Manufacturing Consent_ The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Edward S. Herman [169]
Recall that all of this took place during the period when the media had allegedly reached their peak level of militant opposition to state authority. Let us now briefly inspect this remarkable record.
The Paris Agreements committed “the United States and all other countries [to] respect the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam” (article 1). Pending reunification of Vietnam, which is to “be carried out step by step through peaceful means . . . and without foreign interference,” the “military demarcation line” at the 17th parallel is to be regarded as “only provisional and not a political or territorial boundary” (article 15). In the South, there are two parallel and equivalent “South Vietnamese parties,” the GVN and the PRG. This is the central element of the agreements, which proceed to specify in detail the responsibilities and commitments of the two “South Vietnamese parties.” These are to achieve national reconciliation through peaceful means, under conditions of full democratic freedoms, while “Foreign countries shall not impose any political tendency or personality on the South Vietnamese people” and “the United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Vietnam” (articles 9c, 4). “The two South Vietnamese parties undertake to respect the cease-fire and maintain peace in South Vietnam, settle all matters of contention through negotiations, and avoid all armed conflict” (article 10). Furthermore, “the two South Vietnamese parties” will proceed to “Achieve national reconciliation and concord, end hatred and enmity, prohibit all acts of reprisal and discrimination against individuals or organizations that have collaborated with one side or the other,” and, in general, “ensure the democratic liberties of the people,” which are outlined, along with procedures to ensure the reconcilation undertaken by “the two South Vietnamese parties” (articles 11, 12). The agreements committed “the two South Vietnamese parties” not to “accept the introduction of troops, military advisers, and military personnel including technical military personnel, armaments, munitions, and war material into South Vietnam” and called for a “total withdrawal” of all such personnel within sixty days, while “the two South Vietnamese parties” will settle “The question of Vietnamese armed forces in South Vietnam . . . without foreign interference” (articles 5, 7, 13).
In his January 24 press conference, Kissinger made it clear that the United States maintained the right to provide “civilian technicians serving in certain of the military branches,” and as its forces were withdrawn after the signing of the agreements, the United States proceeded to keep or introduce 7,200 “contract civilians” to “handle maintenance, logistics, and training jobs formerly performed by the U.S. military,” many of them “retired military men,” under the supervision of a U.S. major-general.141 The provisions concerning technical personnel were thus at once nullified, along with the U.S. pledge to refrain from any intervention “in the internal affairs of South Vietnam.”
In a speech of January 23, Nixon announced that the GVN would be recognized as the “sole legitimate government in South Vietnam,” nullifying articles 9c and 4 as well as the basic principle of the agreements: that the two parallel and equivalent “South Vietnamese parties” are to proceed toward a settlement with no U.S. interference or effort to impose any “political tendency” on the people of South Vietnam. In its “summary of basic elements of the Vietnam agreements” on January 24, the White House announced that “the government of the Republic of (South) Vietnam continues in existence, recognized by the United States, its constitutional structure and leadership intact