A Lost Chance for Peace in Vietnam
New York Times | 16 June 2017
Perhaps
no question hovers more ominously over the history of the Vietnam War
in 1967 than this: If the United States and its Vietnamese adversaries
had been able to hammer out an acceptable peace deal before the major
escalation of the 1968 Tet offensive, hundreds of thousands of lives
would have been saved. Was such a peace possible?
For
years, pundits and policy makers have speculated on this possibility.
Many argue that escalation was irreversible, that the adversaries’
collective fate, as it were, was sealed. But recent scholarship has
pointed in a different direction. The prospects of peace were arguably
brighter than we once thought. One approach came tantalizingly close to
success: the secret talks between Washington and Hanoi that began in
June 1967, code-named Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania
began when two French scientists, Herbert Marcovitch and Raymond
Aubrac, approached Henry Kissinger, then a Harvard professor, to offer
their services as go-betweens to promote negotiations between the United
States and North Vietnam. Kissinger had worked as a consultant on the
war for the Johnson administration and was eager to do anything he could
to ingratiate himself with the president. Aubrac was an old friend of
Ho Chi Minh and promised to deliver a message to the aging leader if
President Lyndon Johnson had anything new to say. Kissinger referred the
proposal to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, with a copy to Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara.
McNamara
took the lead in diplomacy during Pennsylvania. Already committed to
finding a negotiated way out of Vietnam, he pushed Pennsylvania
vigorously at a Tuesday lunch meeting with President Johnson and his key
advisers. Johnson was skeptical about any negotiations with the
Communists, however, dismissing the French proposal as “just another of
those blind alleys that lead nowhere.” But McNamara persisted, and
eventually the president relented, allowing his defense secretary to
establish contact through Marcovitch and Aubrac, with a view to future
peace negotiations — as long as he did nothing to embarrass the United
States.
In
early July, Marcovitch and Aubrac traveled to Hanoi and presented the
Johnson administration’s so-called Phase A/Phase B proposal to the Hanoi
leadership. The United States would stop its bombing campaign in return
for confidential assurances from Hanoi that it would halt its
infiltration into key areas of South Vietnam. Once North Vietnam acted,
the United States would freeze its combat forces at existing levels and
peace talks could begin. This was a significant departure from Johnson’s
previous insistence on mutual de-escalation. The president took the
gamble, hoping to placate liberals in Congress and antiwar protesters,
who were already planning a huge rally in Washington for that October.
Johnson could always resume the bombing if nothing materialized from the
contact.
The
initial results of Pennsylvania appeared promising. Aubrac and
Marcovitch arrived in Hanoi on July 24, 1967, and met with Ho Chi Minh
and Prime Minister Pham Van Dong. Ho’s visit with the two scientists was
largely ceremonial, but the meeting with Dong was substantive and
productive. Dong insisted that North Vietnam could not negotiate while
it was being bombed, but he also, surprisingly, indicated that Hanoi
would not require the United States to announce the bombing pause
publicly, saving Johnson from a potential political problem. If the
bombing stopped, Dong assured his guests, negotiations could begin
immediately.
A
wary Johnson decided to move ahead with a bombing pause, without
consulting his South Vietnamese allies or his military command, to get
negotiations started. He authorized Kissinger to have Aubrac and
Marcovitch tell the North Vietnamese leadership that there would be an
additional bombing halt around Hanoi for a period of 10 days beginning
Aug. 24, the next scheduled visit of the two French scientists. Hanoi
agreed that this was a productive change in the United States’ position
and a positive outcome of the Pennsylvania contact.
For
the first time in years, it appeared that the two sides were serious
about negotiations. Chet Cooper, an aide to W. Averell Harriman,
Johnson’s “peace ambassador,” called Pennsylvania the last best chance
for peace, knowing that the war was likely to escalate otherwise.
On
the day that Aubrac and Marcovitch were to leave Paris for Hanoi,
United States aircraft flew more than 200 sorties against North Vietnam,
more than on any previous day of the war. The official explanation for
the poor timing of the bombing missions was that the attacks had already
been scheduled for earlier in the month but had been delayed by bad
weather. Once the weather broke on Aug. 20, the bombing resumed
according to protocol and lasted four days.
Hanoi
publicized the new attacks, claiming that Johnson had used the proposed
bombing pause as a diversion while he actually escalated the war.
Johnson denounced these claims, but he could not hide the fact that he
had indeed approved an escalation to the bombing just two days before it
began, on Aug. 18, and had used the weather delay as a convenient cover
for his actions.
Perhaps
the president believed that the United States had to hit all available
targets before the pause in case it did not get another chance. Johnson
even approved one target on the grounds that if talks with Hanoi
materialized, he would not want to approve the site later. All along,
Johnson had been skeptical about the Pennsylvania contact. He claimed
later that the United States should never have held back on the bombing
just because “two professors [were] meeting.” Johnson was absolutely
certain that the bombing was hurting the North Vietnamese and wanted to
keep “pouring the steel on.”
But
Johnson never considered how increased bombing raids would play in
Hanoi, and that says much about how American leaders went to war in
Vietnam. Even after dozens of failed secret peace contacts before
Pennsylvania, the Johnson administration could not see that an apparent
escalation in bombing on the eve of a possible peace mission was not a
formula for diplomatic success.
The
bombing raids not only killed the secret peace talks but also played
directly into the hands of the hard-liners on the Military Commission of
the Political Bureau in Hanoi, who had consistently argued against
negotiations of any kind. Rejecting the views of some in the Foreign
Ministry, Hanoi’s hawks now had all the evidence they needed that the
United States was not serious about negotiations. The top leadership
concluded that North Vietnam had no choice but to endure the bombing
while simultaneously trying to erode Washington’s ability to remain in
South Vietnam.
North
Vietnam increased its infiltration into South Vietnam in preparation
for a major escalation of the war in early 1968. Gen. William
Westmoreland sensed this buildup and asked Johnson to increase United
States troop levels in Vietnam. The number of Americans fighting in
Vietnam rose to over 500,000 just a few months after Pennsylvania’s
failure.
The
talks failed because political and military leaders in Washington and
Hanoi were afraid to take a chance on peace. Hard-liners in Hanoi won
the day after Pennsylvania’s collapse. They pushed for a quick military
escalation in South Vietnam, erroneously believing that the planned Tet
offensive would lead to a general uprising that would topple the Saigon
government and force the United States to withdraw all of its troops.
Johnson, in contrast, was desperately trying to keep his options open by
escalating the bombing just before a pause, but in the end he actually
narrowed his choices.
Trying
to placate both antiwar members of Congress and his generals, who
wanted a wider war, Johnson tried to find a middle ground when there was
none. He never fully committed to negotiations and, believing that the
war had to be fought with costs and risks in mind, unsuccessfully
juggled competing interests and ideas. Of course, Johnson also never
consulted his allies in Saigon about the secret peace talks, which would
have added a dimension of complexity to any agreement.
Ironically,
within nine months of Pennsylvania’s failure, the United States was
engaged in negotiations with North Vietnam and the National Liberation
Front, also known as the Viet Cong, that would eventually lead to a
unilateral American military withdrawal and a cease-fire in 1973 that
allowed 10 infantry units of the North Vietnamese Army to stay in South
Vietnam. The failure of the last best chance for peace shaped the war
for years to come.
Nixon Proposed Using A-Bomb In Vietnam War
ReplyDeleteBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MARCH 1, 2002
A few weeks before ordering an escalation of the Vietnam War, President Nixon matter-of-factly raised the idea of using a nuclear bomb. His national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, quickly dissuaded him.
Mr. Nixon's abrupt suggestion, buried in 500 hours of tapes released today at the National Archives, came after Mr. Kissinger had presented a variety of options for stepping up the war effort, among them attacking power plants and docks, in an April 25, 1972, conversation in the Executive Office Building in Washington.
''I'd rather use the nuclear bomb,'' Mr. Nixon responded.
''That, I think, would just be too much,'' Mr. Kissinger replied.
''The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?'' Mr. Nixon asked. ''I just want you to think big.''
The following month, Mr. Nixon ordered the biggest escalation of the war since 1968.
-------------------
Had President Nixon had his wish fulfilled, we probably wouldn't have Drgunzet to entertain us nowadays.