Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>

date Apr 14, 2007 3:39 AM

subject [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

Except for the war of self defense, most wars are fought for the purpose of conquest, power, and greed, but always in the name of peace, justice, freedom and a variety of other high-sounding names cleverly manufactured from the bosom of the propaganda machine. Or as Goebel once observed, convince the people that they are being attacked, make up a realistic looking bogey man and hoist it up high, the people will follow dutifully to whatever brutal battles you want to lead them, eagerly and self-righteously.

For someone who sees through that game, not simply with the head but with the profound sorrow of witnessing the daily sufferings of millions of human beings, what is he or she going to do ?

That is the question that Thich Nhat Hanh has struggled with all his life, finding the middle path between extremes, the path of peace, co-operation, reconciliation instead of war, hatred and confrontation. That is one of the reasons he has always been condemned by both sides for neither side finds him a willing accomplice in the ideology of war.

During the Vietnam war he founded the School of Youth For Social Services to work humbly with and for the poor farmers in their village and on the rice-field. The SVN government attempted to shut it down because its success highlighted the glaring deficiency of the state's policies and lack of support among the vast majority of the population - those who daily endured indiscriminate bombing, strafing, free-fire zone artillery attacks to carry out the "forced urbanization" stratagem, as Samuel Huntington puts it, accidentally discovered by the US military. One-fourth of the population of the South became refugees, draining the water from the sea, starving the enemy. One man being slapped in the face might put some heads on fire, but millions becoming pawns, then or now, made destitute, broken, or starved to death in silence, is not really "our" concern, not part of "our" language of human rights. Neither was he welcome by the liberation side because the youth volunteers were considered in competition with the front for the loyalty of the peasants.

He advocated the withdrawal of US forces because clearly, it had no business being in Vietnam. The longer it stayed, the more massive the killing. Those Vietnamese in the city, who saw no problem with the continuation of the war, knew nothing of the enormous sufferings that presence imposed on the mostly defenseless peasants. The highly successful propaganda machine saw to it that the atrocities were all committed by a few visible "terrorists", and not a thousand times more by state terrorism. He advocated the reconciliation of the two sides among the Vietnamese because he saw very clearly that the consequences of a one-sided triumph of communism would create enormous problems for a post-war Vietnam, which, as it turned out, was as it was.

>From what he saw he spoke. And the power of the truth he saw convinced Martin Luther King to oppose the war. Those who wanted the war to continue, under the illusion that somehow such a by nature mercenary war could lead to victory, blamed him for its ultimate defeat (Let's just say that fighters who received fairly good pay lost, and those who barely received enough food to eat and no pay prevailed). They then could rest assured that they had always been right. That is, without that frail and unarmed monk, the result could have been different. On this side, the illusionists are alive and continue to do well. Many of us cannot live without illusions.

On the other side, the post-war illusion of a socialist paradise prevented TNH from returning to Vietnam. Until that illusion crested. It's a tribute to some of the top leaders of Vietnam that they quickly responded to the debacle, and skillfully pulled Vietnam out of that quagmire that US' post-war policy would be perfectly content to push Vietnam into. Because of the massive unexploded ordinance still remains buried in the soil, both men and animals were often killed in the open field, and still are. India sent 100 buffaloes to a country desperately short of food sources as a gesture of assistance but was forced to relent when the US threatened to withdraw food aid. Such is "our" language of human rights. Let them eat cake.

Today, some segments of the overseas communities are raising the issue of TNH's "collaboration" and "compromise." In the long view of history, I wonder what had they been doing all these years during the war ? Starting with the French ? The illusionists live on. Western press never talks about this history of long collaboration.

Leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCVN), of which TNH still considers himself a part, refused to see him on his first visit to Vietnam. They are extremely courageous individuals, in the best tradition of monks who have always stood up to power, have always been fearless, and incorruptible. But in this case, I believe, they have made a mistake, most likely because of the information provided by Vo Van Ai, the UBCVN's spokesman in Paris. Vo Van Ai has proved many times that he is a liar, an unfortunate quality of someone who is the spokesman of such an illustrious institution. One example: he accuses TNH's Order of Interbeing of advocating a lineage of married monks, a simple bald-faced untruth. Being right in Paris, he should have known better. Secondly, he receives annual financial support from the National Endowment for Democracy, about 60K to 90K dollars a year to highlight issues of human rights violation in Vietnam. This is unfortunate: of which master is he serving ? It's interesting to note the bias of some of the Western press: has the case been the other way around, and Vo Van Ai receives money from an equivalent Soviet Union's National Endowment for Democracy, I wonder if the Western press even deigns to mention his name.

The leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church could have used TNH as an intermediary to reach a resolution with the government, for in the long run, that is the only viable solution. By rejecting TNH's extended hand, they have lost a towering figure who, of all side, perhaps best undertands and is most sympathetic to their position. The question is one of strategy and tactics, not aim. For there is no doubt that a prosperous and democratic Vietnam down the road will not attempt to put all religion under the direct, or indirect, control of the government.

TNH is now in his eighty. His urgent need is to revitalize Buddhism in Vietnam because, perhaps except for Thich Thanh Tu's school of Zen (though still very traditional), most Buddhism in Vietnam is in a high state of severe sclerosis and decay, unable to meet the needs of the young generation and the challenges of the modern age. His modernized Order of Interbeing, proven successfully in addressing the most complex issues in the post-industrial, post-modern life in the West, could once again imbue a new generation of Vietnamese with the sense of purposes, high ideals, and a deeply satisfied way of life, which nothing now in Vietnam could even approach. To generations of Vietnamese who had to live through one of the most brutal wars in history, reduced to a life of bare subsistence for decades, the most important achievement now could simply be a good income and the freedom to spend it in an abandoned fashion. From the bosoms of Paris, New York, Berlin, Geneva, Taipei, Tokyo, etc, TNH already knows that that is but an illusion.

How long should, or could, TNH wait to satisfy the No-sayers ? Without TNH, is there anyone who could do what he could ? None.

Socialism, perhaps not the socialism of Marx and Engel, but of what we know in reality has failed. The greatest generation of Vietnamese communist leaders came not from socialism, but from the education of the old culture - HCM, PVD, TC, VNG, etc. From the generations of the second, the third, etc. - those fully trained in the new ideology, we do not have that caliber any more. Thich Nhat Hanh could help restore and modernize the culture that has made Vietnam what it is.

A Vietnam of peace. A Vietnam of Reconciliation. A Vietnam of wisdom and service.

"phuxuan700@gmail.com" <phuxuan700@gmail.com>

date Apr 14, 2007 7:13 AM

subject Re: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

> ...Vo Van Ai has proved many times that he is a liar, an unfortunate quality of someone who is the

> spokesman of such an illustrious institution. One example: he accuses TNH's Order of Interbeing > of advocating a lineage of married monks, a simple bald-faced untruth. Being right in Paris, he > should have known better. Secondly, he receives annual financial support from the National > Endowment for Democracy, about 60K to 90K dollars a year to highlight issues of human rights

> violation in Vietnam. This is unfortunate: of which master is he serving ? It's interesting to note the > bias of some of the Western press: has the case been the other way around, and Vo Van Ai

> receives money from an equivalent Soviet Union's National Endowment for Democracy, I wonder if

> the Western press even deigns to mention his name...

Hanoi used the same NED argument when talking about Vo Van Ai !

I'd like to hear from others on the grant issue but if I am working to promote freedom and democracy for Vietnam and the Americans or the Russians or the Chinese give me grants for doing just that, would I turn them down ?

Such grants will help me focus more energy and resources on my goal. Who would benefit from that ? Definitely the people whose rights to live with full dignity have long been denied by their own government.

Since when receiving grants from NED constitutes a "crime" then ?

Here is what NED is about:

http://www.ned.org/about/about.html

On VVA's "accusation" against TNH, I'd like to give VVA the benefit of the doubt. I never consider someone a liar unless I know for sure that is the case.

By the way, would you call Hanoi a liar ? ;-)

Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>

date Apr 14, 2007 10:52 AM

subject Re: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

I worked with Sister Chan Khong, Thich Nhat Hanh's assistant, for several

years in circulating petitions on behalf of imprisoned Buddhist monks and

intellectuals in Vietnam. I remember when the monks Thich Tri Sieu and

Thich Tue Sy were tried and sentenced to death in 1988 (as I recall) on

anti-government charges. Through the Buddhist Peace Fellowship we sent

postcards to BPF members urging them to send telegrams to the Vietnam

govt. requesting clemency for these monks. Many other groups were involved

in this campaign and the two monks were given clemency and eventually

released.

Sister Chan Khong when I worked with her was always very energetic and

passionate about the cause of human rights in Vietnam. But she and Thich

Nhat Hanh were also attacked by some in the anti-war movement on this

issue, in fact that is how I first heard of them. That was in the fall of

1976, when they provided information about anti-Buddhist repression and

other forms of human rights violations to their colleagues in the peace

movement. This led to an open letter to the Vietnam govt., which was

spearheaded by Jim Forest of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Among the

attacks, one was that during the war Thich Nhat Hanh refused to agree with

the NLF-proposed solution for ending the conflict, which was basically to

recognize the NLF as the sole legitimate representative of the South

Vietnamese people. There was a spirited debate within the American

anti-war movement on the situation of human rights in Vietnam, leading to

the publication of an open letter protesting repression in Vietnam, which

appeared in the New York Times in Dec. 1976, and which was immediately

denounced by others in the anti-war movement in their own petition, which

was also published in the New York Times.

During the first years after 1975, when Vietnam was a much more closed

society than it is now, Sr. Chan Khong was able to get information out

through her close contacts with Buddhist monks in the country. I remember

when the government-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist Church was established in

1981, and declared in its founding charter that the VBC was the sole

legitimate representative of Vietnamese Buddhism, and all other Buddhist

sects in the country were required to join it. It was Sr. Chan Khong who

put out a press release through her Vietnamese Buddhist Peace Delegation

reporting this development and the protests of Unified Buddhist Church

leaders Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do, who were then sent into

internal exile. During this period, she put out many press releases on

this issue, based on contacts from within Vietnam. She also was

instrumental in starting up a project in which people overseas would send

boxes of necessities to contacts in Vietnam, and these would then be

distributed through an informal Buddhist network in the country. She wrote

an autobiography, Learning True Love, which was published around 1994 by

Parallax Press.

I think the change occurred around ten years ago when the banned UBCV in

Vietnam, under the leadership of Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do,

officially established overseas branches of the UBCV. Vo Van Ai was then

appointed to head the International Buddhist Information Bureau, which was

to disseminate news from Vietnam based on information from the UBCV

leaders within the country. Vo Van Ai had worked with Thich Nhat Hanh many

years before, but they had a bitter falling out, and Ai denounced Thich

Nhat Hanh in his Que Me magazine.

Meanwhile, from about 1985 on, Thich Nhat Hanh and Sr. Chan Khong were

traveling around the world leading retreats and publishing writings

of Thich Nhat Hanh, primarily through Parallax Press here in Berkeley. A

new Order of Interbeing under Thich Nhat Hanh was established, which from

what I understand, is an organization of lay people and monks and nuns who

take vows and follow his teachings. I think this direction, combined with

the appointment of Vo Van Ai to head the IBIB contributed to Thich Nhat

Hanh's move away from the UBCV leadership. During his first visit

to post-75 Vietnam in 2005, it was reported:

"The monk does not belong to the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam

(UBCV), which was banned by authorities in 1981 for refusing to come under

the ruling Communist Party's control.

"Vietnamese security police launched a sweeping crackdown on the church

more than a year ago, putting senior monks under house arrest and placing

hundreds of pagodas under surveillance.

"When asked why certain religious movements had been banned in Vietnam,

Sister Chan Khong replied: 'The flags of the old regime are hidden behind

some of these churches. We have no political ambitions.'"

see: http://old.usvtc.org/News/January%2005/news%20briefs%2012.htm

This statement, made on the eve of Thich Nhat Hanh's departure, probably

did more to discourage UBCV leaders from meeting with him than anything Vo

Van Ai might have said to them.

As for Vo Van Ai, criticism of him or his views is fair game, but not

attacking him for receiving money from the National Endowment for

Democracy, which is a U.S. funded organization intended to promote

democracy around the world. I don't see what is wrong with the NED goals,

or why anyone who receives funding from it should automatically be

discredited.

The IBIB does provide much information based on close contacts with Thich

Quang Do, Thich Huyen Quang and other Buddhist monks throughout the

country. Readers can check the website and judge for themselves:

http://www.queme.net/eng/index.php

Charles Waugh <cwaugh@cc.usu.edu>

date Apr 14, 2007 8:21 PM

subject Re: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

"As for Vo Van Ai, criticism of him or his views is fair game, but not

attacking him for receiving money from the National Endowment for

Democracy, which is a U.S. funded organization intended to promote

democracy around the world. I don't see what is wrong with the NED

goals, or why anyone who receives funding from it should automatically

be discredited. "

The problem with the NED and their goals is that they flood elections in

small countries with money, intending to make it easier later for US

corporations to do their business there. (Yes, I meant to say it that

way.) To them, democracy isn't of the people and for the people, it's a

means to dominating markets and lining up military allies. As Allen

Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy,

said in 1991, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago

by the CIA".

For a full critique, see the International Endowment for Democracy

website (www.iefd.org)

Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>

date Apr 15, 2007 7:47 AM

subject RE: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

Thanks, Charles for identifying this website. It is a sort of summary capsule of a lot of the issues we have been discussing - the parallel existence of these two websites.

http://www.ned.org/

http://www.iefd.org/

Rarely do we have an opportunity to have such a pregnant serendipity, at least from the perspective of an outsider, and rarely does such a serendipity say so much.

Some take the meaning of democracy as it's written, and we all agree here, correctly in the dictionary. The problem is that there is such a world of difference between rhetoric and reality, words and deeds, truth and propaganda. Truth without context is, if we are lucky, only half truth; mostly truths without context become lies. And lies repeated endlessly become truth.

We live in a world devoid of history. There is little awareness of what had happened in Iran with Mossadegh - democratically elected, in Chile with Allende - democratically elected, in Haiti with Aristide - democratically elected, etc. For a full discussion of the context of some of these events, please refer to

http://www.killinghope.org/

Without a shared knowledge of history as it really happens, and not as it is made up, words take on different meanings. We have finally entered the world of George Orwell where war means peace, aggression means self-defense, mass murder means mass freedom, and democracy loss of national sovereignty.

As for the violation of human rights, it has become a club to vilify and put pressure on our adversaries, and at the same time to protect and consolidate the dictatorial power of our friends. It is this cynical use of HR that is the issue, not the question of of HR itself.

Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>

date Apr 15, 2007 9:06 AM

subject [Vsg] Le Quoc Quan and the Work for Peace

Respectfully, I don't share the left of center political perspective of

the International Endowment for Democracy, but those who do might find

their arguments convincing.

A Boston Globe editorial, largely critical of the National Endowment for

Democracy, nevertheless concluded with these remarks:

"It is a shame that the democracy-building mission of the Endowment has

been undermined in these and other instances, all the more so because its

core foundations do valuable work in many parts of the world. The National

Democratic Institute, for example, has provided training and support for

democratic and refugee groups under undemocratic regimes such as those in

Burma and Cambodia. In the newly established democracies of East Timor and

Afghanistan, the institute works with civic and political leaders to help

develop representative institutions, encourage grassroots citizen

participation in politics, and aid political parties to forge a code of

conduct for elections.

"The National Endowment for Democracy has earned a reputation for being

more effective and more accountable than government departments that do

overlapping work. There is nothing wrong with the purpose and mission of

the Endowment. And there is a lot right with the work it does in some of

the most blighted parts of the world.

"To preserve its role in helping build the civil society foundations of

democracy in those places, the Endowment must root out any recipient of

funds that acts to thwart the democratic movements and values the

Endowment was meant to cultivate."

That is why I think it is unfair to attack someone simply for receiving

money from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Le Quoc Quan is a Vietnamese lawyer and an NED grant recipient presently

detained in a Hanoi prison and not allowed any visitors. He was here in

the United States on a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship in an exchange

program, researching the role of civil society in emerging democracies. He

was arrested on March 8 in his hometown in Nghe An province, only 4 days

after his return from Washington to Vietnam.

Since VSG is a forum for academics, and since Le Quoc Quan appears to have

been arrested for conducting research under an NED grant, maybe his case

would be worthy of concern to members here.

Here is information about his case from the NED website:

http://ned.org/press/releases.html#mar1607

Human Rights Watch also discusses his case, along with that of other

recently arrested dissidents, in an April 6 press release. See:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/06/vietna15664_txt.htm

- Steve Denney

p.s. - I changed the subject heading since we do not seem to be discussing

Thich Nhat Hanh now.

Dan Enbysk <danenbysk@gmail.com>

date Apr 16, 2007 1:03 AM

subject Re: [Vsg] Le Quoc Quan and the Work for Peace

From TNH's written works, and from talks at his monastic centers, the purpose of the Order of Interbeing is very clear. Indeed, as Stephen points out, is an order of laypersons (men and women) as well as monks and nuns who vow to practice the 14 precepts (mindfulness trainings). Laypersons take similar, though slightly different vows, than monks and nuns...the main difference being the 14th mindfulness training which differentiates between sexual relations between laypersons (allowed) and monks and nuns (not allowed). TNH has been very consistent about the life monastics are asked to follow. The purpose of the order is to make Buddhism more relevant to everyday lives outside the monastic tradition and enlarge the Sangha outside the monastic walls. We wouldn't confuse monks with laypersons I think, so it seems disingenuous for Vo Van Ai to somehow "imply" (if this is what he is in fact intending to imply), that laypersons are somehow monks "in disguise". For what purpose is a pagoda without a Sangha of laypersons? Understood another way, the point of the Order of Interbeing is to dissolve certain divisions that have appeared in the last couple of centuries between sangha and monastic community - and so also dissolve the division between monk or nun and layperson - on a certain level of understanding. As one of the monks at Deer Park Pagoda (TNH's monastic community in Escondido, California) related to me - "some of my most important teachers have been laypeople".

As Chung also notes, TNH's perspective is very much needed in Vietnam. The country is industrializing and becoming quickly consumer-oriented. Many youth in urban areas who can afford it are engaged in filling their lives with entertainment and electronic gadgetry - witnessed by the slough of internet game cafes in HCM City and elsewhere. You would hardly recognize from the outside that you are living in a Communist country with all the billboards and advertisements. In most places a kind of hollow "temple-Buddhism" holds sway. I was in attendance at two days of TNH's most recent tour, however. I was impressed with the turnout of hundreds of people, perhaps a couple thousand people, at one Pagoda over a couple of days. Two large meditation centers under his organization also exist in VN: TNH's "root temple" in Hue and Praja Monestary in Bao Loc where I understand a couple hundred monks and nuns reside. I myself attend a weekly meditation session in HCM City at Van Hanh (Buddhist University) Pagoda - and slowly, I see younger peoples' participation increasing. TNH's books are now available in VN - not sure for how long that has been the case - I think only since 2005. Through my own conversations with Vietnamese here, many have never heard of Thich Nhat Hanh or at least not until very recently.

TNH's choice not to take sides in the past has perhaps had the consequence of not realizing any dramatic gains as of yet. True, his current effort is to revitalize Buddhism in Vietnam but I'm sure that has also been his goal since the time he was a young monk. Most likely, he couldn't do what he is trying to do now if he had taken any other position in the past. Realizing at that time he was in a no-win situation, he took a prudent path.

If some monks fault him for "running away" it is no different then the accusation leveled at many in the South that fled rather than stay and pay a harsh price for courage. If I understand correctly, many monks and nuns were also killed between 1965 and 1975.

TNH was, and is, not interested in "winning" anything but peace. Unfortunate that even some professed champions of Democracy (and some professed Buddhists) fail to understand this and take the view that "if you are not with us, you are against us, or at least not one of us". Who is this "us"?

As I'm in Vietnam, I don't have access to some of the current information regarding Vo Van Ai - blocked website. Can someone copy and paste the article on Vo Van Ai's statement about TNH's visit to Vietnam - into an email and send to me.

Thanks!

Dan Enbysk,

HCM City

Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>

date Apr 15, 2007 7:55 PM

subject RE: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

(I take the liberty to change back the title because the issues we discussed are very relevant to TNH and his position, especially the role of Vo Van Ai vis-a-vis the National Endowment for Democracy. That's really one of the crux of our contentions, isn't it ? The question of VVA's legitimacy or illegitimacy ?)

1.

I would respectfully suggest that we stick to the facts presented and not indulge in the practice of labeling - left, left of center, right, right wing, etc. When we point to some source, it's because we believe that it cites facts that are, well, facts, not because its originator wears some kind of hats that we take a shine to.

If the website http://www.ifed.org/ presents facts that are false, let's by all means spell it out. If we can't identify the principal points that we could contradict, than let's openly say so. We can still say that we disagree, although we can't contradict. That's perfectly reasonable, and it would make the discussion much more productive. Otherwise it's like two ships passing each other in the night, each serenely runs on its own current.

The fact that democratically elected Mossadegh was overthrown isn't left, left of center, or whatever. It's simply a fact. Or Allende. Or Aristide, etc. If we need more samples, Blum is a good source, with not much dispute on the facts he documents. If we need more, another good place is www.thirdworldtraveler.com <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/> . The case of Haiti is especially eye-opening reading, starting with our good ally France which became fabulously rich because of it, back to the US, and finally France and the US together in the effort of trying to manage this incorrigible, hard to squash island. These people just won't give up and accept their assigned lot.

2. There is no doubt that compared to third word countries, the civil society in industrially developed nations is much more advanced. So the fact that Le Quoc Quan and many others do not get the same license in VN as others would in the US, France, German, etc. is a given. No disagreement here. It takes centuries for these nations to reach that state, and a part of that success depends upon the vast wealth they extracted from third world colonies, and the hard fought struggle of many movements which refuse to accept the status quo - such as the one found in www.iefd.com <http://www.iefd.com/> . Funny how history plays its part.

3. The issue is not simply the problem that LQQuan has, but what our country does with the problem LQQuan has, and what kind of "regime change" looks like if things go "favorably" all the way . Back to my argument below - the cynical use of HR in the overall scheme of things.

Interesting that you cite the Boston Globe's praise of the case of East Timor. How lucky is East Timor. After the genocide of at least a third of its population, with our complicity. Now we are teaching the rest on how to practice democracy. Perhaps, it helps lighten our load. Again, we live in a world without history.

(www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/EastTimor_KH.html <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/EastTimor_KH.html>

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/AtrocityTimor_Chom.html)

How lucky is the people of Afghanistan: the Globe writer really has a good sense of current events. Considering the continuing destruction, the number of deaths, and the on-going war there, and considering the historical fact that of all the countries the US has militarily intervened after WW II, we can't find one country, not one, that has become democratic because of it. Let's see - we have Pinochet after Allende, the Shah with his dreaded SAVAK after Mossadegh, and a bunch of thugs and murderers right after Aristide. See Blum again. Such a massive and consistent pattern.

Dr. Balazs cites Saudi Arabia and Morroco, whose HR situation is as at the least as similar or much worse than the cases under discussion here. Does the US Ambassador there publicly condemns it as in the case of VN ? Any US Congressman demands the ambassador's resignation because of his failure to do so, as in the case of VN ? What about Colombia, Haiti, etc. ? How so peculiar ? May you enlighten us on this ?

Charles quotes Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years." He should know. If the Boston Globe reporter really wants to establish the credibility of his (or her) report, he (or she) should have interviewed Weinstein.

Has things changed since 1991 ? What an earth-shaking revolution the world somehow remains so ignorant of ?

As I pointed out in earlier posts re: the major problems we have with the mainstream press, we cannot always take what's being written there on face value. Check out the alternative press.

This is an example of that - the case of Kanan Makiya, once an Iraqi Le Quoc Quan:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/84/

Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>

date Apr 15, 2007 10:40 PM

subject RE: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

First of all, no, I don't agree that Vo Van Ai receiving money from the

National Endowment for Democracy goes to the crux of his legitimacy or

illegitimacy. For reasons already cited, I don't believe it is fair to

condemn anyone who receives money from the NED on that basis alone. I

notice you don't seem to condemn Le Quoc Quan in the same way you condemn

Vo Van Ai. Should we condemn every NED recipient in this manner?

It seems you equate the NED with the U.S. government and then hold it

responsible for every failing in U.S. foreign policy history. So far as I

know, the NED was not involved in the overthrow of Allende or the mass

killings in East Timor or the installation of the Shah of Iran.

And I feel that the political perspective of the IEFD site is relevant, at

least if I suspect they might be presenting a biased view of this issue. I

can read what they say to get one side of this issue, but I believe the

Boston Globe editorial presented a more balanced view and pointed out some

of the accomplishments of the NED as well.

I doubt Thich Nhat Hanh would share your view on the NED or those who

receive grants from the NED, especially imprisoned dissidents such as Le

Quoc Quan, however he may feel about Vo Van Ai. Their dispute goes back

to many years before. Although I am not changing the subject heading this

time, it seems to me you are not discussing Thich Nhat Hanh or his work

for peace, only focusing on a sidelight issue in order to discredit one of

his critics.

- Steve Denney

Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>

date Apr 16, 2007 9:31 AM

subject RE: [Vsg] Thich Nhat Hanh and the Work for Peace

>First of all, no, I don't agree that Vo Van Ai receiving money from the

>National Endowment for Democracy goes to the crux of his legitimacy or

>illegitimacy. For reasons already cited, I don't believe it is fair to

>condemn anyone who receives money from the NED on that basis alone. I

>notice you don't seem to condemn Le Quoc Quan in the same way you condemn

>Vo Van Ai. Should we condemn every NED recipient in this manner?

Vo Van Ai is holding a very sensitive position, as spokesman for the UBCVN, involved in the support of a dissident organization in VN. This receiving money from a foreign government, and in this case, not any foreign government but one who had just conducted a brutal war in VN, causing the death of millions of Vietnamese - you don't see anything improper in this ? To put things in a similar light, suppose a Muslim Vo Van Ai, spokesman for a Muslim organization in US challenging US's policies re: the War on Terror. How does it look if he receives money from Pakistan, or Egypt, or Jordan, or say, Iran ? How would the US media report on this Muslim Vo Van Ai ? Would the US consider it foreign interference in its affairs ?

>It seems you equate the NED with the U.S. government and then hold it

>responsible for every failing in U.S. foreign policy history. So far as I

>know, the NED was not involved in the overthrow of Allende or the mass

>killings in East Timor or the installation of the Shah of Iran.

..

>Although I am not changing the subject heading this

>time, it seems to me you are not discussing Thich Nhat Hanh or his work

>for peace, only focusing on a sidelight issue in order to discredit one of

>his critics.

This is the crux of our disagreements, two different views of NED. NED is part of the US government, whose actions are described by Allen Weinstein, one of its founders, - " A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." What did the CIA do 25 years ago ? What Blum and www.Thridwordtraveler.com <http://www.thridwordtraveler.com/> have documented. Could you cite anything that could disprove the facts cited there ? Please don't state, again, your opinion, because we are pretty clear on that already. It took years for the US Congress to discover all the illegal activities committed by the CIA - via the Church committee, etc - which eventually cut all its secret fund in this area in order to create NED, putting it under Congress' supervision and forcing it to make an annual public report.

But, from Weinstein's statement, its public face may have changed, but its work remains essentially the same. In this line of work, you appear to take all the public announcements at face values, as if NED somehow operates totally independent from US global policy - something, in your opinion, is only a "sideline issue" ?

I find such a reasoning begging the question ! What Blum and Thirdworldtraveler.com document gives us an overview of US global policy for a century, long enough for anyone to form a rational judgment. How could NED exist not as a part of US global policy ?

It's like focusing the discussion on one small part of the situation, and refusing to see it as part of a greater whole, whose major characteristics have been well spelled out.

You show such a great faith in public relations annoucements, as found in www.ned.org <http://www.ned.org/> . Perhaps the following quotes would help clarify things a bit more.

1.

"The National Endowment for Democracy is a foreign policy loose cannon. Promoting democracy is a nebulous objective that can be manipulated to justify any whim of the special-interest groups--the Republican and Democratic parties, organized labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--that control most of NED's funds. NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."

Barbara Conry, Cato Institute.

2.

"The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects "soft money" into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections "promoting democracy."

Ron Paul, Republican Congressman (Texas)

>And I feel that the political perspective of the IEFD site is relevant, at

>least if I suspect they might be presenting a biased view of this issue. I

>can read what they say to get one side of this issue, but I believe the

>Boston Globe editorial presented a more balanced view and pointed out some

>of the accomplishments of the NED as well.

You certainly are free to hold any kind of opinions, but it's clear that you provide no data either to disprove what I have cited, or to back up the "more balanced view" of the Globe, whose severe shortcomings I have documented.

Let just add a few more details to highlight that piece's lamentable lack of perspective.

The current President of Afghanistan is a former executive of Unocal Oil company. Our ambassador to Afghanistan is also a former executive of Unocal Oil company. A purely accidental serendipity ? Well, if we dig a little deeper than what is written in that piece, the reason that we have such a coincident is because Unocal has for a long time wanted to build two pipelines through Afghanistan - $2-billion, 918-mile natural gas pipeline and a $4-billion 1,005-mile oil pipeline. So, let me ask you - between the construction of these pipelines, which will bring back billions of dollars of profit, and the democratization process, which the Globe effusively highlights, which, in your opinion, would be our priority ?

I think the exchange so far has sufficiently highlighted our differences, and the underlying reasons for these differences. I don't think any further post on my part would make it any clearer. Unless there is something that requires further clarification, this will be, therefore, my last post on this thread.

Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>

date Apr 16, 2007 10:29 AM

subject [Vsg] Vo Van Ai, Thich Nhat Hanh, Le Quoc Quan and the NED

I neglected to mention the url of the Boston Globe editorial I cited:

http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2006/2006-02-05-News-BostonGlobe.asp

The editorial is largely critical of the National Endowment for Democracy,

but also cites some commendable activity on its part.

- Steve Denney

Return to top of page