Hanoi—Then & Now

The long road to meet an "old enemy"

Author’s note: This entry is longer than most and includes two op-eds written by my father in 1977 regarding our relations with Vietnam. I believe the content is worth capturing and sharing, however, I just wanted to forewarn you that the material is quite dense.

When I heard news of President Biden’s recent visit to the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, I couldn’t help but flash on a line I’d seen in one of my father’s papers:

These four words were so striking—and off-putting—to me that I’d never fully read two typed pages that ended with that sentiment.

My father’s op-ed, “Thoughts on the Recognition of Vietnam was submitted to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in May 1977, two years after the end of the war.

I’d been afraid that the curt statement meant that my father had abandoned all caring for the common people of Vietnam after they had fallen under the rule of the communists.

Certainly that was unlikely for a man who had risked his life and career to get 1000 Vietnamese citizens out at the end of the war, but still, the words were impactful: We owe them nothing.

Honestly, I was afraid to find out.

But today, I finally read the entire essay and discovered that my fears were indeed unfounded. Far from abandoning anyone, he championed the cause of those left behind.

His op-ed follows in its entirety. I find myself contemplating his strong conviction that the two nations must start from scratch.

However, there is some gray area in the statement: Is there a tinge of mea culpa on behalf of the American role in Vietnam or just a deference to the universal fact that to begin again—in almost any relationship—both sides must ultimately concede to the futility of pinpointing the first injury, the first wrong turn.

Either way, it seems—even in light of the new optimistic relations between the two countries—there is still some merit in placing ourselves back in the viewpoint of 1977, to recall how difficult it was to come to terms with an “old enemy.”

I also just want to note that I squirm at the unilateral rights he advocates for American business—it all but smacks of returning Vietnam to a colonial holding. But as historian Heather Cox Richardson often says, we cannot judge people’s sensibilities by today’s standards. Was my father an advocate for colonialism? I do not rightly know, but his advocacy for the common people would seem to belie that conjecture.

Editorial submitted to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, May 1977:

THOUGHTS ON THE RECOGNITION OF VIETNAM by James E. Welch

It is still difficult for America to form a coherent perspective on the Vietnam experience. Yet, as a recent Honolulu Advertiser editorial [see image below] pointed out, "The need is to find a reasonable formula for relations in the Paris talks."

In search of such a formula, let us consider some aspects of a relationship to an enemy who was once ours and to an enemy which may exist toward many of the people of Vietnam today. The fact that the U.S. presence has disappeared and that the armies of the Republic of Vietnam have been crushed does not necessarily mean that the 17 million people of South Vietnam are now the beneficiaries of a joyful "liberation." 

Quite the contrary. Many still "vote with their feet" (or boats) against the Hanoi regime. Those so voting are not these days capitalists and members of the Thieu government---they are increasingly peasants and proletarians whom the Communists claim to represent. Hundreds of thousands remain in prisons which the Communists choose to call "reeducation centers." This is the humanitarian aspect of our concerns within the framework of a settlement.

The second aspect is in seeing that the interests of the United States are served. I am not against recognition of Vietnam. Far from it. But I would insist on reciprocity---that Vietnam recognize us. Recognize us for what we have done to try to help the Vietnamese people. The orphanages, the missionary’s facilities, the business machine establishments, the dairies, the electrical generating plants and the many other forms of technology they have fallen heir to (not to mention armaments) are enormous. 

They plead for reconstruction aid! The amount of material they found in Saigon, Danang, and elsewhere in South Vietnam has more than compensated for the $3.5 billion Nixon spoke of during the peace negotiations. 

So, let us start from scratch.

Let us start as two adult nations, approaching each other for the first time. No recriminations, no demands for "reparations" or the euphemistic equivalent, "contributions to heal the wounds of war." If there is to be an adult relationship between the two sovereign nations, let us at least push for the following in the interests of the United States and human rights:

• There will be humanitarian concern in Vietnam for those conquered, including those associated with Americans and the former Republic of Vietnam, with the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the appropriate UN commissions playing a role to insure compliance;

• There will be a free flow of uncensored mail and tele-communications between the two countries:

• There will be a free flow of publications without censorship between the two countries:

• There will be no radio nor TV jamming on either side; 

• There will be a free allowance of visas to all from both countries who wish to visit the other, including refugees who have come to the United States at the end of the war and to relatives of those refugees now in Vietnam;

• There shall be no surveillance of visitors (of whatever nationality) or restrictions on movement within either country:

• There shall be no confiscation nor discounting of currency sent from relatives to Vietnamese citizens from the United States nor from any other country to citizens of Vietnam;

• American business shall be granted tax-free status for off-shore and on-shore oil and mineral development: profits shall not be subject to export restrictions;

• American business shall be granted land rights for refineries, oil storage depots and such other facilities as are required;

• American business shall have prior options on hotel and resort facilities on coastal and island areas;

• American business shall have preferential treatment for establishment of firms, including business machines and computers, food and dairy products, textiles, airport facilities, air franchises and seaport facilities for refueling and resupply of merchant ships; 

• The United States will provide monetary and technological aid in the reconstruction of Vietnam and the development of the Mekong River and Delta provided that the aid be channeled directly to the people of Vietnam. The American agencies to be designated for administration of this aid will be the Agency for International Development and the American Peace Corps.

• Any reference by the Hanoi propaganda media, domestic or international, to "reparations" (or equivalent euphemisms) will serve to nullify any aid agreement.

We owe Hanoi nothing.

[End Essay]

Note: In his cover letter for this submission, my father refers to a prior op-ed on the “Tucker Gougelmann Case.”

I’ve included that full op-ed below. My father’s written concerns regarding both prisoners of war (POWs) and those missing-in-action (MIA) parallel Biden’s sensitivity to the effects of the war before and during his trip to Vietnam.

Regarding Biden’s effort, Richardson wrote in her September 11 Letter from an American that:

While acknowledging in speeches the changing relationship between the U.S. and Vietnam over the past 50 years, Biden was careful not to appear to have forgotten the American experience in the Vietnam War. Before leaving for India and Vietnam, he awarded the Medal of Honor to 81-year-old Captain Larry Taylor, who as a 1st lieutenant during the war in Vietnam flew his Cobra attack helicopter into heavy enemy fire to rescue four members of a reconnaissance team who were surrounded by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops in a maneuver army officers said had never before been attempted.

. . . In Hanoi, Biden visited a memorial for the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who was a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five and a half years from 1967, when he was shot down, to 1973.

Both men the President highlighted came home from the war, but the man my father wrote of did not. The story is a harrowing one and lends a sobering element to creating new friendships between old enemies even 50 years later.

Wiki-photo from Arlington National Cemetery Explorer.

THE CASE OF TUCKER GOUGELMANN by James E. Welch

Published in Honolulu Star-Advertiser, May 4, 1977

There is an aspect of the recent Woodcock-Mansfield mission to Hanoi that is somewhat awkward in terms of closing the books on the MIA issue. An American private citizen was arrested by Vietnamese security forces in Saigon in June 1975, was detained by them and he is now dead. It would seem that a public explanation by the Vietnam regime concerning the circumstances of his death is in order. The MIAS, whose fates we are trying to determine, died as combatants during a war: Gougelmann, a civilian, died as a non-combatant after the war was finished and in the hands of the Communist authorities. Is it not reasonable to ask that Washington officials require an explanation of Hanoi as a pre-requisite for normalizing relations?

To document the fate of Tucker Gougelmann, there is the following reportage from American media:

(Washington Star - UPI 14 March 1976) "Tucker Gougelmann was last seen by his fellow Americans in mid-June 1975 when he was rousted from Saigon's Astor Hotel on Tu Do Street by Communist security men.

"No one who met him is sure why former U.S. Marine and CIA employee Pierre Edward Tucker Gougelmann--Tucker to his friends--missed the helicopter out of the country.

"At least four Americans, including two reporters, saw him being led away from his hotel by armed security forces in June 1975. But last August, Vietnamese officials told the International Red Cross they had no record of him."

–(Washington Post - AP 23 March1976) "Vietnam won will return the remains of two more missing Americans, including a former CIA operative reportedly arrested after the fall of Saigon in 1975, according to the presidential commission that returned here (Washington) yesterday from Hanoi.

"Gougelmann, whose sister lives in Florida, left the CIA in 1972 after serving two tours in Vietnam, among other places, according to U.S. officials. Retired in Bangkok, he traveled to Saigon just before the city's fall and reportedly was arrested and confined in Saigon's Chi Hoa prison."

-- (New York Times - UPI 23 March 1976) "Mr. Woodcock disclosed on his mission's homeward flight that Hanoi officials had also confirmed the death of Tucker Gougelmann, a retired CIA official who went to Saigon just before South Vietnam's collapse in an attempt to rescue friends."

Those are the sketchy facts. Yet it is quite clear that Gougelmann died in Communist hands. What did he die of? Starvation? Execution? Disease? It seems most likely it was one of these. 

The fact that Gougelmann had once been employed by the CIA is widely reported and his death may be excused in some circles for that reason. In fact, Gougelmann was a retired government employee and no spy. 

So, where is the public outcry on this case? Where are the media and public officials who make such an issue of human rights these days? Indeed, their broad protestations on humanitarian concerns appear as hollow bombast when they remain completely insensitive to the forfeit of life by an American civilian at the hands of Communist secret police.

[End of Essay]

According to POW Network.org Gougelmann’s remains were returned to the U.S. on September 30, 1977, five months after this essay was written.

Find out more about my work and books at Kat-Fitzpatrick.com. My narrative nonfiction story, For the Love of Vietnam: a war, a family, a CIA official, and the best evacuation story never heard is available by request wherever books are sold.