Women’s Suffrage Movement.

On April 30 1975,,the war in Vietnam ended, but not for everyone - not for Vietnamese refugees, not for American, Vietnamese and other veterans, not for families of the “missing in action” from either side, not for political prisoners, and not for future victims of unexploded ordinance or the harmful, multigenerational effects from Agent Orange.

In Ho Chi Minh City we met Cao Nguyen Loi, a former political prisoner whom I had met in July 1970.  Loi had been held in the infamous Tiger Cages on Con Son Island and had provided a detailed map for finding them to a Congressional delegation who took a photograph that was published in Life Magazine. Loi, a successful businessman after the war, and three other former prisoners hosted Carol and I for dinner, presented us with flowers, and thanked us for our work opposing the war. Loi also arranged for us to meet other former prisoners in Quang Ngai and Danang as we traveled north.

In Quang Tri Province, one of the most heavily bombed and sprayed areas of Vietnam, Carol and I toured the Mine Action Center of Project Renew which does community education, especially with children and carries out mine clearing operations.  Since the war ended, in Vietnam alone (not counting Laos or Cambodia), there have been more than 100,000 casualties, including 40,000 deaths from Unexploded Ordinance (UXO). The Vietnamese Red Cross estimates that as many as 4 million Vietnamese may have suffered harmful effects from Agent Orange. A big political issue this year, particularly given President Trump’s priorities, is whether the US will continue to provide some funding for cleaning up highly toxic areas and for assistance to Vietnamese with disabilities most likely resulting from Agent Orange.

After a century of colonization and occupation, in 1975 Vietnam became independent - free from foreign control. However, as with all countries, large and small, Vietnam’s development is partly dependent on foreign trade and investment. This involves priorities and issues of potential benefits versus harmful effects, i.e., who benefits and who gets hurt, as a result of particular trade and investment decisions, including issues related to the effects of enormous investments coming from China and South Korea. Vietnam’s English language newspaper reveals that while there are few public protests and no organized opposition party, there are diverse, contesting views on development and human rights issues that play out on the local, provincial and national level.

Some people may have believed that when “national liberation” was accomplished, everything about Vietnam would change. Of course, that didn’t happen.  There have been many changes, mostly positive but many challenges remain and there are some Vietnamese qualities from before the war that continue to shape lives and society today. 

In July 1970, on my first visit to Vietnam, I met Huynh Tan Mam, who then was President of the Saigon Students Union. Mam invited our delegation of students and religious leaders to join Vietnamese in a march to protest the American War.  The march was attacked and broken up by military police firing “Made in the USA” teargas grenades. Mam was arrested and imprisoned several times by the US-backed regime.

After the war, Mam became a medical doctor, worked with the Vietnam Red Cross and the Association of Poor Patients in Ho Chi Minh City, served as Editor of Thanh Nien newspaper and, motivated by having two autistic sons, organized, raised private funds from Vietnamese friends, and opened two schools for autistic children. On our last day in Vietnam, Mam took me to visit one of the schools.

Whether he was working as a young leader in the national liberation movement or as a private citizen, Mam has been compassionate and critical, consistent and persistent in working for a better Vietnam and world. I feel privileged and inspired knowing him, and very fortunate to have had this opportunity of revisiting Vietnam.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Is Israeli-Palestinian Peace Still Possible? PART TWO: Why Two States and How to Preserve the Prospect for Peace.

Breaking with previous US policy and the broad international consensus supporting a “two-state resolution” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on February 15 in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump said, “I’m looking at two states and one state. I'm happy with the one they like the best."

For many people, especially people who are not familiar with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have not followed the series of UN resolutions and US peace initiatives, President Trump’s statement may seem to have a certain simple logical appeal. For others who are familiar with the history, their frustration with failed peace initiatives and the reality of continuing Israeli settlement expansion taking territory presumed to be part of a future Palestinian state may lead them to conclude that a two-state solution is no longer possible. So, why not one state?

The problem is that neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian version of a “one-state solution” would work, and almost inevitably would lead to years more violent conflict and very likely trigger new and unpredictable Israeli-Palestinian wars. READ MORE.

For many years of the conflict, from 1948 to 1988, most Palestinians and Israeli Jews wished and wanted the other side to disappear. Eventually, after wars in 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982, majorities on both sides slowly came to recognize that it wasn’t going to happen, that the other side was here to stay. I recall a conversation in 1984 with Rabbi David Hartman of the Shalom Hartman Institute. David urged me whenever I would meet with Palestinians to help them understand that “when Jews come to this land, we are coming home.”  I replied, “I understand David, and what Palestinians need you to understand is that when you came here, they were home.”

Two peoples claim the right of national self-determination and both have historical bone-deep connections to the same small land. That’s the reality that underlies the need for a two-state solution to the conflict. The 1967 war and UN Security Council Resolution 242, with its twin, interdependent principles of Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied as a result of the war, including the West Bank and Gaza, and recognition and security for all states in the region including Israel, provided the physical territorial and international legal basis for the two-state resolution of the conflict.

Given projected population demographics in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the Palestinian version of one-state with equal rights for all won’t work because it would be unacceptable to Jews since it would mean the end of Israel as a majority Jewish state, which was a foundational purpose in the creation of modern Israel. Given tenacious Palestinian nationalist aspirations, the Israeli version of one state, keeping military control of the West Bank and Gaza, while only allowing Jews to vote would be undemocratic, unacceptable to Palestinians and, learning a lesson from South Africa, ultimately unsustainable.

Encouragingly, a recent reliable joint Israeli-Palestinian poll https://en.idi.org.il/events/4206 reveals that, despite deep distrust and disagreement on specific issues, the goal of two-states is still supported by slim majorities on both sides. Furthermore, the poll suggests that if incentives were added for each side and if the peace plan were to include all Arab countries, as the Arab Peace Initiative offers, it would likely be supported by larger majorities.

What’s needed now to preserve the prospect for peace is renewed, determined US and international commitment to the two-state solution. In coordination with the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and the UN Secretary General), the US should seek and support a UN Security Council Resolution outlining a Framework, along the lines of Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer’s Model for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations.

Drawing on Kurtzer’s model and other parameters developed over the years in official negotiations and informal talks, here is a brief outline of realistic, balanced ideas for resolving all major issues, including the most emotional issues of refugees and Jerusalem
Borders: Based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel will withdraw from territories (West Bank and Gaza) occupied in the 1967 war, with negotiated minor, equal land swaps that would allow Israel to keep territory close to the 1967 line where 75-80% of Jewish settlements are located. Safe passage routes between Gaza and the West Bank, similar to ones agreed to in 1994, would be negotiated.

Security: The Government of Israel will be responsible for security in areas under its sovereignty, and the Government of Palestine will be responsible for security in areas under its sovereignty. The Palestinian State will be demilitarized and the international community will guarantee its security and independence.

Refugees: Palestinian refugees will have a “right of return” to the state of Palestine. Israel might agree to negotiate a limited number of refugees (50,000 has sometimes been referenced) to return to Israel based on family reunification. Palestinians not returning to Palestine will receive compensation and help from an international fund to settle in states where they now reside or to resettle in other countries willing to receive them.

Jerusalem: Jerusalem will be recognized as having historic political, national, cultural and religious importance to Israelis and Palestinians, and to Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide. The city will become the capital of the two states, with the capital of Israel in West Jerusalem and the capital of Palestine in East Jerusalem. The city will be open and undivided. The parties will develop an agreed plan for control of entry to and exit from the city and for its security. Predominantly Jewish neighborhoods will be under Israeli sovereignty; predominantly Arab neighborhoods will be under Palestinian sovereignty. The parties will agree on a special regimen for the Old City, including the role of religious authorities in relation to the Western Wall and Temple Mount.

End of Conflict: Upon full implementation of the agreement, all claims on both sides will be terminated and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be ended.

Israeli-Palestinian peace is still possible.  While the parties may not be prepared immediately to negotiate details of a final agreement, a UN Security Council Resolution outlining the principles and Framework for a two-state solution will help preserve the prospect for peace.