Senator Andrew Bartlett
Friday, May 06, 2005
 
Vietnam - wrongs from the past and the present

The 30th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War and the current visit to Australia by the Vietnamese Prime Minister has provided the impetus for some commentary on that country. For me, the continuing detention of 35 Vietnamese asylum seekers on Christmas Island and Perth – imprisoned since July 2004 – is also an ongoing reminder.

There have been many attempts to draw parallels between the current conflict in Iraq and the war in Vietnam 30 years earlier. Personally I don't think there are many direct parallels – the two conflicts are from different eras, in different parts of the world and with quite different origins.

I was surprised to read a few retrospectives on the Vietnam War which sought to redefine our involvement in the war as the right thing to do. I was only 10 years old when it ended, so I don't have any personal investment in a particular position, but given that even people such as Robert McNamara, one of the main architects on US involvement in the Vietnam War, have said it was “terribly wrong”, I thought it was as close to accepted wisdom as you could get that it was a bad idea.

One of the arguments put forward to support our involvement in the Vietnam War was that the side that won has proven to be a repressive authoritarian regime. This line of argument confuses means and ends. There is no doubt that the Vietnamese Government has been a serious abuser of human rights throughout the 30 years since the war ended, but one could equally point to the fact that the Government of Zimbabwe is a serious abuser of human rights and persecutes its own people. This fact doesn’t justify a position of supporting the retention of the previous, racially based regime of Rhodesia. To me, the same problem in reasoning applies with a retrospective justification of the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was a brutal dictator. He undoubtedly was, but unless removal of dictators via unilateral invasion with the inevitable thousands of deaths that follow is to become accepted international practice, then the end does not justify the means.

When people takes sides around a passionate and divisive issue like involvement in a war, there is a strong tendency for that position to flow on to how people line up on subsequent events, even though very separate issues may be at play. Opposing a war should not automatically mean support for the actions of the other side.

For example, it seems clear that many people who (rightly) opposed involvement in the Vietnam War then ignored the serious human rights abuses that were (and are) perpetrated by the 'other side' after they won the conflict. One of the very positive legacies for Australia of that tragic war has been the vibrant Vietnamese community that has contributed so much to our country since they came here as refugees, but it is also a reminder of the extensive repression the Vietnamese Government was guilty of. I believe there is ample evidence that the Vietnamese Government is still involved in serious political persecution, but as a country Australia seems willing to ignore or tolerate this, in part due to sensitivities over our country's improper involvement in the Vietnam War.

It seems to me similar flawed logic is involved when people who strongly opposed Australian involvement in the invasion of Iraq also supported immediate and total withdrawal of all troops after the war had ended. To me, whilst there are obviously some linkages, these are two distinct and separate issues. Whilst the Democrats strongly opposed Australian involvement in the invasion of Iraq, all Democrat Senators supported our troops staying there to help stabilise and rebuild the country after the war ended. There have certainly been some major problems caused by the presence of foreign troops, but the vast majority of those problems seem to be due to inappropriate behaviour or unwise actions (mainly by the US troops) rather than just their mere presence. My own view is that now the first post-war election has happened, the time has come to start formulating a plan to withdraw, but my main point is that decisions about this should not be determined mainly on the basis of whether you were for or against the war in the first place.

There is a danger that how well Iraq goes from here will be used to assess whether or not the original invasion was the right thing to do. The inevitable consequence of this is that people or countries that opposed the invasion will have an implicit interest in seeing things turn out badly and countries that supported the invasion will have an implicit interest in portraying things in a misleadingly positive light. This is in nobody's interest – least of all the Iraqis. Regardless of whether or not people supported the invasion, we should all be focused now on getting the best future for Iraqis and the region. A good outcome there is in the whole world's interest after all

When I was speaking at the Kurdish forum I wrote of in my last entry, I was challenged by one of the participants for criticising the ‘invasion’ of Iraq, given that it liberated the Kurdish people from Saddam Hussein, who had hideously persecuted the Kurds in the past (not least with his use of chemical weapons to slaughter of 5 000 people at Halabjah). I responded that, regardless of whether people supported or opposed the war in Iraq, we should not seek to maintain the divide that existed on that issue when we look at what is best now for the people of the region. Opponents and supporters of the war have an equal responsibility to do what they can to ensure real freedom and a just society is the final outcome in Iraq.

Similarly, whether or not people opposed the Vietnam War or now want to make a case that it was the right thing to do, we should all be far more cognisant that many people continue to be repressed by the regime that won that war.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Friday, May 06, 2005 Permalink
|


<< Home