Bitter arguments over airlift

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33815, 11 April 1975, Page 9

Bitter arguments over airlift

By

RICHARD FLASTE

of the "Neiv York Times," through N.Z.P.A.)

NEW YORK. April 10. The airlift of children from South Vietnam, begun last week with a sense of urgency and compassion, has left bitter argument over whether taking children from their homeland is an appropriate or necessary way to deal with a crisis. Those who have always opposed foreign adoption because they see it depleting nations of their children are angrier than ever. At the same time, some who might defend foreign adoption under other circumstances are saddened and perplexed by what they describe as haste and disorganisation in this operation. Some of the most impassioned opposition has come from a number of Vietnamese in the United States. For instance, Pham Thanh, an 18-year-old high school student in Berkeley, California, brought to this country after he was wounded, is deeply moved by the airlift. "Vietnamese love their children,” he said, “and will take care of them no matter who is in power next.” The

[youth, who hopes to return after the war to help in the rebuilding, said that the airlift was robbing his country. A number of theologians, too, have expressed outrage. George Webber, an anti-war activist who heads the NewYork theological seminary’, said that he was infuriated by the airlift. “The idea that it’s to save children’s lives angers me,” he said. “It’s the desire of families in this country who want children badly that has led to the airlift — not the likely death of children, because that’s unlikely.” He, like other critics, believes that the children in orphanages are actually safer than many homeless refugees. The questions at issue include these: is foreign adoption the best alternative for these children? If it is most desirable, should still others be brought here? Was the airlift begun only in the children’s best interest, or did it involve other, perhaps less admirable, motives? A spokesman for the Hold Adoption Programme of Eugene, Oregan, which from this week had been responsible for 400 of the nearly 2000 children sent to the United States and which hoped to bring over at least 4.0 more, said:

“We don’t rush mto these things. We have a staff of 100 in Saigon who’ve been working with these children, preparing them. In the United States we have screened prospective adoptive parents.

When a child has a parent still Jiving, she said, we know the best thing is for the mother to care for the child. But the war had made that impossible in some cases, the spokesman explained, and made even traditional reliance on extended families difficult.

She said that the Hold’s primary concern had been the children of American G.l.s who, because of their mixed race, were stigmatised by other Vietnamese, and perhaps faced a bleak future in South Vietnam. But she did not know how many in the airlift actually were of mixed races.

The feeling of many who see foreign adoption as the most desirable alternative for at least some children was summed up by William Taylor, executive director of Travellers Aid-International Social Service. “We feel that we have a tremendous responsibility to the children we’ve been working with,” he said. “We know they’re going to caring and loving homes. Other agency spokesmen point to what they consider the responibility of the American people to get the children to safety.” A note of caution came from the Child Welfare League of America, which represents child-care agencies. Joseph |Reid, its director, said that he feared an unwise, more extensive effort to bring many thousands of Vietnamese children here.

Fran Offio, executive director of C.A.R.E., warned that while the outpouring of offers of homes was well motivated, it required more thought, more preparation, and more reasoned judgment. Dr Edward Zigler, a Yale psychologist, was angered by the airlift. “These children are being used as pawns for a variety of reasons,” he said, “but I don’t think we really care about them.”

“They are being put on! planes deathly sick, in a crash one day, on a plane the next, if one of them dies of illness! because of our haste, we’ll all be guilty. This can’t be in the best interest of the children.”

“And,” he continued, “we’ve been ripping them right out of their culture, their community — I don’t think we understand the value of those things. It’s

some kind of emotional jagi we are on.” Dao Spencer, who was; born and schooled in Viet-! nam before coming to the! United States at 18 for; higher education, is now deputy executive director of! the American Council of! Voluntary Agencies. She is! moved to near tears when she talks about the airlift. Although she approved of the airlift of the first 2000 children because she believed they had been carefully; screened, she maintains that “the United States has no! moral right to move children; len masse.” [ She was in Saigon earlier! [this year and says that she!

: [ heard at first hand stories of I how fathers return after :| years away to find their, !wives dead and children ini Han orphanage, given up for • I adoption. | Tran Ruong Nhu, a Viet-’ [namese anthropologist living: ’;in California, said that she: .[was ‘‘livid” about the airlift.! i “What is this terror! i Americans feel that my! ’[people will devour children?”; i she said. She said she believes’ I;that if the North Vietnamese •lor the Viet Cong defeated :;the South, the future of the II children there might be ii brighter. “There are 22,000 ; day-care centres in the -■north,” she said. “They love .[children and take care of ithem.” Edwin Reischauer. the [former United State Ambassador to Japan who is now at Harvard. said that although he felt there was “a bit of paternalism” in bringing the children here, he did ’ not see it as “an outrage.” ’ Dr Lucian Pye, a political ’ scientist at the Massachu- [ setts Institute of Technology,! - said that he didn’t want to . argue on whether the child- , ren “would be better off here . or there — you just don’t! I know.” But he thinks the' [American response is of: [historical significance, stun-; Ining in its magnitude. I “What strikes me is this) 'amazing psychological pheno-: Imenon. this outburst.” Dr I ■ Pye said. “We’re trying to I i prove that we are not really) abandoning these people. The; [guilt feeling is very deep,’ j cutting across ‘hawk’ and; : ‘dove’ alike. We want toj know we’re still good, we’re [still decent. I “Who is the orphan?” he; asks. “The children or Viet-H I nam?” 1