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.

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. 

Is Israeli-Palestinian Peace Still Possible? PART ONE-Failed US Peace Intiatives

Thirty years ago, I wrote a book, Missed Opportunities for Peace: US MIddle East Policy, 1981-86,  praised by supporters of both sides, and by foreign policy experts. The book reflected three years my wife Carol and I spent living in Jordan, traveling regularly for Quaker agencies in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon listening to Arab and Israeli views about the challenges and opportunities for peace and what the United States could do to help. Since then, there have been a half dozen wars and as many US peace initiatives that sometimes seemed hopeful, but none achieved the goal of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's been seventy years since the the creation of modern Israel based on the UN Partition Plan and fifty years since the 1967 war and UN Security Council Resolution 242 provided the territorial and international legal basis for a two-state solution of the conflict  

In the intervening years, there have been many missed opportunities for peace, and each one has deepened the distrust and frustration of people on both sides. At the same time, encouragingly, years of official negotiations and informal talks marked out the elements for a fair, realistic two-state peace agreement.  While there's blame to go around for the failure to achieve peace, in PART ONE of this post I will comment on problems with the US Peace Initiatives over the years, and in PART TWO, I will focus on why a two-state solution is still the most realistic, best solution for peace, and what can be done now to help keep the prospect for peace alive.  It's very late, but still not too late for peace.  READ MORE. 

In 1967, shortly after the Six Day War, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg attended a conference in Jerusalem where he heard David Ben Gurion, the retired, first Prime Minister of Israel, warn against Israel holding on to the territories captured in the war.  Ben Gurion urged Israel as soon as possible to arrange a way to return the territories, including the West Bank and Gaza, to the Arabs. The 1967 Arab Summit's "three no's - no to negotiations, no to recognition, and no to peace with Israel - presented both a huge obstacle and an excuse for Israel not following Ben Gurion's wise, practical advice. In the 1970s, General Matti Peled, who worked with Lova Eliav and Palestinian Isam Sartawi to organize the Arab-Israeli Committee for Israeli-Palestinian peace, publically opposed building Jewish settlements in the territories. In part based on international law, the US could have/should have strongly opposed settlements from the start, including exacting consequences for settlements expansion.

After the 1973 war, which Arab countries launched and, like the 1967war lost, President Anwar Sadat's historic initiative opened the way, with President Carter's help, for the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. including Israel's abandoning settlements and withdrawing from all of the Sinai. While Carter's creative, determined diplomacy set a model for achieving an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as he became preoccupied with the Iran hostage crisis, unfortunately the US made no significant progress on the core conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The next opportunity came in 1982, following the war in Lebanon. President Reagan's intitiative recognized that peace required balancing Israel's right to security with Palestinian rights, though unlike our European allies, the US still did not recognize the Palestinians' right of national self-determination or the need to talk with the PLO. Carol and I remember in those years how often in talking "off the record" with US diplomats, they would say that these US positions were unrealistic and not helpful to making peace. President Reagan also recognilzed that getting Israel to stop settlement expansion was essential to the prospect of peace. Despite senior Labor Party leaders, apparently including Abba Eban and Shimon Peres, then out of power, encouraging the US to use the pressure of threatening to hold back some economic aid to Israel unless settlements stopped, the Reagan Administration did nothing but talk about stopping the settlements. Israel's Jerusalem Post editorialized that President Reagan didn't demonstrate nearly the determination that President Carter showed. The Reagan Initiative died in 1985.

In 1991, during the lead-up to the US-Russia cosponsored Madrid Peace Conference, President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker threatened to withhold loan guarantees for Israel to help resettle Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union unless Israel halted settlement expansion. This was the first and only time the US promised to exact any consequences for continued settlement expansion. This contributed to creative controversy in Israel which led to Likud losing the election and Yitzhak Rabin of the more peace-oriented Labor Party becoming Prime Minister.

From 1993 to 1995, following the historic Israel-PLO Declaration for Peace, negotiated secretly in Oslo Norway, Prime Minister Rabin pressed forward in negotiations with Chairman Yasser Arafat of the PLO. All during the 1990s, Israel continued to expand settlements and the US did nothing but talk about the need to stop them. Recognizing the political and religious significance of Jerusalem to both Jews and Palestinians, Rabin resisted Republican Party efforts to force the US to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before a final peace agreement. Another missed opportunity at this time was President Clinton's failure to act on an idea apparently circulated in the State Department for the US to commit to establishing two embassies in Jerusalem, one on the West side of the city for Israel and one on the East side for the Palestinians. While it would have been controversial, such an announcement would have demonstrated a principled US stand on the necessity for the two peoples to share Jerusalem. The assassination of Rabin by a Jewish extremist in 1995 struck a devastating blow to the Oslo peace process.

After several suicide attacks by Palestinians killing more than 300 Israeli civilans, Rabin's successor, Shimon Peres of the Labor Party, was defeated in 1996 elections, the Likud returned to power, and "BiBi" Netanyahu became Israel's Prime MInister. Then, in swifty shifting Israeli political winds, Ehud Barak of Labor was elected Prime Minister in 2000. In early 2001, President Clinton, trying to wrap-up the Oslo process before leaving office, convened a hastIly prepared Israeli-Palestinian Summit for Peace at Camp David. One key issue that the US failed sufficiently to prepare was what would happen about Jerusalem. The Summit collapsed, leaving each side to blame the other. A second more violent Palestinian Intifada erupted deepening distrust and cynicism of many Israelis. Two prestigious US commissions, headed by Senator George Mitchell and CIA Director George Tenet, made realistic recommendations about how to get negotiations for peace back on track, but the new adminstration of Geroge W. Bush did nothing to implement the recommendations.

Indeed, initially President George W. Bush seemed inclined to follow anything but Clinton's (ABC) example of active peacemaking. While after 9/11, Bush was focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, he did launch the "Roadmap to Peace," in coordination with the EU, Russia and the UN Secretary General's office (the Quartet), which made realistic constructive demands on both sides and was supposed to regularly hold the sides accountable for what they committed to do. Israeli and Palestinian supporters of peace were skeptical but hopeful that this time would be different. I remember an interfaith delegation meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Burns at which a prominent Reform Rabbi criticicized the Bush Admininistration for not being tougher in demanding that Israel halt settlement expansion. Sadly, like what happened with the Reagan Initiative, within a few years it became apparent that the US-led Roadmap wasn't going anywhere. 

In 2005, frustrated by lack of progress and finally accepting Ben Gurion's and Peace Now's view about the danger to Israel's future of holding on to the territories, Prime Minister Sharon ordered Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, unfortunately acting unilaterally rather than in coordination with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas, the radically anti-Israel governing authority in Gaza, now not occupied but walled-in by the Israeli military, launched rocket attacks on Israel, fueling Israeli frustration with the  Palestinians and leading to two devastating Gaza/Palestinian-Israeli wars. The US stubbornly, and I would say stupidly, refused to deal with Hamas, having labeled it a "terrorist organization," and therefore played almost no constructive role in ending the violence or in addressing the aftermath of the wars.

President Barack Obama and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton (2008-2012), and John Kerry (2012-2016) brought a renewed sense of hope in the US commitment to help achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace. Their initiatives failed. Late in 2016 the US controversially abstained rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements, and Secretary Kerry gave a speech outlining principles that have guided US policy for peace. Clearly, the rightwing government in Israel and the weak, divided Palestinian government contributed to the failure to achieve peace, but so did the US. 

Speaking at a national meeting of Pro-Israel/Pro-Peace J-Street, Daniel Kurtzer, the first Jewish American Ambassador to Egypt and to Israel sharply summed up a fundamental problem with the US role over the years. Agreeing with the oft-repeated US view that ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very high priorty for the United States, as he reviewed the US record, Kurtzer commented, "I am dumbfounded when I recognize with how little determination the US pursued its own initiatives for peace."

Sent from Hue, Vietnam March 19. I encourage you to subscribe to Carol's Blog on our current three week trip in Vietnam.

PART TWO - "Why Two States and How To Preserve Peace Prospects" follows soon.

http://ronyoungviews.blogspot.com/

Fears versus Facts and Fairness About

Muslim Refugees and Immigrants

Despite real fears and deep divisions among us, I believe fairly reviewing our history, and faithfully respecting facts can help convince our country to move on from Constitutional Court-imposed stays on banning Muslim refugees and immigrants to permanently lifting the bans, rejecting new bans, and once again welcoming well-vetted refugees.

          Reviewing American history, we know as a people that we often celebrate being a nation of immigrants, albeit too often ignoring the horrific treatment of native peoples who first inhabited this land, and at the same time, we have a long history of public majorities fearing foreigners and opposing the admission of refugees. In the mid-18^th century, Benjamin Franklin feared and hated the wave of what he characterized as “stupid, swarthy Germans” immigrating to Pennsylvania. Irish, Italian, Greek, and Chinese immigrants to America all faced public fear, hatred and discrimination in various forms. During World War II, popular fear fueled public support for internment of Japanese Americans. While US government policy toward refugees has varied over time and depended on the country from which refugees came, majorities of Americans have opposed just about every wave of refugees, including refugees from Germany in the 1930s, Hungarians in 1958, Vietnamese after the war, and refugees from Central America, Mexico, Haiti and Cuba.. 

Today, polls show that a majority of Americans oppose admitting Syrian refugees. This case is similar to public opposition to admitting Vietnamese refugees. Just as the American war in Vietnam was responsible for creating a context that generated a huge flow of Vietnamese refugees, the disastrous US invasion and occupation of Iraq fueled the growth of Al Qaeda and ISIS, and contributed to continuing conflicts that have generated the flood of refugees from Iraq and Syria. The difference is that whereas Presidents Carter, Reagan and Ford acted fairly and responsibly to support admitting Vietnamese refugees, President Trump and key White House advisors loudly fuel public fears of Muslims and advocate a blanket exclusion of Syrians, as well as severe restrictions on Muslim refugees and immigrants from six other countries. Significantly, Trump says nothing about Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt, three countries in which he has business holdings and from which terrorists actually have come to attack us. 

An important lesson we need to learn from our history is that fear of foreigners, whether immigrants or refugees, is often fueled by falsehoods espoused by demagogues and then used by opportunistic politicians to gain power. Especially when so many news sources and social media tempt us to find “facts” that fit our own opinions, it’s essential, whatever our political views, that we all develop ways to do fact-checking, especially on controversial issues. See “The 10 Best Fact Checking Sites.”  Specifically related to questions about Islam, I recommend Islam Fact Check.. Here are four facts from reliable sources about immigrants and refugees, and their relationship to terrorism.

•  Since the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack, of more than 800,000 refugees the US has accepted and settled, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning some form of terror attack. (Migration Policy Institute).
• ZERO refugees from countries, including Syria, named in President Trump’s Executive Orders have killed anyone in terrorist attacks on US soil. (Cato Institute)
• In contrast with claims about little or no vetting during the Obama Administration, the process of background checks by the State Department, Intelligence agencies, Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI of immigrants and refugees from countries covered by the bans is already quite severe, multifaceted and lengthy, often taking eighteen months to two years. (Migration Policy Institute)
• Terrorism is real, but chances of an American being killed in a terrorist attack by a foreigner in the US stands at about one in 3.6 million. (Cato Institute)

           Taken together with the scale of the humanitarian crises in the seven affected countries and the examples of Canada and our European allies which already are accepting large numbers of refugees from these countries, these facts should convince us that there is no moral or national security justification for President Trump’s policy of exclusion. The concern, raised by senior Republicans and several military leaders that the clear anti-Muslim motivation of Trump’s policy may actually raise rather than reduce the threat of terrorist attacks adds another compelling reason for people to demand that the bans be permanently lifted. 

            In a larger frame, what is at stake is the choice between the realistic policies of Presidents Bush and Obama that made a fair, fact-based distinction between Islam as a great, respected religion and a very small minority who use religion to justify their extremist ideology versus the extreme views of White House advisors Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (forced to resign over lying about his contacts with Russia). All three men have espoused white nationalist and anti-Jewish views. All three falsely and dangerously claim that Islam is a political ideology not a religion, and that the “Judeo-Christian West” is at war with Islam. All three support creating a clearly unconstitutional national registry for Muslim Americans. If President Trump pursues this path, as his promoting the bans implied, he will fuel fear and hatred of the United States and very likely generate security threats to our country that all Americans will regret. 

Lessons for These Times from M.L. King, Jr.

Ron Young

            I met Martin Luther King, Jr. several times when he came to speak at Wesleyan University 1960-64. On one occasion, my sister and I drove him and his wife, Coretta, from Middletown, Connecticut down to New York City where he was to speak at Jewish Theological Seminary at the invitation of Rabbi Abraham Heschel.  I met him more personally in the home of Jim and Dorothy Lawson in Memphis during the year 1962-63 when I worked as Youth Associate with Rev. Lawson at Centenary Methodist Church.

In March 1965 I marched and worked briefly with Dr. King in Selma during events which led to passage of the Voting Rights Act. A year later, I marched with him in Chicago and ducked bottles and bricks hurled at us by white onlookers, as part of the conflict over the movement’s challenge of discriminatory patterns in housing - patterns which, despite the 1968 Fair Housing Act, continue today in many areas of the country. In 2013, a Supreme Court decision gutted the Voting Rights Act and Republican Party voter suppression aimed at blacks resulted, among other effects, in new voting restrictions and 900 fewer polling places in 2016 than in 2012. The struggle for a better, more inclusive, egalitarian America goes on. What lessons might we learn from Martin Luther King, Jr.?

“It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated.  We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. . . .Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., A Christmas Sermon for Peace, 1967

All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the joyous work of citizenship. Not just when there's an election, not just when our own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime.

Barack Obama, A Final Thank You Letter to the American People, 2017

            

           A first and fundamentally important lesson we can learn from our brother, Martin, is about unity, the intricate inter-relationship of all people everywhere, indeed the interrelatedness of all creation. One way many of us learn this lesson is by having a direct personal encounter with people, here at home or abroad, with very different experiences and facing very different circumstances than ours. Having such an experience, especially with more marginalized and vulnerable people often leads us to stand, sit or walk with them. This lesson certainly is part of the story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the lunch counter sit-ins, and the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. For many young people today the lesson may be learned from participating in local community service projects honoring Dr. King’s birthday or walking in one of hundreds of Women’s Marches on the day after Trump’s inauguration. As King taught, “We must learn that there is nothing greater than to do something for others.” Think of experiences with others that you’ve had and how they changed you.

            If this lesson of our interrelatedness and caring for others is learned well and flourishes, it naturally grows in two ways: the circle of neighbors with whom we identify and for whom we care becomes larger, more inclusive and soon goes global. Dr. King  told how he was influenced by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, and how that led him to speak empathetically and eloquently about the aspirations and suffering of the Vietnamese people and to speak-out against the American war in Vietnam. Second, the lesson expands our understanding of how (in President Obama’s phrase) “the joyous work of citizenship,” includes not only supporting community service projects and protests, but publicly and politically advocating for new local, state and national policies to make our country better for all.  And we come to understand that this work of citizenship must be carried on not only at election time but year round.

Reading and studying Dr. King’s famous April 4, 1967 speech at Riverside Church, “A Time to Break the Silence,” we learn another lesson about interrelatedness, not just of people everywhere, but about the interconnectedness of issues.  In the simplest sense, King understood and explained how as the US war in Vietnam escalated, human and economic resources dedicated to the War on Poverty radically diminished.  He saw militarism and war as enemies of the poor. At an even more tragic level, King saw how “the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor. It was sending their sons, brothers and husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population.”  Today, poor, less educated whites, African-Americans and Hispanics continue to be over-represented in the military and among homeless Veterans.

Interconnectedness of issues is partly about our country’s priorities. The Seattle-based Borgen Project, reports, in dramatic contrast with what many Americans believe, the United States allocates 20% of the Federal Budget to defense, but only 1% to the State Department and foreign aid, which is the equivalent of spending $73 per American citizen each year on foreign aid, while spending $1,763 per person each year on defense.

King’s understanding of the interrelatedness of all people and creation itself led him as a follower of Jesus to a commitment to nonviolence. Neither violence nor nonviolence are simple matters. King understood, and we need to learn this, that the problem of violence is not only the violence of war but the violence of radically unequal access to and use of world resources. The US represents only 5% of the world’s population, but consumes almost a quarter of the world’s energy and contributes disproportionately to environmental damage. According to the Sierra Club, “a child born in the United States will create thirteen times more ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil.” Challenging the unequal use and distribution of resources and limiting the human effects on climate change, in our own country and globally, is fundamental to challenging violence.

And King understood the necessity of being consistent in his commitment to nonviolence. Growing out of his experiences walking and working in Chicago and other Northern ghettos in 1965-67, King declared, “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”  Some believe that this declaration, one of King’s most challenging and controversial even among other Civil Rights leaders, may have led directly to his assassination on April 4, 1968, one year to the day of his Riverside Church speech denouncing the Vietnam War.

King believed and taught the deeper lesson that our nation needed -- and still needs -- “a radical revolution of values. . .from a thing-oriented to a people-oriented society.”  He said, “When. . . profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”  So, positively permeating our politics we need a set of values imitating the lives of prophets, poets and contemporary spirit leaders. Whose lives inspire you and why?

Dr. King and Rev. Lawson believed that ultimately the goal is the “beloved community,” founded on justice and mercy, inclusive of all people, and capable of conserving creation.  Acknowledging our own anger and fear about what Donald Trump will do as President and committed to resisting assaults on vulnerable communities, dangers to creation, and threats to the Constitution, one of the hardest challenges we face is how to have communication with people across the deep divisions in our country.  A tough teaching by Epictetus often quoted by rabbis says, “We have two ears but only one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we speak.” Listening to others when we may not want to, there’s a challenge, no matter how we voted or didn’t, that we all need to work on.

A.J. Muste, who was one of King’s mentors, wrote about communication between people with very different views. “It goes back to something very fundamental in the nonviolent approach to life. You always assume there is some element of truth in the position of the other person, and you respect your opponent for hanging on to an idea as long as he believes it to be true. On the other hand, you must try very hard to see what truth actually does exist in his idea, and seize on it to make him realize what you consider to be a larger truth.”  That’s a lesson easier to describe than to implement, but it’s a necessary lesson to practice and pursue, especially in these trying times.

Dr. King said, “The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But the way of nonviolence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”  An indispensable element of nonviolence, as Muste wrote, is engaging the other, even the radically different and oppositional other, listening, and seeking a common truth we both can confirm. It’s a way of acting that's essential to the health and healing of America.

Though none of us know what Martin Luther King, Jr. would do or say today, we do have clues from what he did and said while he was alive, and almost certainly we know that he would keep on keeping on in faith and hope, resisting evil and reaching out across deep differences for others to work with for the good of all – and so should we.

RESOURCES

We all need to study Martin Luther King Jr.'s philosophy.  As the calendar moves toward the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. King’s “Breaking the Silence” speech at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, Rev. Jim Lawson, Rev. Phil Lawson and the National Council of Elders  are urging us to arrange opportunities to read and study King’s speech in schools, churches, synagogues, mosques and community forums. There also is a new website being developed, M.L. King Jr.+50,   with the full text of King’s Riverside speech, a list of upcoming events and other resources

Which Way With Russia?

An Imaginary Campaign Debate

             President Putin took “the high road” in response to President Obama’s new sanctions, saying he would not respond in kind and that he’s waiting for President Trump to try to improve Russian-US relations. Is that a ploy or might there be a possibility for better relations? While currently there is public debate about US intelligence reports on Russian cyber attacks on our election, during the entire election campaign, there never was a serious policy debate about the issues facing our two countries. So, here’s an imaginary one with timely, tough questions by a journalist seriously interested in informing us, rather than simply entertaining us. Sometimes, we learn more and our thinking is challenged more by a serious journalist’s questions than from any candidate’s answers.  Instead of using actual names of candidates, I’m naming them “Way Out” and “Old Way,” and using the initials “S.J.” to represent the serious journalist.

           

            S.J.: WELCOME to tonight’s debate on relations between the United States and Russia. Welcome “Old Way” and welcome “Way Out.” Please, just call me “SJ.” To begin, I invite each of you to make a brief opening statement. Way Out, you go first.

            Way Out: Very briefly, I would ask all Americans the question, wouldn’t it be a good thing if we had friendly relations with Russia? I’ve had a lot of experience doing business with the Russians, and, after all, Vladimir Putin is a smart guy and I’m a smart guy, so why can’t we get along. That would be SOO Good.

            Old Way: That’s nice, Way Out, but SOO naive. Russia’s goals and methods, and our goals and methods are very different. Putin wants to keep regimes in power or put regimes in power that serve Russia’s interests, and, as we’ve witnessed in Syria and Ukraine, he’s willing to lie and use military power to accomplish his goals. Our goal is to support democracy. Realistically, I do believe, sometimes, we need to use military force to defend or advance democracy.

            S.J.: Well, I suppose it’s not surprising, in limiting you to brief statements, that both your statements sound sort of simplistic. Let’s dive deeper into the key issues between our countries, starting with Syria and Ukraine. In Syria, failed Russian-US diplomatic cooperation has compounded the catastrophic civil war and led to a doubling of the number of Syrian deaths and refugees in the last three years.

            I imagine from what you’ve said Way Out that you think the US should cooperate with Russia in Syria and, maybe even after events in Aleppo, should still cooperate against our common enemy, ISIS. Do you think US support for regime change in Syria was a mistake?

            Way Out: Yes, that’s right. I think Obama’s policy in Syria was stupid, SOO stupid, and pushing for regime change in Syria was stupid. Just like in Iraq and Libya, It was not only stupid, it was a DISASTER.

            S.J.:  I know, Old Way, you supported the goal of getting rid of President Assad in Syria. I want to ask you about a missed opportunity early in 2014, when the numbers of Syrian deaths and refugees were half what they are today. After months of diplomacy by highly respected UN special envoys, the UN Secretary General issued invitations to all the countries involved in the conflict, including Iran, to attend a conference to negotiate an end of the war and a political transition process. The conference never happened, in part because the US absolutely rejected Iran’s participation and insisted that Assad’s ouster had to be a goal of the conference. Looking back, do you think the US was right and realistic in taking these positions? 

            Old Way: Yes, I do. Getting Assad out was an essential US priority and inviting Iran to participate in the conference was a big mistake. As an alternative, I was urging President Obama to use limited US air power against Assad’s forces, including creating “no fly zones,” to protect civilians and support the democratic opposition. 

            S.J.: As I’m sure you are aware, what you advocated carried some serious risks. Several military experts argued at the time that US airstrikes on Syria, defended by Russian radar and missiles, would run the risk of US pilots being killed or captured and risk major escalation of the war, including direct military confrontation between the US and Russia.. Way Out, what is your view of the UN’s diplomatic efforts in Syria?

            Way Out: The UN is a kind of club where members talk a lot, it costs us a whole lot of money, and it never accomplishes anything. The idea of inviting the rogue, terrorist state of Iran to help end the war in Syria was crazy – almost as stupid and crazy as the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by Obama. That’s the worst deal ever. As President, one of the first things I’ll do is cancel that deal.

           

            S.J.: So you would cancel the Iran nuclear deal even though the deal delays Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons for at least ten years and despite the fact that independent verification to date confirms that Iran has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement.

            Way Out: You can count on it. I will cancel the Iran deal.

S.J.: Now, turning to Ukraine, was the US right in supporting the popular uprising against the corrupt, Russian-allied government in Kiev? As a result, things have gotten quite complicated, including formation of a new, very corrupt Western-oriented coalition government in Kiev. In response to the toppling of its ally, Russia took control of Crimea and is exerting effective military-political influence in Eastern Ukraine. And there’s a lot of nervousness in the Balkans and other former Soviet republics. What should the US do – Way Out?

            Way Out: We should have stayed out of this mess.  Russia’s not going to take over other countries. I know Putin and he’s too smart a guy for that.

           

            Old Way: I disagree. I think it’s very important that the US actively and strongly support the new democratic government in Kiev and, along with our NATO allies, stand up against aggressive moves by Russia.

S.J.: The Minsk Ceasefire Agreement in Ukraine is complicated and pretty shaky. It calls for confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty, but provides a degree of autonomy for the eastern provinces where Russian influence is strong. According to the non-profit International Crisis Group, a key factor in 2017 will be challenging corruption in the Kiev government. Conditioning US aid could certainly help meet that challenge. 

 Your responses about Ukraine so far lead me to ask each of you about your view of NATO today. To put my question in historical context, I would remind all of us that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded eastward, taking in countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. With several of these countries right on its border, Russia viewed this development as aggressive and threatening. After its ally was toppled in Kiev, Russia feared that Ukraine, which hosts a homeport for a Russian naval base, would be the next country to join NATO. So, what are your views of NATO?

Way Out: Old Way has accused me of wanting to pull the US out of NATO. That’s another big lie.  I do know that NATO is costing our country a fortune and that’s not fair. Just like what I will do on trade deals, as President, I’ll be tough and insist that other member countries of NATO pay their fair share of the costs.

Old Way: I believe we were right to encourage and support NATO’s expansion and right to support the uprising in Ukraine. NATO continues to be essential to our national security and the security of Europe, even more so now with Putin reasserting Russian influence and power. Given changes in the global context I also believe NATO needs to be modernized.

S.J.: There’s not time now to go deeper into this, but I would simply comment that when the Soviet Union collapsed, expanding NATO, rather than disbanding it or revising its mission, seemed to be missing an opportunity to start a new, more positive relationship with Russia. President Putin has suggested the possibility of a positive relationship. That certainly is worth exploring, but it’s complicated and risky too.

We need to turn now to one other very urgent topic in US -Russia relations that is the issue of nuclear weapons and the threat of a new nuclear arms race.  When Barack Obama became President in 2009, he declared US commitment to work for “a world without nuclear weapons.” While the Iran nuclear deal is viewed by many as a singular achievement, as Obama leaves office, it’s not clear the world is any closer to the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. What is your evaluation of President Obama’s record on this issue, including his consideration of committing the US to “no first use” of nuclear weapons?

Way Out: Like I said, the Iran nuclear deal is the worst deal ever and, as soon as I’m President, I will cancel it. On the issue of “first use” of nuclear weapons, of course, I don’t want to be the first to strike with nuclear weapons, but we’ve got to keep all our options on the table.

Old Way:  I'm very pleased we got that nuclear agreement with Iran. It puts a lid on their nuclear weapons program, but we have to enforce it, there must be consequences attached to it. And that’s not our only problem with Iran. We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Of course, I support the goal of getting to zero nuclear weapons, but now may not be the time to debate about the option of “first use.” More important right now, we have to make sure we don’t turn over control of our nuclear weapons to someone with Way Out’s temperament.

S.J.: On May 4, 2016, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two national associations of evangelicals called on President Obama to cancel plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, including smaller, faster, deadlier weapons, many experts fear may make using nuclear weapons more thinkable. It’s estimated that the program will cost the US a trillion dollars over ten years. The religious leaders urged Obama to challenge Russia (and China) to reciprocate. What’s your view about this new nuclear arms race?

Way Out: The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses about nukes.  (At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin told an audience, “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces.”)  Way Out: Let have an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.

Old Way: About having a new arms race and spending a trillion dollars to build a whole new generation of nuclear weapons, I’ve heard about that. I’m going to look into that.

S.J.: Thank you for participating in this debate. Which way US-Russian relations go in the next few years will have a big influence on which way the world goes, i.e. toward greater inequality, more terrorism and violent conflict or toward more global cooperation, creative diplomacy and larger scale effective efforts to address climate change, poverty, and the elimination of nuclear and all weapons of mass destruction.

Order Ron Young’s memoir, Crossing Boundaries in the Americas, Vietnam and the Middle East. $25, plus $3 postage.

Contact Ron at ronyoungwa@gmail.com

Christmas 1970 – In Moscow and Hanoi

“This is my song, O God of all the nations,

a song of peace for lands a-far and mine.

This is my home, the country where my heart is;

here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;

but other hearts in other lands are beating,

with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.”

(Text: Lloyd Stone   Music: Jean Sibelius)

At a time when there is much concern and debate about Russia’s role in the world and about the United States ending our almost fifty year ‘war’ with Cuba, this trip I made in 1970 reminds me how, in Rick Steves’ phrase, travel as a “political act” can help us shed the hubris of American exceptionalism, and see and feel events from other peoples’ points of view.

In Fall 1970, my then wife, Trudi, and I were asked by the Committee of  Liaison with Servicemen Detained in North Vietnam (COL) to travel to Hanoi at Christmas time to carry mail between their families and American POWs. Our travel companion was Ann Bennett, a leader in Church Women United. The itinerary would take us from New York to Moscow, to Vientiane Laos, and from there to Hanoi. The COL was organized by Cora Weiss and other U.S. peace movement leaders to perform a humanitarian service that the Red Cross might have performed, except that our government refused to recognize the Hanoi government.  Gathered with our families on Thanksgiving, Trudi’s parents and mine expressed fears about us visiting Hanoi and fears about possible government prosecution when we returned. In part because other small COL delegations had preceded us in making this trip and because by this time a majority of Americans opposed the war, we felt confident, not fearful about going.

On our first night in Moscow, we enjoyed festival like live music and cuisine at Aragvi, a very popular Georgian restaurant. During the day, we had meetings with representatives of the government-sponsored Soviet Peace Committee, and we became aware that other Russians apparently at all times were “keeping tabs on us.” On our second night, we went to the yellow parliament building inside the Kremlin’s walls to attend a fabulous Bolshoi ballet performance of Don Quixote. Even in this brief visit and despite the thick fog effects of Cold War conflicts, it was possible to experience Russian popular pride and love for their country, a country that suffered a staggering 11,000,000 soldiers and estimated 20,000, 000 civilians killed in World War II, as well as 75% of Russian industry destroyed. The next day, we rose early in the morning for the 4,200 mile flight from Moscow to Vientiane; and there, pretty exhausted, we boarded a second smaller plane for the hour long flight to Hanoi.

We were greeted at the Hanoi airport by representatives of the Vietnam Peace Committee, a semi-official government organization and partner with COL in the mail exchange. We stayed at the Hoa Binh (Peace) Hotel. Our hosts asked us about traditional American customs for celebrating Christmas. When we returned from a day trip on Christmas Eve, we discovered that hotel staff had decorated the dining room with pine branches, lighted candles, and a small pine tree. For dinner the waiters proudly brought out a roasted turkey, with its head still on and a carrot curl in its beak. After showing us the Christmas bird, they returned it to the kitchen from where it soon reemerged chopped up in a familiar Vietnamese-style stir fry.

Our hosts took us to see some of the devastation caused by B-52 bombing and to meet several badly burned and broken civilian victims. We visited a museum where we saw displays of anti-personnel bombs and bomblets, tens of thousands of tons of which were dropped by our country on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Having seeded the earth with these weapons, unexploded anti-personnel bombs would continue to kill and maim civilians, especially children, long after the war was over.

During unscheduled time one afternoon, Trudi and I walked freely in the center of Hanoi around the Lake of the Returning Sword and visited the One-Pole Pagoda. We were struck by how friendly Vietnamese seemed, even when they learned we were Americans. We were told that this partly reflected  Vietnamese Buddhist culture, but also Ho Chi Minh’s teachings. During decades of foreign occupation by the French and Japanese, Ho Chi Minh urged Vietnamese to resist, including by violence, but Ho also taught when foreigners don’t pose any threat, hatred and vengeance are ineffectual and wasteful attitudes. While this does seem to have been Ho’s philosophy, it is a matter of record that American prisoners of war at times suffered harsh treatment and that some prisoners, including John McCain, were tortured. In 1995, Senator McCain joined with Senator Kerry, who had testified against the war in 1971, to support President Clinton’s decision to normalize relations with Vietnam.

One of the high points of our visit to Hanoi was an hour-long meeting with Pham Van Dong, a close associate and friend of Ho Chi Minh. Having grown up in Quang Ngai Province, which became part of South Vietnam after the country was divided, Dong joined the resistance as a young man and was jailed by the French for seven years. Following Vietnamese defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, Ho Chi Minh named Dong Prime Minister. After the American war ended, Dong served as Prime Minister of united, independent Vietnam from 1976 to 1987. Interviewing Pham Van Dong provided Ann, Trudi and me personal experience of Vietnamese determination and confidence that they would succeed finally in freeing Vietnam from control by any foreign power, including the United States.  This reinforced our views that the American war in Vietnam was not only morally wrong, but utterly unwinnable.

On our fourth day in Hanoi we were taken to meet a few of the American POWs. Our main purpose was to bring loving greetings from their families, to let the men know that people back home were praying for them, and that we were working to end the war, so that they could come home. Illogically, the Nixon Administration often spoke as if the U.S. was continuing the war to bring home American prisoners. Appreciating the sensitivity of our meeting, including possible propaganda value to North Vietnam, our government’s opposition to our mission, the intense U.S. media focus on POW/MIAs, and the likelihood our meeting would be monitored, we didn’t ask the men how they were being treated, but instead simply asked each man to tell us how he was captured.

One of the prisoners we met was a fighter bomber pilot who had flown several missions from an aircraft carrier in the China Sea. He told us that he had never been in Vietnam and never met a Vietnamese before his plane was shot down and he was captured. “Until my plane was hit and I parachuted down,” he told us, “the war wasn’t real; it was more like a very dangerous arcade video game.” He told us that he broke his ankle when he landed in a field. Local villagers surrounded him and began to argue loudly about what to do with him. After several minutes, they roughly bandaged his ankle with cloth strips and carried him some distance through fields and then down into a deep bunker. He told us, “Very soon after we were underground, there were thunder-like booms and the earth shook violently. I knew that these were bombs being dropped by our B-52s.” He confessed convincingly, “You know, until that day, I never experienced a B-52 raid from the ground. I wouldn’t want—and I wouldn’t want anyone else—to experience that ever again.” 

     Our route home to New York took us to Bangkok, then across the Pacific with a brief stopover in Seattle, where as soon as we landed, immigration authorities and armed police boarded the plane and ordered us to come with them and to bring the bag containing the hundreds of letters we were carrying for families of the POWs. We were led into a small room where the authorities threatened us with legal penalties and demanded that we give them the mail. I realized then why small, sixty-six year old Ann Bennett had insisted that she carry the bag.  Ann held it tightly against her chest and said, “We are carrying this mail for American servicemen who are prisoners of war and we promised them that we would send it to their families. You will have to beat me to take this bag of mail.” The authorities recognized they had met their match. They let us go; we re-boarded our plane and continued our flight home. On our arrival at Kennedy Airport, leaders of the Committee of Liaison greeted us and we held a press conference. The very next day, the letters were placed in new envelopes with stamps and mailed to all the prisoners’ families as promised. 

It was good, even as we continued to protest and resist the American war, to have had this experience of acting in solidarity with the American men and families of the men who were fighting it.

*    *    *

“Whatever may be noble and heroic in war is found in us, and 

whatever is evil and horrific in war is also found in us.” 

“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, 

the second time in memory.”

From Nothing Ever Dies by Viet Thanh Nguyen,

Author of the 2016 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Sympathizer

Order Ron Young’s memoir, Crossing Boundaries in the Americas, Vietnam and the Middle East. $25, plus $3 postage.