2. Letter From the Consul in Hue (Barbour) to the Ambassador in Vietnam (Durbrow)1
Dear Mr. Ambassador: You may be interested and perhaps a bit amused, to hear that among some of the younger and more liberal intellectuals here the Consulate, by its presence alone, is given credit for having brought about a grudging but allegedly visible elimination of some of the more flagrant abuses of power and some of the less praiseworthy aspects of the policy of toughness—formerly terrorism—that characterize administration in Central Viet Nam.
Although, as you know, I have yet to set eyes on “the Counselor”, Ngo dinh Can, I am told by one who has occasional dealings with him that he has issued instructions to some of his more abrasive types to go slowly, lest “the Americans” become unhappy with his methods. I am also told that in discussing various programs or projects he has complained to his listeners that the presence of the Consulate forces them to observe greater circumspection than before.2
These allegations concerning such an unwarranted and reluctant deference to us are, while flattering, somewhat surprising, for I assure you that I do not consider it within my province to define “democracy” for local officials or to comment on the quantity of this element that is present in or absent from local administrative practices. Rather, such comments as Can might make along the above lines are more likely attributable to his peculiar character, his quirks and foibles, and his general fear of strangers.
However, in discussing Can’s reported reactions to our presence here, my source, a well-educated and senior government official, stated that the regional budget for psychological warfare in Central Viet Nam was some $150,000,000 this year and that for social action only $20,000,000. He also confirmed reports of a subverted communist-denunciation campaign that got out of hand in otherwise calm Quang Nam Province not long ago and resulted in the arrest of over 1,000 people, some of whom were brutally beaten and tortured. These two factors—a lopsided budget for continued regimentation of the populace and one instance of the abusive employment of the power generated by this overemphasis—certainly justify our wondering whether dividends are still to be expected from the uncompromising and expensive campaign that has taken place in the area for [Page 5] more than two years now, or whether the present almost perfect security can really be improved upon. If Ngo dinh Can’s alleged reactions are the result of misgivings that the Consulate is coming to the belief that the point of diminishing returns or even negative returns has been reached, and that the efforts and resources devoted to all the many indoctrination campaigns might better be diverted to more rewarding endeavors, then his fears are well justified.
Respectfully yours,