Good Morning, My name is Tom Condon. I live in West Hartford, Conn. I'm a columnist for The Hartford Courant in Hartford, Conn., the country's oldest newspaper in continuous publication. I'm also a Vietnam veteran. I served as an Army intelligence officer in the Mekong Delta region in 1969-70: I am a trustee of the Brandie Schieb Children's Fund, which assists children with birth defects whose fathers were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange in Vietnam. First, let me say it is a privilege to appear here with John McAuliff. Millions of Americans fought in Vietnam, millions more demonstrated against the war. Mr. McAuliff is virtually the only American who has spent the past 14 years working to bring this country and Vietnam together again. I went to Vietnam in January, both as a journalist and a veteran. I found a remarkable grass root movement underway. In the past two years, hundreds of American veterans have returned to Vietnam, and many more want to go back. So far this year, dozens of veterans groups have visited Vietnam to locate minefields, build or equip hospitals, orpahages or clinics, provide prosthetic devices for amputees, distribute Bibles, accompany students, write books, start exchange programs or just to visit. Not all Vietnam veterans are ready to go back, and many will never return. But for those who are ready, it can be a great help in putting the wartime experience to rest. "About half of the vets are ready to go back, but for those, it can be a great experience," says Michael Castellano, a former Connecticut police officer who organizes trips to Vietnam. "It can be very, very therapeutic," says Linda Leary, admissions coordinator of the posttraumatic stress syndrome program at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Northhampton, Mass. As Leary points out, veterans get the chance to see that the war is over, that the country has changed, that the hatred has passed. The dozens of vets I've interviewed who've gone back describe it as one of the best things they've ever done for themselves. It certainly was for me. To see trees growing again in the Mekong Delta was to see a different country, a country at peace. However, it isn't easy for veterans to go back. Someone has to organize a tour, even though it is presently illegal to organize tours to Vietnam. The handful of organizers who do it use some ruse or another; bill themselves as "consultants," and go through foreign travel agencies. Mostly, the Treasury Department lets them alone. They could crack down, and do, at times, but mostly on groups that include Vietnamese trying to go back. The organizers can't advertise, so many veterans who'd like to go back don't realize they can. Veterans who'd like to go back should be able to do so. Vietnames-Americans should be able to come and go without hassle. American businessmen should be there. Our allies are certainly jumping in with both feet. As a former Marine colonel said about Vietnam, "That country doesn't need Rambo it needs Lee Iacocca." American scientists should be there in strength, working on mutual problems such as Agent Orange damage. At the Brandie Schieb Children's Fund, we've heard from the parents of 64,000 children with maladies that may be related to Agent Orange. The Vietnamese have more than a million people so afflicted. It's a crime we're not working together. Those of us who served in the war and then return to Vietnam are struck by one overriding impression the war is over, over there. The people have put it behind them. I urge the committee to do what it can to end it, over here. Thank You. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Next I would like to call on Mr. McAuliff. Mr. McAuliff. STATEMENT OF JOHN MCAULIFF, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATESINDOCHINA RECONCILIATION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA, PA Mr. MCAULIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Moorhead. It is a great honor to have an opportunity to discuss with the committee a problem that has faced a large range of American organizations that have been concerned with changing the relationship between the United States and Vietnam and Cambodia. My own organization is involved primarily in academic exchange, but there are many other kinds of groups-humanitarian groups and simple tourist groups-who have sought to make trips. In my written testimony there is a list of 19 examples of different kinds of trips that are already underway and most of them despite the travel advisory which says that it is legal for Americans to go to Vietnam and Cambodia, but it is illegal for Americans to organize others to go. Under that language virtually all of these trips would be illegal and we are aware of a pattern of action from the Treasury Department to actually enforce those procedures. Probably the most visible so far is the case of Lindblad Travel. In October their offices were raided by Treasury and their accounts frozen. A substantial amount of legal costs have come to them because of that. But there are many other kinds of groups. Someone who was on one of our trips, a professor from the University of Utah, is currently hoping to organize a trip of students and professors from the University of Utah. They were told just last week by Treasury that they could not get a license to do that. In our case, we have gotten a license. I think we're probably the only organization that has, but, as you'll see in the testimony, it comes with limits in terms of the kinds of people—that is, we can take professional educators, but we can't take other professionals, lawyers or doctors, or such people. Also, we are asked to report, after the year of this license period, on exactly who has gone on the trips. Bureaucratically, this is understandable. If we are licensed for certain categories, they want to know if we are taking those categories of people. But on the other hand, I think that raises other questions about whether it is appropriate for us to report the names of people who are exercising a constitutionally protected right to travel. We are also involved in the kinds of issues that were raised in yesterday's hearings. We have sponsored two visitors: one from Vietnam, the Harvard-trained economist Nguyen Xuan Oanh, who came last October, and in March, the Cambodian dean of the medical school, Dr. My Samedy. In the case of Dr. Oanh, we originally were turned down for a visa and after 6 months he received it. In the case of Dr. Samedy, he was given a visa as a humanitarian exception. We had applied at the same time for a visa for Mr. Khieu Kanarith, who is the editor of the weekly newspaper in Phnom Penh. He was denied a visa. We have resubmitted the application for his visa and hope to bring him in later this month, given the tremendous attention right now to Cambodia and what U.S. policy should be towards it. We think it would be a very useful event to have him meet with Members of Congress and journalists here. But we don't know whether we will get the visa. The only indication we have so far is an April 14 letter from the State Department Legal Advisor's Office which states that it wishes to "emphasize that the executive retains authority to deny visas for foreign policy reasons, and that Congress has in particular taken account of the potential foreign policy implications of visa decisions for our recognition policy.' That's not encouraging language, but we're hoping that with the events in the region in the last 2 days, the meeting between Prince Sihanouk and Hun Sen, that we may get that visa. The other question that I want to emphasize is the importance of firsthand experience with other nations. I was in the Peace Corps in Peru. This is where I cut my teeth on international questions from 1964 to 1966. All of that experience and all of the experience in the last 20 years working with Indochina emphasizes the importance of having the kind of direct experience of travel to countries and meeting with people from those countries to try to break down the natural barriers to cross-cultural, cross-national understanding. It seems to me that is absolutely essential if we are going to have foreign policy that is democratically formulated, controlled and able to evolve. It is particularly important in the case of countries that are unpopular, that might be the subject of embargoes, that are countries American citizens are going to, so that there is some insight that feeds into the political process, so that we're not limited only to official or journalistic accounts of the reality there. Largely, this is an area which could be addressed by the Congress stating to the Treasury and State Departments on visas that it does not intend the visa power to be a symbolic issue—that is, that people would be denied visas simply on political or policy grounds, that it would somehow symbolize American Government relations with their country. On the travel question, I think simply Congress stating that it is not the intention that the trade embargo be used to discourage Americans from traveling would have an important impact. There are intermediate stages of simply a liberalization of the rules, recognition that with certain kinds of sponsorship by nongovernmental educational and cultural organizations, and humanitarian organizations, that that should be a prima facie case for granting a visa. A similar prima facie case for granting a license or a general license that does not have to be applied for to organize a trip to these countries would, in practical terms, be of great assistance. However, it is also important that the commercial travel agents like Lindblad or Geovista Tours in Doylestown be able to organize commercial trips, because those are what are accessible to most Americans. Sometimes one wonders whether these restrictions are in fact not because of the embargo or because of high foreign policy reasons, but simply to limit the flow of information, to control the understanding that Americans have of these countries. Commercial travel would be an important way to allow lots of Americans with no axe to grind politically to actually see these situations and report on them to their friends and elected representatives. The economic issue is not the only one already guiding American policy. We permit and license humanitarian aid organizations to send several million dollars of assistance every year to Vietnam and Cambodia. Probably more than $100 million goes every year in remittances from Vietnamese to their families at home, because there are humanitarian considerations that are more important than the embargo considerations. I would hope the same would apply to the freedom of travel issues. The final point I make is that there are some other issues that have not been addressed that affect first amendment or individual liberty rights that are also influenced by the trade embargo. For example, it is not possible for people to make phone calls from the United States or to send faxes from the United States to Vietnam or Cambodia, because that would be seen as violating the trade embargo, which makes it very hard for American humanitarian organizations to function in terms of their aid projects. It also makes it very hard for Vietnamese-Americans to call their families. You can make such calls from Vietnam, and in principal from Cambodia, although technologically it is more difficult, but of course people there don't have the hard currency to make the calls. This is an area that, as I say, I don't know if there is a constitutionally protected right to reach out and touch someone, but perhaps this might be looked into. There is also the question of students coming from Vietnam and Cambodia to the United States. People are getting visas to do that. Treasury is saying that a school giving a fellowship or an assistantship would violate the trade embargo. Those may not directly pertain, but I appreciate this opportunity to raise those issues to you and for this opportunity to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. McAuliff. Mr. McAuliff is the director of the United States-Indochina Reconciliation Project. [The prepared statement of Mr. McAuliff follows:] John McAuliff U.S. INDOCHINA RECONCILIATION PROJECT 5808 Greene Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19144 (215) 848-4200 Summary of Testimony by John McAuliff USIRP organizes academic exchange delegations to Vietnam and Cambodia and hosts visitors to the U.S. from those countries. It has faced problems with both U.S. travel restrictions and visa policies. USIRP successfully obtained a visa after an initial denial for the Vietnamese economist Dr. Nguyen Xuan Oanh, and on humanitarian grounds for Cambodia's medical school dean, Dr. My Samedy. It has also invited here Khieu Kanharith, the editor of the newspaper "Kampuchea" in Phnom Penh. He was denied a visa once but has reapplied and a decision by the State Department is expected imminently. USIRP's twice yearly academic exchange trips to Indochina by U.S. educators were threatened by Treasury Department actions against "travel service providers" which it accuses of violating the trade embargo. McAuliff successfully applied for a license to organize his trips, but is aware of a similar request from the University of Utah that was rejected last week. McAuliff argues that direct exposure to the viewpoints of other countries, whether through hearing a speaker from another nation or traveling there, is essential for the democratic control and evolution of U.S. foreign policy. He further observes that a great variety of Americans are already going to Indochina, mostly in ways contrary to Treasury Department restrictions contained in State Department Travel Advisories. He questions how, under current regulations, it can be legal for Americans to travel to Vietnam and Cambodia, but illegal for an American to "arrange, promote or facilitate group or individual tours or travel" to those countries. McAuliff asks the Congress to clarify that it does not want visas to be denied on foreign policy grounds, and that the trade embargo is not intended to limit freedom of travel. As an intermediate step, the State and Treasury Department could be encouraged to liberalize their regulations in accord with the purpose or sponsorship of visas and travel. He suggests visas be granted and a general license of travel be issued for activities of recognized non-profit organizations engaged in public education and dialog, humanitarian assistance, and academic or cultural exchange. McAuliff also draws attention to related issues of trade embargo inspired restrictions on phone calls from the U.S. to Vietnam and Cambodia, possible problems facing students from those countries, and the anomaly that refugee families can send tens of millions of dollars home to Vietnam but not to Cambodia. May 4, 1989 |