The White House Responds – Folha de S. Paulo, November 25, 1977
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In accordance with the principles I am proud to have professed and put into practice throughout my life, I feel compelled to pay special attention to the situation of the heroic Vietnamese who, having refused to accept life under communist rule, are exposed to hunger, thirst, inclement weather, and danger in the South China Sea. I dedicated an article to them in Folha (“The Epic of Nonconformist Nobles,” March 7, 1977). I have also referred to the tragedy of these rebellious heroes in other articles and messages published by Folha.
Giving voice to the cries of thousands of Brazilians who think and feel as I do on this matter, I also sent a telex to Paul VI and President Carter, urging them to use the full power of their offices to help those glorious and unfortunate sailors.
My appeal touched the heart of the American president, who kindly entrusted the task of responding to my message to Mrs. Patricia M. Derian, the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs.
Here are the essential parts of the letter I received:
“Since Indochina fell to the communists in 1975, the United States government has taken a leading role in assisting those unfortunate people who fled their former homelands. We have welcomed 146,000 Indochinese refugees to the United States and have begun a new program to admit another 15,000, including 7,000 Vietnamese who fled in small boats. We share your anguish at the thought of refugees being turned away by some Asian nations, but we also recognize that many of those neighboring countries are underdeveloped, with large populations and few resources to meet their own people’s needs.
“We are working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to assist refugees who must remain in camps and to support UNHCR’s efforts to secure greater international involvement in the Indochina refugee aid program.
“So far, eighteen other nations, besides the United States, have offered conditions for resettling Indochinese refugees. France, for example, is accepting a thousand refugees per month. Many countries are contributing funds to support and maintain refugees in the countries that initially grant them asylum. Unfortunately, the international community has not provided anywhere near the number of reception places or the necessary conditions for their use to solve the problem, nor has there been adequate financial support for the UNHCR program. Thus, much remains to be done, especially at the international level. We are continuing our diplomatic efforts with neighboring Asian countries to achieve broader acceptance of the reception and settlement of refugees. …
“Much progress has been made in recent months to alleviate their suffering, and I hope even more can be done with the help of men and women everywhere concerned about this issue. Sincerely,” etc.
* * *
Noting with sympathy the kind tone of the reply, I will now analyze the information it contains.
We all know that the United States has assumed “a leading role in assisting those unfortunate people who have fled their former homelands.” We also know that, from beginning to end, the letter timidly avoids any reference to communism and communists, which prompted the flight.
The US once made commitments to the Vietnamese people that are known worldwide. For several years, Americans and South Vietnamese fought side by side against their common enemy. Having ultimately abandoned them to that enemy’s wrath, it is only natural that America should have assumed a “leading role” in assisting the victims of such tragic abandonment.
In this regard, there is no doubt.
The distinguished official who wrote to me on behalf of President Carter seems to mention, with a confidence bordering on boastfulness, the number of refugees (“Indochinese,” she says, and thus not just Vietnamese) whom America has welcomed.
I confess I don’t understand why this boasting is occurring.
Absolutely speaking, the number of these refugees is considerable, but given the US’ prodigious absorption capacity, I am not sure this reception alone has relieved them of the duties of honor arising from their “leadership” in providing assistance.
In fact, the scope of the obligations the United States assumed by accepting this leadership cannot be measured solely by the number of refugees admitted to American soil. It would be necessary to know the total number of Vietnamese refugees, specifically, as well as that of their companions from other Indochinese nations (since the letter mentions them). Next, it would be necessary to ascertain the actual total number of refugees that America can shelter in its vast and opulent territory. And finally, comparing these data, to say whether the great northern nation is doing everything it can and should for the Vietnamese, whom I have particularly in mind in this article.
The United States is the land of surveys, calculations, and statistics. Everything suggests that its authorities have this data at their disposal. It is a pity that Mrs. Patricia M. Derian did not share it with us. Only with this data would I be able to grasp the origins of the reasons she bases her confidence or pride on.
“Everything it can and should,” she said earlier. I specify: everything the US can and should do within its borders. The White House also has a vast sphere of action beyond its borders that should serve anticommunist Vietnamese.
In this vein, I would like to recall that months ago President Carter worked with all the continent’s Ibero-American nations to ensure full respect for human rights, a cause for which he became a global champion. However, the direct beneficiaries of his actions were communists or those suspected of being communists who were being prosecuted or convicted in those nations.
Looking at Ibero-America at that time, Mr. Carter had human rights in mind, which communists, paracommunists, crypto-communists, communist sympathizers, and their ilk undoubtedly also have, like all rational beings, especially those who are suspected without foundation in one nation or another.
But Mr. Carter should not lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, these are aggressors against the sovereignty of Ibero-American nations, which have been tenaciously attacked in recent decades by revolutionary psychological warfare and by Moscow’s bloody deeds.
It would have been quite logical for President Carter, looking at the Ibero-American world, to have remembered the human rights of anticommunist Indochinese refugees. Why didn’t he ask all those governments to calculate how many refugees they could take in, given the still uninhabited vastness of Latin America? Why didn’t he simultaneously propose that those governments have the US provide assistance to settle these refugees under productive conditions? Why didn’t he ask the various Western superpowers for financial support for this expense?
These are some of the questions that came to mind while I read the letter above.
