Editing 76-06-B2 (section)

= Vietnam I =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A few weeks ago, the Los Angeles TIMES reported that North Vietnam (although now we are supposed to call it just Vietnam) and the U. S. were faced with an impasse in the Paris negotiations. We were trying to get an answer to the question of our men missing in action. A full accounting of these men and the return of all who might still be alive was one of the terms agreed to by North Vietnam in the Paris Peace talks which ended our participation in the war.

The negotiations for Vietnam in Paris were demanding full reparations before they would even discuss the MIAs. Reparations is their word for another term in the cease fire agreement. With characteristic generosity, the U.S. had offered (in the peace talks) to rebuild and repair the war damage for both North and South Vietnam if and when they halted the war. Of course, the cease fire agreement made it plain that each country was to retain its sovereignty.

We all know that North Vietnam violated every one of the cease fire terms and once our forces were withdrawn, proceeded to conquer and enslave South Vietnam. They even murdered in cold blood some of our men and officers who were seeking and identifying American graves in accord with another of the cease fire terms. Now, having broken every term of the agreement to which they had given their pledged word, they have the nerve to demand that we observe that part of the agreement having to do with our putting up billions of dollars to rebuild
their country.

The Los Angeles TIMES followed its news story with two editorials castigating the U. S. for vetoing membership in the United Nations for Vietnam. They wrote, "We agree with Vietnam and its supporters that the issue (our MIAs) should not determine either Vietnam's membership in the U.N. or the establishment of bilateral relations." Then the editorialist invoked the memory of our Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War II.

Well, I disagree vehemently with the editorials. In the first place, the U.N. charter specifies that membership in the U.N. is for nations who pledge not to use armed force in the settlement of disputes. North Vietnam is guilty of naked aggression for the purpose of taking an entire nation against its will. Whatever else anyone wants to say about the war in Vietnam, it could have ended in a minute anytime in those long years if North Vietnam had simply said, "Okay, we'll go home and stop trying to conquer South Vietnam".

There is no parallel whatsoever to our World War II Marshall Plan. The aggressors had been totally defeated -- their aggression ended in failure and we then offered to help them return to the family of nations. North Vietnam succeeded in its aggression -- did so by force of arms -- and holds a nation of 19 million people enslaved. For the TIMES editorials to suggest that we not only overlook this but that we not be "obstinate" (their word) about getting a report on our men, missing in action has the sound of Neville Chamberlain's umbrella tapping on the cobblestones of Munich. I, too, am critical of what our State Department is doing in Paris. We shouldn't be negotiating at all until there has been an accounting of our missing men. They should be told we don't even go to Paris until they keep their word. As for letting them in the United Nations, maybe they should take our place.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>11/16/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-50</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>