JFK. America’s stake in Vietnam. The Cornerstone of the free world in southeast Asia. VitalSpeeches oftheDay. vol.XXII. no.20. 01 Aug 1956.

Delivered at a conference sponsored by theAmericanFriendsOfVietnam, WashingtonDC, June 1^st, 1956.

It is a genuine pleasure to be here today at this vital conference on the future ofVietnam, and America’sstake in that new nation, sponsored by theAmericanFriendsOfVietnam, an organisation of which I am proud to be a member. Your meeting today at a time when politicalevents concerningVietnam are approaching a climax, both in that country and in our own Congress, is mosttimely. Your topic and deliberation, which emphasise the promise of the future more than the failures of the past, are mostconstructive. I can assure you that theCongree oftheUnitedStates will give considerable weight to your findings and recommendations; and I extend to all of you who have made the effort to participate in this conference my congratulations and bestwishes.

It is an ironic and tragic fact that this conference is being held at a time when the news aboutVietnam has virtuallydisappeared from the frontpages of the american press, and the american people have all but forgotten the tiny nation for which we are in large measure responsible. This decline in public attention is due, I believe to threefactors: (1) First, it is due in part to the amazing success ofPresidentDiem in meeting firmly and with determination the major political and economic crises which had heretofore continuallyplaguedVietnam. (I shall say more about this point later, for it deserves more consideration from all americans interested in the future ofAsia).

(2) Secondly, it is due in part to the traditional role of americanJournalism, including readers as well as writers, to be moreinterested in crises than in accomplishments, to give morespace to the threat of wars than the need for works, and to write larger headlines on the sensational omissions of the past than the creative missions of the future. [I like it when they’re honest, whoever they are.]

(3) Third and finally, our neglect ofVietnam is the result of one of themostserious weaknesses that has hamepered the longrange effectiveness of americanForeignPolicy over the past several years – and that is the over emphasis upon our role as “volunteerFireDepartment” for the world. Whenever and wherever fire breaks out – inIndoChina, in theMiddleEast, inGuatemala, inCyprus, in theFormosanStraits – our firemen rush in, wheeling up all their heavy equipment, and restoring to every known method of containing and extinguishing the blaze. The crowd gathers – the usuallysuccessful efforts of our able volunteers are heartilyapplauded – and then the firemen rush off to thenextconflagration, leaving the greateful but still stunned inhabitants to clean up the rubble, pick up the pieces and rebuild their homes with whatever resources are available. [I like it when they’re honest, whoever they are.]

The role, to be sure, is a necessary one; but it is not theonlyrole to be played, and the others cannot be ignored. A volunteerFireDepartment halts, but rarelyprevents, fires. It repels but rarelyrebuilds; it meets the problems of the present but not of the future. And while we are devoting our attention to the communistarson inKorea, there is smoldering inIndoChina; we turn our efforts toIndoChina until the alarmsounds inAlgeria – and so it goes.

Of course, Vietnam is notcompletelyforgotten by our policymakeres today – I could not in honesty make such a charge and the facts would easily refute it – but the unfortunate truth of the matter is that, in my opinion, Vietnam would in all likelihood be receiving moreattention from our Congress and Administration, and greater assistance under our aid programs, if it were in imminent danger of communistinvasion or revolution. Like those people of latinAmerica and Africa whom, we have verynearlyoverlooked in the past decade, the vietnamese may find that their devotion to the cause ofDemocracy, and their success in reducing the strength of local communistgroups, have had the ironic effect of reducing american support. Yet the need for that support has in no way been reduced. (I hope it will not be necessary for theDiemGovernment – or this organisation – to subsidise the growth of theSouthVietnamCommunistParty in order to focus american attention on that nation’s critical needs!)

No one contends that we should now rush all our firefighting equipment toVietnam, ignoring theMiddleEast or any other part of the world. But neither should we conclude that the cessation of hostilities inIndoChina revmoed that area from the list of important areas ofUnitedStatesForiegnPolicy. Let us briefly consider exactly what is “America’s stake inVietnam”:

(1) First, Vietnam represents the cornerstone of the free world in southeastAsia, the keystone to the arch, the finger in the dike. Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, thePhilippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if theRedTideOfCommunism overflowed intoVietnam. In the past, our policymakers have sometimes issued contradictory statements on this point – but the longHistory of chineseinvasions of southeastAsia being stopped by vietnamese warriors have removed all doubt on this subject.

Moreover, the independence of freeVietnam is crucial to the free world in fields other than the military. Her Economy is essential totheEconomy of all of southeastAsia; and her politicalliberty is an inspiration to those seeking to obtain or maintain their liberty in all parts ofAsia – and indeed the world. The fundamental tenets of this nation’sForeignPolicy, in short, depend in considerable measure upon a strong and free vietnamese nation.

(2) Secondly, Vietnam represents a proving ground ofDemocracy inAsia. However we may choose to ignore it or deprecate it, the rising prestige and influence of communistChina inAsia are unchallengable facts. Vietnam represents the alternative to communistDictatorship. If this democratic experiment fails, if some onemillionrefugees have fled theTotalitarianism of the north[Vietnam] only to find neither freedom nor security in the south[Vietnam], then weakness, not strength, will characterise the meaning ofDemocracy in the minds of stillmoreasians. TheUnitedStates is directlyresponsible for this experiment – it is playing an important role in the laboratory where it is being conducted. We cannot afford to permit that experiment to fail.

(3) Third and in somewhat similar fashion, Vietnam represents a test of american responsibility and determination inAsia. If we are not the parents of littleVietnam, then surely we are the godparents. We presided at its birth, we gave assistance to its life, we have helped to shape its future. As french influence in this political, economic and military spheres has declined inVietnam, american influence has steadilygrown. This is our offspring – we cannot abandon it, we cannot ignore its needs. And if it falls victim to any of the perils that threaten its existence – Communism, politicalAnarchy, poverty and the rest – then theUnitedStates, with some justification, will be held responsible; and our prestige inAsia will sink to a new low.

(4) Fourth and finally, America’sstake inVietnam, in her strength and in her security, is a veryselfish one – for it can be measured, in thelastanalysis, in terms of american lives and american dollars. It is not wellknown that we were at onetime on the brink of war inIndoChina – a war which could well have been morecostly, moreexhausting and lessconclusive than any war we have ever known. The threat of such war is not now altogether removed from the horizon. Military weakness, politicalinstability or economic failure in the newState ofVietnam could change almostovernight the apparent security which has increasinglycharacterised that area under the leadership ofPresidentDiem. And the key position ofVietnam in southeastAsia, as alreadydiscussed, makes inevitable the involvement of this nation’ssecurity in any new outbreak of trouble.

It is these fourpoints, in my opinion, that representAmerica’sstake in vietnamese security. And before we look to the future, let us stop to review what theDiemGovernment has alreadyaccomplished by way of increasing that security. Moststriking of all, perhaps, has been the rehabilitation of more than ¾ of onemillionrefugees from the north. For these courageous people dedicated to the free way of life, approximately45.000houses have been constructed, 2.500wells dug, 100schools established and dozens of medicalcenters and maternityhomes provided.

Equallyimpressive has been the increased solidarity and stability of theGovernment, the elimination of rebellious sects and the taking of thefirst vital steps toward trueDemocracy, a free and independentRepublic has been proclaimed, recognised by over fortycountries of the free world. Where once a playboyEmperor ruled from a distant shore, a constituentassembly has been elected. Social and economic reforms have likewise been remarkable. The living conditions of the peasants have been vastlyimproved, the wastelands have been cultivated, and a wider ownership of the land is gradually being encouraged. Farmcooperatives and farmerloans have modernised an outmoded agriculturalEconomy; and a tremendous dam in the center of the country has made possible the irrigation of a vast area previouslyuncultivated. Legislation for better labourrelations, Healthprotection, workingconditions and wages has been completed under the leadership ofPresidentDiem.

Finally, the vietnameseArmy – now fighting for its own homeland and not its colonial masters – has increased tremendously in both quality and quantity. GeneralO’Daniel can tell you more about these accomplishments.

But the responsibility oftheUnitedStates forVietnam does not conclude, obviously, with a review of what has been accomplished thus far with our help. Muchmoreneed to be done; muchmore, in fact, than we have been doing up to now. Military alliance in southeastAsia are necessary but notenough. Atomic superiority and the development of new ultimate weapons are notenough. Informational and propaganda activities, warning of the evils ofCommunism and the blessings of the american way of life, are notenough in a country where concepts of free enterprise and Capitalism are meaningless, where poverty and hunger are not enemies across theseventeenthparallel but enemies within their midst. As ambassadorChuong has recentlysaid: “People cannot be expected to fight for the free world unless they have their own freedom to defend, their freedom from foreign domination as well as freedom from misery, oppression, corruption.”

I shall notattempt to set forth the details of the type of aidprogram this nation should offer the vietnamese – for it is not the details of that program that are as important as the spirit with which it is offered and the objectives it seeks to accomplish. We should notattempt to buy the friendship of the vietnamese. Nor can we win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. What we must offer them is a revolution – a political, economic and social revolution far superior to anything the communists can offer – far morepeaceful, far moredemocratic and far morelocallycontrolled. such a revolution will require much from theUnitedStates and much fromVietnam. We must supply capital to replace that drained by the centuries of colonial exploitation; technicians to train those handicapped by deliberate policies of illiteracy; guidance to assist a nation taking those first feeble steps toward the complexities of a republican form ofGovernment. We must assist the inspiring growth of vietnamese Democracy and Economy, including the complete integration of those refugees who gave up their homes and their belongings to seek freedom. We must provide military assistance to rebuild the new vietnameseArmy, which every day faces the growing peril of vietminhArmies across the border.

And finally, in the councils of the world, we must neverpermit any diplomatic action adverse to this, one of the youngest members of the family of nations – and I include in that injunction a plea that theUnitedStates nevergive its approval to the early nationwide elections called for by theGenevaAgreement of1954. Neither theUnitedStates nor freeVietnam was a party to that agreement – and neither theUnitedState nor freeVietnam is ever going to be a party to an election obviouslystacked and subverted in advance, urged upon us by those who have alreadybroken their own pledges under theAgreement they now seek to enforce.

All this and more we can offer freeVietnam, as it passes through the present period of transition on its way to a new era – an era of pride and independence, an era of democratic and economic growth – an era which, when constructed with the long years of colonial oppression, will truly represent a political, social and economic revolution.

This is the revolution we can, we should, we must offer to the people ofVietnam – not only charity, not as a businessproposition, not as a politicalmanœuver, nor simply to enlist them as soldiers againstCommunism or as chattels of americanForeignPolicy – but a revolution of their own making, for their own welfare, and for the security of freedom everywhere. The communists offer them another kind of revolution, glittering and seductive in its superficial appeal. The choice between the two can be made only by the vietnamese people themselves. But in these times of trial and burden, true friendships stand out. As PremierDiem recently wrote a great friend ofVietnam, SenatorMansfield, “It is only in winter that you can tell which trees are evergreen.” And I am confident that if this nation demonstrates that it has not forgotten the people ofVietnam, the people ofVietnam will demonstrate that they have not forgotten us.