>Even now, we lie to ourselves about Vietnam >By Robert Jensen >11/27/00 >Bill Clinton has always been keen on apologizing, for himself and on behalf >of the nation. He has apologized not only for a sex scandal, but for U.S. >support of repression in Guatemala and for slavery. > >One might contest the motivation for, or the phrasing of, the apologies -- >Were they offered for the right reason? Did they go far enough? -- but at >least they were offered. > >There is one act of contrition, however, that Clinton -- or any American >leader-- has not been able to make. > >On his way to Hanoi last week, when asked if he thought the United States >owed the people of Vietnam an apology, 25 years after the end of the war, >Clinton said, simply, "No, I don't." > >Some have offered a personalized explanation: As a man who avoided the draft >during that war, Clinton has to stand tough today. But another possibility >deserves consideration: To apologize for crimes against the people of >Vietnam would be to admit that the stories we tell ourselves about our >conduct in the world -- then and now -- are a lie. > >To apologize would be to acknowledge that while we claimed to be defending >democracy, we were derailing democracy. While we claimed to be defending >South Vietnam, we were attacking the people of South Vietnam. > >To apologize now would be to admit that the rationalizations for post-World >War II U.S. foreign policy have been, and are still today, rhetorical cover >for the power politics of an empire. > >The standard story in the United States about that war is that in our quest >to guarantee peace and freedom for Vietnam, we misunderstood its history, >politics and culture, leading to mistakes that doomed our effort. Some argue >we should have gotten out sooner than we did; others suggest we should have >fought harder. But the common ground in mainstream opinion is that our >motives were noble. > >But we never fought in Vietnam for democracy. After World War II, the United >States supported and financed France's attempt to retake its former colony. >After the Vietnamese defeated the French in 1954, the Geneva Conference >called for free elections in 1956, which the United States and its South >Vietnamese client regime blocked. In his memoirs, President Eisenhower >explained why: In free elections, the communists would have won by an >overwhelming margin. The United States is all for elections, so long as they >turn out the way we want. > >The central goal of U.S. policy-makers in Vietnam had nothing to do with >freedom for the Vietnamese people, but instead was to make sure that an >independent socialist course of development did not succeed. U.S. leaders >invoked Cold War rhetoric about the threat of the communist monolith but >really feared that a "virus" of independent development might infect the >rest of Asia, perhaps even becoming a model for all the Third World. > >To prevent the spread of the virus, we dropped 6.5 million tons of bombs and >400,000 tons of napalm on the people of Southeast Asia. Saturation bombing >of civilian areas, counterterrorism programs and political assassination, >routine killings of civilians and 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange to >destroy crops and ground cover -- all were part of the U.S. terror war in >Vietnam, as well as Laos and Cambodia. > >This interpretation is taken as obvious in much of the world, yet it is >virtually unspeakable in polite and respectable circles in this country, >which says much about the moral quality of polite and respectable people >here. > >Why is the truth about our attack on Vietnam so difficult to acknowledge? I >think it is not just about Vietnam, but about a larger truth concerning our >role in the world. We are the empire. Especially in the past half-century, >we have supported repressive regimes around the world so long as they served >elite interests. We have violated international law in countless invasions >and interventions. While talking about the inviolate nature of human rights, >we have trampled those rights and the legitimate aspirations of liberation >movements. > >In many ways, the Vietnam War was the defining act of the United States as >empire, an aggression that was condemned around the world and at home, but >pursued nonetheless, as the body count went into the millions. It is the >linchpin of our mythology about ourselves. > >In his last years on Earth, Martin Luther King Jr. understood this, as he >began to speak out forcefully against the war: "If America's soul becomes >totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read `Vietnam,' " King said in >1967. > >If he were alive today, I don't know whether King would give up on the soul >of America and write a final autopsy report. But I am confident he would >argue forcefully that the future is lost so long as we let stand the >poisonous distortions of history. > >Jensen teaches journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be >reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. > >FYI - These commentaries are sent daily to ZNet subscribers. If you wish to >receive them, consult ZNet at http://www.zmag.org or the ZNet Sustainer >Pages at >http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/28/00 EST