The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Vietnam and Congress

(Film clip showing fighting in Vietnam.)

ROBERT MacNEIL: It`s been four years since the last guns were fired and since the last bombs fell on Vietnam, but the damage they did has not yet been erased -- not in Vietnam, where land and people alike were devastated, and not in this country, where the psychic effects were just about as severe. What will it take to heal those wounds, and how long will it be before either side agrees to forgive and forget?

Good evening. American and Vietnamese officials today returned to their efforts to restore relations between their two countries. They talked for more than three hours in the American Embassy in Paris and will meet again tomorrow. At their first meeting a month ago the U.S. negotiator, Richard Holbrooke, conceded one point, promising not to continue blocking Vietnamese membership of the United Nations. But the Vietnamese have also demanded lifting of the U.S. trade embargo, and money: the billions of dollars they said they were promised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1973, when the Paris peace accords ended the war. That is not a demand the Carter administration can easily meet, because the authorization for such money would have to come from Congress. Congress for the moment is saying No. Tonight we examine why Congress opposes aid to Vietnam. What effect will this have on future relations with Vietnam, and who exactly calls the tune on foreign policy issues like this? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the question of aid to Vietnam has been around for a while. It rears its sticky head briefly, there is a furor of debate, and then it goes away, only to return again and again, as it has now. The historical seeds for the issue do go back to 1973, when North Vietnam insisted on what it called "war reparations" as a condition for signing the so-called Paris Peace Agreement. And Article 21 of that final agreement does pledge the United States to give postwar reconstruction aid, but it does not give any details. The Vietnamese insist that they were spelled out in a secret letter from President Nixon, and they say that letter is also part of the overall agreement. Until recently the U.S. had never officially acknowledged the existence of the Nixon communication. As for Article 21,. the U.S. position has been that this special commitment was wiped away when North Vietnam later invaded South Vietnam and eventually rolled its tanks into Saigon. That action was in violation of the agreement and thus nullified the aid commitment, says the U.S.

But two weeks ago, on May 14, Congressman Lester Wolff and the State Department released a copy of the Nixon letter. In brief, the letter promises $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid and another $1-$1.5 billion in other help. The letter says it will be contributed without any political considerations, but says it will be implemented in accordance with each country`s constitutional provisions. And that, for the United States, is a code phrase for "if Congress will vote the money." Robin?

MacNEIL: And Congress right now doesn`t seem to be in a mood for that. Early last month, just hours after the State Department announced it would no longer oppose Vietnam`s application for U.N. membership, the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment prohibiting the State Department from spending any money on aid to Vietnam. In addition, Congressman Benjamin Gilman of New York, who`s with us tonight in Washington, introduced a resolution calling on the administration to oppose Vietnamese entry into the U.N. and to deny it diplomatic recognition until a fuller accounting of American soldiers missing in action was made.

Congressman, why did you introduce that resolution?

Rep. BENJAMIN GILMAN: I introduced the resolution because we`ve been very much concerned about the lack of cooperation by the Vietnamese. They have not showed any good faith in coming forward with a full and exhaustive accounting. There are still some 1,300 missing, unaccounted for. We`ve given the Vietnamese every opportunity and encouragement to come forward, to put the best foot forward to help bridge a gap between our two nations, and we`ve had only piecemeal evidentiary information that`s been submitted by the Vietnamese to our country. Until we have good faith by the Vietnamese and until we have a substantial accounting I don`t think that we should rush headlong into normalization or should provide any economic assistance.

MacNEIL: So you don`t go along with those other congressmen who say they believe the Vietnamese when they say they`ve accounted for all the MIA`s they can?

GILMAN: I don`t think the Vietnamese have even said that. They`ve indicated that they have information, that they will pursue looking for our missing and will provide us with that information when it`s avail able. We have any number of photographs of men shown taken into captivity released by the Vietnamese. We`d like to know what happened to these people. The Vietnamese have that information; let them produce it for us and show good faith in abiding by the basic humanitarian principles.

MacNEIL: Do you feel we should be even talking to the Vietnamese in Paris now, under these circumstances?

GILMAN: Oh, I certainly think we should be talking with them and keeping an open avenue of communication, but I don`t think that we should rush headlong into providing them with any assistance or any diplomatic relations or conduct any trade with them until they evidence good faith and provide the information that we believe they have.

MacNEIL: Congressman, do you think that the release of the Nixon letter has killed the reparations issue or strengthened Hanoi`s hand in claiming that we promised it?

GILMAN: No, I don`t think the Nixon letter has any bad effect on our negotiations or has harmed the status of the missing. The Nixon letter has been referred to for any number of years. When Congressman Montgomery and I were in Hanoi we had an indication that there was some correspondence between President Nixon and the Vietnamese. They produced at that time a list for us of some of the things that they had demanded in their communications with President Nixon. Mr. Montgomery talked with Mr. Nixon - - with President Nixon. There were some prior press releases indicating that the President had talked about billions of dollars of economic aid. But all of those promises were based on living up to the accords, and they were breached by both sides; so that`s past history. That should be placed behind us. It`s evident that the accords and the communication were not abided by, and we now have to move ahead to form some new relationship; and that new relationship should be based on good faith on both sides. And I don`t see Vietnam having adduced good faith yet. They have not produced any substantial information with regard to our missing.

MaCNEIL: Can I ask you one other quick question: do not resolutions like yours put the Congress in charge of foreign policy and tie the President`s hands in making that policy?

GILMAN: I think that there are times when Congress should assert itself with regard to foreign policy questions. I don`t think that foreign policy is entirely in the province of any one branch, I think that it is a mutual arrangement, that the Congress certainly should have input on foreign policy; and I don`t think that my resolution ties the hands, it merely sets forth some basic considerations that should be considered before we arrive at a final decision with regard to Vietnam.

MacNEIL: Thank you.

LEHRER: Those who favor the idea of reconstruction aid for Vietnam appear to be in the minority in Congress at the moment, but Congresswoman Helen Meyner, Democrat of New Jersey, is one of them. She is a member of the House International Relations Committee and sits on its Subcommittee on Asian Affairs. Congresswoman, do you agree with Congressman Gilman on what remains to be resolved between the U.S. and Vietnam?

Rep. HELEN MEYNER: Well, I agree with him partially, but I do feel that the Vietnamese have really tried hard to account for all of our missing in action. It`s awfully tough after a war to find these bodies and collect them and ship them home. I certainly have all of the sympathy in the world for the families, but I think it`s been too long. This happens after wars. How can you collect an arm and a leg in a war-torn area? I think they`ve tried, and I think they will continue to try to account for those missing in action. But I feel that we should be doing more for Vietnam. I was against the war from the beginning, I still feel a sense of moral outrage, frankly, about -- I think it`s one of the darkest chapters in our history, what we did there. And after all, the United States pulled up both Germany and Japan out of the ashes and rubble of World War II, and I think we should be headed in that direction in Vietnam and I would like us to first lift the trade embargo and then eventually arrive at a full diplomatic relationship with that country.

LEHRER: What would you like to see come out of these negotiations that are now going on in Paris?

MEYNER: I think I`d be in favor of first lifting the trade embargo, and interestingly enough, there are a number of business interests in the United States that would like to do that. Our oil companies are interested in that. The government of Vietnam gives very favorable foreign investment incentives, and as oil companies have pointed out, there is reason to believe that there`s a good deal of offshore oil off the coast of that country and they don`t like to step aside and watch the Japanese and European nations get in there first, and feel that we should be doing that. Also our consortium of banks are very much interested in working in that country with investments.

LEHRER: You favor giving aid also directly to Vietnam and you just laid out a moment ago why. Do you feel we have a moral commitment to give this aid?

MEYNER: I think it should be pointed out that we really are in a way giving aid now through international funds. There`s $300 million in aid for Vietnam through the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank...

LEHRER: But you think we should go further than that, and directly.

MEYNER: I think we should go further than that. You see, we give to these funds, so indirectly we are giving to Vietnam, but I think there`s much more we can do to help them, pull them up out of the rubble of war, than we are.

LEHRER: As I said in introducing you, your position is in the minority now, and Congressman Gilman`s is in the majority. What do you think it would take to turn Congressman Gilman and his majority around?

MEYNER: Time, I think (laughing). Maybe next year, or the year after. I think we`ll see that happening. I just sense that it will.

I think Congressman Gilman makes a point; I do hope the Vietnamese will do as much as they can to account for the men that are still missing.

LEHRER: But to use his expression, "the good faith test," you feel that they`ve already met that. That`s where you disagree with him.

MEYNER: I think they have, but I think Congressman Montgomery is the real expert on that.

LEHRER: Well, let`s see what Congressman Montgomery has to say about it. Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The accounting for the American MIA`s was one of the American preconditions for establishing normal relations with Vietnam. This past March the Vietnamese turned over the bodies of eleven MIA`s to an American delegation that visited Hanoi. The Vietnamese claimed that that was all they had. The delegation included Democratic Congressman Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, who was Chairman of the House MIA Committee. The Congressman said he believed they were telling the truth. He`s been to postwar Vietnam several times and was one of the first Americans to be shown the then-secret Nixon aid letter.

Congressman, has the confirmation of the U.S. promise of aid through the release of Mr. Nixon`s letter strengthened Hanoi`s position?

Rep. G.V. MONTGOMERY: I don`t think so. Mr. Gilman and I have talked about this letter for several years; we were told about the letter when we were in Hanoi in 1975, and I consider it just an old piece of paper. And for the United States and Vietnam to get closer relations we`ve got to look to the future and not look at the Nixon letter. I think the Vietnamese realize the system that you have to go through in the United States, that Congress had to be consulted. And Phan Hien today in Paris admitted that there was an amendment to the letter that Congress would have to be consulted. So I think if we`re going to have any type of relationship with Vietnam we`re going to have to forget about the so-called "Nixon letter," look to the future, and we can work out some type of relationship with Vietnam. My total work, the way I became involved in Vietnam and the way most members have done is trying to find out if any Americans were still alive in Southeast Asia, and this is what Mr. Gilman and I and Helen Meyner have been trying to do over the years. But I have learned something about the people of Vietnam, having been there twice in the last two years to Hanoi.

MacNEIL: Suppose the North Vietnamese keep on demanding aid now and we keep on refusing because Congress has said no and because we say that the Vietnamese violated the Paris peace accords and therefore the Nixon- Kissinger promise is no longer valid. Does it matter to the United States if they refuse to normalize relations? Does it really hurt us if we can`t normalize relations with them?

MONTGOMERY: Well, I don`t know whether it will hurt us that much or not. It will hurt us in that, Helen, I think the Vietnamese do have some more information about the missing in action -- not a lot of information; I think no Americans are alive. I think the families have got to realize that. These Americans have given their lives, and it`s a sad report. Mr. Gilman generally disagrees with that statement, but the Woodcock Commission was unanimous that no Americans were alive, and also the House Select Committee on MIA`s said there were none alive. I think if we could let the Vietnamese realize that they`re not going to get any reconstruction aid from the United States -- Mr. Gilman has told them, I have told them, I told them in `75, I told them at the Woodcock Commission when we were in Hanoi -- but I think if we can push the reconstruction aid aside, then we can move toward normal relations, which I have no problems with. That country`s not going away. There are fifty million tough little fighters over there, they do have some influence in Southeast Asia, they generally do not like the Russians, they do not like the Chinese, they do not like the Japanese. Believe it or not, the Vietnamese people gave us the impression that they generally like the American people. If they would give us this information on the MIA`s, what little information they do have, I think that normal relations would move right along.

MacNEIL: Do you think this would happen, Congressman? Our representative in Paris told them at the meeting last month, apparently, that aid would not be a possibility until perhaps after normalization.

Do you think if they give us the information you`re talking about and we do normalize relations that aid from the United States would be a possibility then?

MONTGOMERY: I think it would, as Helen Meyner said, it would be time; I think it would be a long time before the Congress would give direct reconstruction aid, but there are many other ways that the Vietnamese could benefit by normal relations. They need to develop their oil resources. We have the best offshore drilling equipment of private enterprise in the United States: this would give them a cash fund. I have no problems with lifting the trade embargo, and if we can make a buck off of the Vietnamese and sell them cotton and steel, I just don`t have a problem with it; and they would be benefiting. They need some consumer goods, Mr. MacNeil. We went in their stores, their department stores; really they don`t have enough clothes to wear. They do have some shortage of food. They could benefit other than reconstruction aid, is my point.

MacNEIL: I see. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Congressman, let me ask you: moving aside the hassle over the Nixon-Kissinger letter and everything, do you feel that the United States has an obligation to help Vietnam -- reconstruction aid or whatever? In some way or other, do we have an obligation?

MONTGOMERY: From a reconstruction situation, I would say no; but from the good of the United States, Vietnam is a strong country in Southeast Asia. We`ve got to give them some plusses -- they have not let the Russians come in and take over Cameron Bay, which the Russians want to do, which is a great seaport. The equipment that was left by the South Vietnamese and by us -- the military equipment: guns and ammunition -have not been sold to potential enemies of the United States. So I think because we are so close together now as far as communications and world travel that it just makes sense for us to have some type of ongoing communications, a diplomatic relationship with the Vietnamese.

LEHRER: Congressman Gilman, how do you feel -- here again, removing specifics from the thing -- do you feel we have any obligation? Do you agree with Congressman Montgomery that we ought to do more?

GILMAN: Congressman Montgomery and I differ on certain aspects of the question. First of all, I don`t think we should have drawn any rash conclusions about whether there are any of our servicemen alive or dead until we have a full accounting, and we won`t know that until we get all of the information. I don`t think that we have any obligation to Vietnam. There were agreements; those agreements were breached. We now wipe the slate clean and go ahead and start building a new relationship with Vietnam, but that new relationship is going to have to be based on their showing us good faith in a basic humanitarian issue, and that`s to provide us with information on our missing -- information which they have. They have crash sites which we should be allowed to investigate, they have information on people who they disclosed were in captivity at one point, and we`ve heard nothing further about them. They can help us with Laos and Cambodia. We should be able to get information from both those nations, and Vietnam can be of help in that direction.

LEHRER: Congresswoman, what is your view of that basic argument?

MEYNER: I think there`s one thing I would just like to say, and that is that Vietnam really needs the United States; it needs our expertise and our technical know-how, I think. It`s much more interested in getting that from the United States or perhaps from Western Europe than it is from either the Soviets or the Chinese. It`s been pointed out that actually the Vietnamese have refused to let the Soviets open an embassy and take over Cameron Bay, and they don`t really like the Chinese much because they`re right on their border. So they look to us, and after a long war -- you know, we were their enemies for thirty years -the very fact that they`re looking to us for help I think is a good thing.

And I think something else ought to be pointed out, and that is that, as Sonny Montgomery said, with both North and South united, Vietnam now is a nation of fifty million people, and it is potentially one of the -- or can be, really is now -- strongest nations in Southeast Asia, has the potential to be really the breadbasket of that area, with it`s rice fields in the South, and the North is traditionally industrial and I think just for our own good it behooves us to establish a relationship and certainly lift the trade embargo.

LEHRER: Congressman Montgomery, let me ask you this: it`s been suggested by some that if we had won the war in Vietnam that our whole view toward rebuilding, toward reconstruction would be different. Do you agree with that?

MONTGOMERY: I`m not sure, but I`m not one that said we lost the war, either. I do not use that statement. I don`t think we did. We went in to help a suppressed people...

LEHRER: Let`s put it this way: if there had been a different end result.

MONTGOMERY: Possibly so, that the Congress might have appropriated reconstruction funds, but I think the Vietnamese have made a total mistake by not giving us this information about the missing in action.

They have dragged it out, in effect, and if they wouldn`t have done that I think that things would have moved much quicker. But to answer your question, there was a possibility we would have gone into Vietnam and would have given some type of aid.

LEHRER: All right. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, could we discuss the question of who`s really calling the tune on foreign policy questions like this? The Constitution gives the Congress the right to advise and consent on treaties. Isn`t it going a lot farther than the Constitution intended for Congress to pass resolutions cutting off negotiating funds and things before treaties are even negotiated, Congresswoman Meyner?

MEYNER: Well, I know that we`ve cut off funds for any negotiation on diplomatic recognition with Vietnam. We are giving them under our economic assistance bill no economic assistance. I do feel in a way it`s hard to legislate diplomacy, and I wonder sometimes if Congress doesn`t get too deeply involved in that. We`ll leave that to Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke in Paris. But I do feel Congress should have some say in certainly what the future relationship between this country and Vietnam will be.

MacNEIL: But Congressman Gilman, the Congress isn`t leaving it to Mr. Holbrooke or President Carter, are they, to come back to my point to you a while ago? Aren`t they putting both of them in a strait jacket by closing doors through which these gentlemen cannot pass when they are negotiating?

GILMAN: I think it`s primarily the old checks and balances coming into play, with Congress leaning over a bit on the executive and saying, "We don`t want you to go that far," and applying a braking mechanism to a policy that the administration embarked upon. I think it`s healthy that Congress has some input to that extent in foreign policy. I think the war powers resolution was a healthy reclamation of powers that had been eroded over the years by the Congress and left to the chief executive, and I think that this kind of input that Congress is asserting in the last few years is healthy and can only lead to a foreign policy that has greater acclaim and greater reception by our people.

MacNEIL: Congressman Montgomery, if the Congress is going to pub the President in a military and economic strait jacket on foreign policy, isn`t it going to leave him nothing to do but to kind of mouth nice, idealistic platitudes and rhetoric and really tie his hands when it comes to supporting any action that he wants to take?

MONTGOMERY: Well, I think you`ll agree with me this President is pretty smooth we`ve got now and he`ll work out of it. But I generally agree with Helen that 535 members of Congress cannot make foreign policy, and we don`t have the information. We can give some input by putting amendments on authorization and on State Department compensation bills, but I think we get too involved; I think some of these amendments that were offered while Dick Holbrooke and others were negotiating in Paris -- the timing was bad, and quite frankly, two of the amendments really didn`t do anything and it was redundant. There was already legislation on the books that said we can`t do any assistance to any communist country, and I thought it really kind of hurt with us trying to find out more about the missing in action and this was not the proper time.

MacNEIL: Congressman Gilman voted for that amendment, as did you, Congressman Montgomery. What were you trying to do, rebuke the administration or just give them a serious warning on that one, Congressman?

MONTGOMERY: I voted against the reconstruction funds, and I voted against the two other amendments that were redundant that would tie Dick Holbrooke`s hands.

MacNEIL: I see. I beg your pardon, Congressman. Congressman Gilman, what was the message to the administration, a rebuke or a warning?

GILMAN: I think it was a reflection of public opinion, that we are concerned that we have not received a good faith attitude by the Vietnamese and that we should not be rushing headlong into recognition and embarking on diplomacy with the Vietnamese.

MacNEIL: I think we have to leave it there, Congressman; I`m very sorry. Thank you all very much. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That`s all for tonight. Jim Lehrer and I will be back tomorrow night. Other news permitting, we`ll look at the growing flap over the conduct of the Federal Reserve System. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.