Vietnam War Report; Lacouture

[Host] This is the Vietnam War report. Tonight we bring you an interview with Mr. Jean Lacouture. Mr. Lacouture has long been acquainted with problems in Southeast Asia. He was a member of the French forces that fought in that area and has served as a correspondent in South and North Vietnam for the French journal Le Monde. Mr. Lacouture is currently in this country as a fellow of the Center for Near Eastern Studies at Harvard University. His book on Vietnam, "Vietnam: Between Two Truces" was published by Random House last month. The following is an interview we had with Mr. Lacouture this week for this edition of the Vietnam War Report. In his review of your book "Vietnam: Between the Two Truces," Bernard Fall wrote, "the author is fully conversant with the Vietnam problem yet not a specialist on Vietnam." Mr. Lacouture could you tell us how you became acquainted with the problems of Southeast Asia? [Jean Lacouture] I am very grateful to Bernard Fall for saying I am not a specialist. I am not, as he is, and I am not and I like to hear it, and this-- the first time I was there, its long time ago. It was when 20 years ago, the first

time I was in Vietnam, it was in the staff of General Leclerc and the French begin their war. And I must say to be decent about my country, about my friends then that we began the war making peace. We tried to make peace with the Viet Minh, with Ho Chi Minh, with with the revolutionary people in Vietnam, and it was we achieved for the first time to sign an agreement and six months after, other people organized the war and the war began and for more than seven years my country fought against the Vietnamese. And that was my first acquaintance with Vietnam 20 years ago. I spent 18 months in this country, I served in the first month as a soldier, as a young, very young, very very low level officer and the other eight months as a journalist, founding a newspaper with other young French officers, it was called Paris-Saigon and one of the others, my colleagues in these, for

this newspaper was Philippe Davide who has written the best book about Vietnam I suppose since that time he was out of Vietnam 1950-1952, which is a very good account on French war in Indochina and base of Vietnamese nationalism and the base of Vietnamese communism and he's giving him this book the very deep account on how the communism and nationalism are mixed up in this in this country and Vietnam and how so many nationalists in Vietnam became communist because winning achieved their nationalism through any any party, any organization, they wanted to to throw away the French colonialism, that was the reason of so many people were communist in this country in Vietnam and I suppose still are now. [Host] You mention it in your, in the I believe in the introduction to the book, that as a

as an officer in the army you took the advantage of going across the border to talk with the other side. Could you give us any recollections you might have about that? [Lacouture] Yes, it was a a very very strange situation. We came out from the the French liberation, some of them had fought the German in France, other were more (attentist?). I must say I was not a very brave fighter. I was very young anyway, against the German and anyway we went to Vietnam in the French Expeditionary Corp. It was a very strange mixture of revolutionary people. Leftists, other [mumbling] some cooperation with the German during the war in Europe and they were and they tried to be to be forgiven fighting in Asia as they did. And it was a very strange atmosphere, not at all the classic

military atmosphere in French armies. Everybody was possible and for example the group of young journal-- young officers I mentioned before were, we made a little group of people, we were in charge of writing weekly for the troops. It was a sort of Stars and Stripes in a very very little one. And we are writing these newspapers, in the same time, we founded, after a few months, we founded another newspaper was called Paris-Saigon, was a liberal newspaper and we-- when this second newspaper we were asking for peace with the Vietcong and it was a very strange situation writing a newspaper for the troops in the morning and a newspaper for peace in the afternoon. And some of the, it was not an underground action, the Saigon-- [Host] While you were an army officer you were also in fighting in the army or working in an army that was fighting, you're also writing a newspaper that was--. [Lacouture] Yes I must say that what it was it was known by the revolutionary, Leclerc

was able to be sometimes a liberal man and even by General (Valuie?), the general who came after Leclerc, and was very anti- Vietminh himself but he accepted this as a part of the strange situation of the French Expeditionary Corp in Indochina and of course in the same time I must say we were negotiating, negotiating with the Viet Minh every time and the army, the people in the army were pro-war and we are against war. We are very mixed up, it is very difficult to imagine that such a an adventure now, when when I when I try to remember this time, it's very difficult for me to imagine the situation we were in. [Host] You yourself are a newspaper man. What do you think of American newspaper reportage of the Vietnam conflict? [Lacouture] I think it is very forceful and very moving on military problems and military events. I'm looking every day to the

TV, CBS, ABC, and NBC reports, it's very very very forceful and very frank, far better than we had. A French man on Vietnam, on Indochina, on Nigeria, and on Nigerian wars, it's far better. For the political problems, I am, it's a little deceiving for me that so many intelligent and very very clever and with a very good knowledge of Vietnam journalists living in Saigon are publishing so few articles about the political realities in this country. I must say for example one of them is excellent, he is for Christian Science Monitor, Mr. Okawa, which is supposedly born in, Japanese born and he was a pupil in the Center for Far Eastern Studies here in Harvard, gives a very good account on the political life in Vietnam. But generally speaking the others are more interested in the military problems and I suppose because the American audience is more interested by

by what are the boys doing there and who is fighting, or alas who is killed in this country, more than by the crisis and the discussions between the Buddhists and the Catholics and the sects and Montagnards and so on. But it's not on the same level, the military reporting and political reporting that is political reporting, is a little deceiving. But anyway I believe that now this nation, this American US nation has got far better reports on the war than any of the French people for example during the Indochinese War. It's maybe the war in history was as best coverage that I have ever heard and it's very impressive. [Host] In your book in discussing the extensive bombing tactics employed by the US and Vietnam, you have asked the question "after the B-52s are finished what will be left of the

Vietnamese?" You contend that we are doing North Vietnam and Peking a favor by these bombings. Why is this? [Lacouture] It seems to me that less people who remain in South Vietnam, more North Vietnamese will be powerful in South Vietnam. Not not for the 3 or 4 or 5 coming years, but I try to place me in a sort of historical outlook and well I should say that's the future of this country from a western point of view is to have a Vietnam standing in a brave way against Chinese imperialism. I don't hope any time that the Vietnam will fight the Chinese and we have to organize a war against Asians, that not not at all, and I hope that this country and every country in the West will have decent and correct position with

China, it will be difficult because China is in a certain respect an imperialist power, and communism, and they want the white people in the West and people to leave the Asian continent but anyway with antagonizing powers we may be possible to organize some balance of power as we organize with the Russian in Europe and it must be possible with China. But as I expected in the beginning and I expect more and more in Europe than the Poles in the Yugoslav, Hungarians and so on stand, besides the Russians, not being satellites but being nations with, well, sharing the same ideology but that's not a question of ideology. From the point of view of strategy for example Eastern Europe now is more and more independent that it will be more it would be more and more difficult for Moscow for example to organize a crusade with its satellites in Europe against the West in Europe. In Asia I hope too that

such country as Vietnam maybe will become socialist, quite leftist and so on but they will be independent from the Chinese leadership. That is very important for this country and for our country and others country. Seems to me the problem is not to having a more or less Marxist Vietnam but having a Vietnam standing bravely as a nation that isn't that is a problem and when so many Vietnamese are killed now, it seems to me it's making a naked country and this country this Vietnam will be only a place for a future Chinese invasion. Less Vietnamese are remaining and Asia will be for for the Chinese to take this country after years, after the Americans stay in this country. It's maybe it's in more or less a historical simplification but I believe it is it is a sensible outlook. [Host] Do you think that this

outlook of the Chinese, that the war in Vietnam may eventually be to their interest to-- do you think that they might be interested in maintaining the war in Vietnam and consequently reluctant to negotiate? [Lacouture] Seems to me obvious, the most happiest power in the world now about the Vietnamese war is Peking, is China. Even in this in this country the leadership, in the American leadership is not satisfied about the Vietnam War and try to stop it. But in Peking everybody is doing everything to keep the war at it is now, that's going on maybe I believe that the Chinese are mad. Mentioning the war and and acting for a protracted war, they are doing now and refusing any sort of contact in any negotiation, they are vetoing any negotiation and they are the most guilty power about the continuation of the war now. They are

looking at this war they are trying to make this war a sort of show of American imperialism and to demonstrate to the Asian and to the Third World people, and Africans, and Latino-Americans and so on and the Arabs countries that America is an imperialist power. Maybe they succeed in certain respects with such words, but after all, after one year or two years they will have half a million American soldiers in Vietnam and for the future of China it's not very, it's not very good and I think they are foolish in their diplomacy. But anyway they are acting as as if they would be would be glad to have so many American soldiers taken in the tropics in Vietnam. That is the Chinese diplomacy and frankly I believe it's quite dangerous for them, quite dangerous for this American country, but the Chinese want,

seem seems to want a protracted war now. [Host] Secretary of State Dean Rusk has emphasized heavily the importance of the United States sticking to its word to stand fast in Vietnam, and as a European do you think that this emphasis on the international prestige of the United States which also the president is emphasized and Mr. McNamara and and most of the governing body of this country, is important? Would we be considered weak by the rest of the world if we backed down partially from our commitment in Vietnam or changed our mind in some ways? [Lacouture] I think the United States would consider it great if they changed their policy in Vietnam that is, being so enormous and great and big nation it will be more honorable than from a weaker or middle nation to change his policy. Of course it's not a question of power. Anybody anybody knows in the world that the United,

United States can stay for a century in Vietnam if they want, it's not a question of power. For example France had to withdraw from Indochina because it was weak. You know, the United States will not because they will they will choose to withdraw and not because they will be forced. But this truce will be admired I suppose by the large majority in the world because I think, maybe I am wrong, but I think it's a it's a bad war and I think it's not a good way for defending freedom in the in the world, I don't think it is good for the cause of freedom in the world to back such a government as this of Marshall Ky and his aides,I think they are very poor defenders of freedom in the world, it's a very bad cause. I think the other so-called dominos in Asia are nothing to do with such a rotten government as is in Saigon now, that is the Thai government, the Malayan

government and of course the Japanese and Philippines and so on have nothing to do with such a government and their commitment with this country, with a good or strong or sincerely in Asia is nothing to do with with this government in Saigon. [Host] Do you think that the present government in Saigon is rotten? [Lacouture] I must say so. [Host] Why do you say that? [Lacouture] It's as corrupt as a president government, of course I know it is such a war is not very it's not a very good opportunity to have clean governments. But is a government without any popular support, it's a government of a little group of generals who must be brave as military people but they have nothing to do with the population. They are as Ky coming from north and that is not a very good, well it's not very good to rule in south now and they are

no Buddhist, no Catholic, no, they have no support from the main groups in the country and it's seems to me it's quite an artificial group and it is quite weakened. It can be changed every day and now they have got an agreement with the Buddhist and after making concessions of course but it's my opinion, it's quite an artificial and without any popular base and with the methods of government of holding which are bad and it seems to me and government which is living only because he was, well his moral train was supported by bombings on the north and they live because they are now happy because the North is bombed by the American Air Force. Doesn't seem to me a very decent government after all, all these people are Vietnamese and to be so happy that they are and they are dying

because the north of the country is bombed by the American Air Force. No it doesn't seem to me very decent. I don't agree with such such opinions and they look to liking their comrades and their fellow Vietnamese being killed by by their allies. That's not a very, it's not a very good and very humane attitude and maybe they have got, have got the power now but I don't believe they will they will keep it and retain it. [Host] At the Honolulu Conference President Johnson put a great deal of support behind Ky, do you think that a coup is now possible with this support, this commitment to Ky and with a lot of the present, the presence of large numbers of troops in Saigon, could we permit a coup to take place? [Lacouture] I don't think so. I think Ky as a living

person, as a so-called holding person can stay for a long time in Vietnam. Of course he is now under the protection of a very strong foreign army and he has got a lot of reasons to stay in power. But I must say it's only military power, it's only a Saigon power, he has no power outside. Outside of Saigon we have seen of course when he tried to dismiss General Thi, the head of the of the group of armies of the north, Thi came back to Hue and to Danang and was acclaimed by the whole population and seems to me it's very shameful for the central government to dismiss a General and his General you know to become popular just after he was dismissed. That just seems to me it's a sign of how limited is the power of Saigon government. [Host] Why do you think that happened?

[Lacouture] because because Ky is not popular and when the people has got few opportunities to tell him how he is unpopular. But when he gives that population opportunity, taking a decision for example his dismissing General Thi of the north, that was an opportunity for the crowd to tell its own opinion. [Host] In the conclusion of your book "Vietnam: Between Two Truces" you've offered specific suggestions as to what considerations must take place before any kind of settlement can be arranged in Vietnam. Can you go over some of the suggestions that the course that we might follow in coming about settling a peace in Vietnam? [Lacouture] Well it seems to me that there are three levels for searching for a peace in Vietnam. A parochial level, and inter- Vietnamese Saigon-Hanoi

level of negotiation between the big powers. And the basis of the first negotiation, I don't speak about it in terms of time, that is of course it's a lot of possibilities for beginning an agreement, but beginning from the base, it seems to me that the problem is mainly a South Vietnamese problem. The war began because a part, a larger and larger of Vietnamese were dissatisfied with the Diem government and wanted to have a new distribution of power in the South, wanted to be able to tell their discontent and dissent and so on. That is the problem between the Vietnamese to to organize a new distribution, a new share of power in their own South Vietnam, that is the first problem and there are a lot of possibilities.

I suppose the best from a theoretical point of view the best possibility is to organize elections in South Vietnam for organizing a new a new power. But of course in a country where the war is going on it's quite difficult to make elections. And I should say free elections. But anyway the first problem is among South Vietnamese to organize a new power. And I should say that with a division of responsibilities between the nationalist and the communist or leftist people, and that is the problem of this coalition government as told by Senator Kennedy and others. The second level of negotiation will be between Saigon and Hanoi between the Saigon with a more

representative government I don't say democratic because it's a dangerous word, but more representative government and that is a problem of the reunification of Vietnam. As long-- as I as far as I know both NLF and Hanoi government are not in a hurry to reunify the country. The last time I met Ho Chi Minh it was five years ago in 1961 he told me that they were ready to wait for years and maybe five years, maybe 10 years, maybe 12 years for the unification of the two Vietnams because he knew perfectly well that the two part of the country is got different histories since 12 years now and different economy, different way of living now, different developments and so on. And they have to prepare for more and more and quietly for reunification. And from the NLF people I could hear about or met, they spoke

about 10, 12, 15, sometimes 20 years before reunification, and I don't know, I only speak about NLF people now and I suppose a lot of people in South Vietnam, the Catholics and even the Buddhists, are not so in a hurry to make the reunification. But it's it's a general feeling in this country as in Korea and as I know in Germany that reunification is in the name of the whole nation. But after a while and after preparing with caution and prudence such a step and the third level of negotiation will be between the big powers because after all it's obvious that it's mainly a Vietnamese problem, but it's too an American or Chinese problem that any peace in Asia now must have the agreement of the same time Washington and Peking, that

is and if possible, agreement of Japan and USSR and eventually of Great Britain and France and other powers. That is the third step in for searching peace, I think it is, it must come before the others. It seems to me it would be more normal if the Vietnamese themself in the south before, between North and South after choose the way of peace and the big powers come mainly to give their caution and their help to the peace. [Host] Finally the last question, Ho Chi Minh is a figure that in America inspires curiosity and some admiration and awe. Can you tell us what it was like meeting him? [Lacouture] Well Ho Chi Minh I must say is quite a charming old gentleman. He's a very peculiar figure and I think everybody has met Ho Chi Minh was got the charm he has, he is a very strange personality

I must say, he was a good comedian, a good actor, is fine for acting and for giving his guest the best the best impression. But anyway when you see such a man you see more than 50 or 55 years of world revolution and that is very impressive. After all that man was in Paris in 1917 during the war he came to this country before for a few weeks and was in London in London after that in France, he spent five years in France among the revolutionary circles, in Paris he was one of the founders of the French Communist Party in 1920. One of our history making, makers, it is it is impressive and he went to after that to Moscow, he was one of the founders of the commune and

and after that he went to China, spent 20 years in China in prisons cell, after that he was free, he was an advisor of Bolin, the famous revolutionary, Russian revolutionary, and was a hero of one Andre Maillot novels, Le (Conquiron?). And anyway it's the most extraordinary life of our time I suppose. And when you see such a man you will see a piece of a museum. But in the same time he's an old fruit, a man with a lot of jokes and and it is difficult to imagine that such a smiling and nice man is the same time the ruler and head of a government which is holding ruthlessly its own countries in North Vietnam and I don't agree at all the way they are holding their country. It must be said that North Vietnam was a

quite difficult country to rule because it was very poor after the partition after the war against France and after the partition North Vietnam was poor and they needed a strong discipline to divide the wealth of this weak wealth of this little country and it was always in a sort of mood of half war. And well I can admit such and such reasons for such a rule. But anyway it's a terrible dictatorship and I don't admire at all the way they hold the country. They were Alaric resisting against France and I still think and believe they are Alaric resisting the pressure from the Air Force. But they are, they don't like them as rulers. [Host] This has been the Vietnam War Report. Tonight's guest was Mr. Jean Lacouture,

former correspondent in South and North Vietnam for the French newspaper Le Monde and author of the recently published book "Vietnam: Between Two Truces." The Vietnam War Report is produced for WGBH by George Mitchell.