If one were to take the statements that have been discussed in this article at face value, then it would be logical to conclude that the Spring Offensive of 1975 would result in the end of political and religious repression and the beginning of a new society based upon the human rights provisions of the Paris Agreements. After all, the Spring Offensive was officially launched in order to "enforce" the Paris Agreements. Even during the last days, when General Duong Van Minh replaced Thieu and his Vice-President, there was hope for a coalition government set up in accordance with the Paris Agreements.
However, after all of South Vietnam was taken over in violation of the Paris Agreements, it soon became obvious that the purpose of this offensive was not to enforce the treaty, but rather to abolish permanently the rights accorded to the South Vietnamese people under this treaty.
Immediately upon taking power, the new regime issued a 10- point program that included the dissolution of all parties and organizations regarded as "reactionary". It also issued guidelines prohibiting history, philosophy and civic books written from "the American or puppet point of view," and foreign literary publications that were of an anti-revolutionary or "existentialist, depraved nature."
The Vice-Minister of Culture of the new regime, Cu Huy Can, said in 1976 that "Reactionary and decadent culture should be swept clean, and the venom of extremely reactionary and decadent culture and arts of the U.S.-puppet regime should be eliminated within five years." To this effect, responsible officials should "proceed to seize books, newspapers, movies, pictures and tapes that violate the disciplines of propaganda." (from "The Cultural Policy of Unified Vietnam, by Nguyen Dinh-Hoa, _Asian Thought and Society_, Winter 1977, page 324).
It was none other than Nguyen Van Hieu, the same man who had spoken so eloquently for human rights and made so many stringent demands on the Thieu government in this respect, who was appointed to the position of Minister of Culture by the new regime. In a report delivered on October 5, 1976 to the Cultural Conference of South Vietnam, Hieu called for a "struggle to eradicate the poison of reactionary and decadent thought and culture." (ibid, page 324).
In June of 1975, hundreds of thousands of people were ordered to report to re-education camps, including lower ranking officers and even leaders of opposition political parties. All this was directly in violation of Article 11 of the Paris Agreements.
It must be kept in mind, however, that these events occurred during the early stages of the newly established "dictatorship of the proletariat", at a time when it was being praised by some outside commentators for its "moderation". During the last four years, the Hanoi regime has become increasingly harsh in its repressive policies against the Vietnamese people. In 1973, PRG leader Xuan Khanh pointed out that "the third force favours the implementation of the Paris Agreement which ensure its right to live and democratic liberties." (_South Vietnam in Struggle_, Oct. 22, 1973). Yet no third force exists in Vietnam today precisely because no democratic liberties are allowed. Because no opposition newspapers, political parties or other bases of organized dissent are tolerated, the only recourse left to those who disagree with the policies of the government is to remain silent or to engage in "illegal" resistance and risk imprisonment.
While those in Vietnam who protest repression are imprisoned, those outside who protest the same are accused of intervening in Vietnam's internal affairs. In a 1976 visit to Vietnam, Senator George McGovern asked a Vietnamese official, Xuan Thuy, if the elections scheduled for April 25, 1976 (which led to the official reunification of Vietnam) were to take place in accordance with Article 9 of the Paris Agreements. Xuan Thuy replied that "those provisions no longer conform with the realities of South Vietnam and Vietnam in general... the general election is now a totally internal affairs." (_Vietnam: 1976_, report by McGovern to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 1976). Such contorted reasoning is contrary to established principles of international law. The changed circumstances of Vietnam resulted from the military takeover of South Vietnam and the elimination of one of the signing parties to the treaty, both obvious violations of the Paris Agreements. As Article 62 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties states, one cannot argue that a party is not obligated to adhere to a treaty due to a fundamental change of circumstances if this change "is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty."
While Xuan Thuy denied any obligation to adhere to Article 9, PRG Foreign Minister Nguyen Thi Binh stressed the forthcoming national elections as a fulfillment of Article 9 (ibid, page 7). Let us recall that under Article 9, the U.S. and North Vietnam agreed to respect the right of the South Vietnamese people to determine their future through free and democratic elections held under international supervision. Yet in the national elections held on April 25, 1976, there were a total of 606 "candidates" for 492 seats in the National Assembly. All of these candidates were chosen by the government and none were allowed to make speeches that might indicate differing policy positions. All of this occurred in an atmosphere where none of the democratic liberties of Article 11 existed. Yet despite the obvious lack of choice, the government claimed a 98% voter turnout. Nguyen Huu Tho, NLF President, the same man who had demanded that the Thieu government allow the "South Vietnamese to shape their political future" through the "holding of really democratic and free elections under international supervision" (see earlier citation in this article), praised these mock elections as a "brilliant success." (_Vietnam Bulletin_, edited by Peggy Duff, May 1976).
Thus we can see that the eloquent words of praise by the Hanoi leaders for the human rights provisions of the Paris Agreements were in fact empty words, designed to prop up a false image and deceive the world. Yet while the leaders of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, established in violation of Article 9, have refused to recognize any legal or moral obligations they might have to respect the human rights ensured the Vietnamese under the Paris Agreements, these rulers have continued to maintain that the Paris Agreements is still legally binding -- but only upon the United States.
I am referring to Article 21, in which the U.S. pledged to provide reconstruction aid to Vietnam. It is certainly true that the U.S. did a tremendous amount of damage to Vietnam during the war and that this damage continues to cause much suffering and poverty among the Vietnamese people. However, when the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and its supporters abroad ignore the human rights provisions of the treaty, they demonstrate that their true concern is not the welfare of the Vietnamese people, but rather of the government that rules Vietnam.
-- Michael Pugliese