It should be possible to hate an unjust war while still giving respect to the individual soldiers who were caught up in it _ ordinary Kiwis who were doing their duty as they saw it.
With today's Crown apology to New Zealand's Vietnam veterans, it seems we may officially have come
to that point.
It's taken 30 years, but the veterans may finally have the recognition they had been seeking.
On one hand it means so little.
In a climate of conscience-salving gestures such as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology for the "lost generations", today's announcement could be seen as another empty display aimed merely at currying favour. The damage can never be repaired.
However, as with the Australian apology, the very act of it seems to mean so much to those who have been wronged, and it is the sheer historic symbolism of it that is important.
Interestingly, New Zealand's Vietnam veterans see it as key that the apology is made in the House. The consider it vital that the country's record of history be put straight in a very specific way: As they point out, there are many negative discussions of the Vietnam campaign in the Hansard Parliamentary records _ including the findings of two inquiries that rubbished claims the soldiers had been damaged by toxic defoliants used by the US military.
Now, they want the Hansard notes to spell out for future generations that the Vietnam veterans were vindicated and acknowledged at last.
Of more practical use was last year's Government announcement of a $30 million compensation package for veterans and their families affected by chemical warfare.
That followed the select committee finding, as late as 2004, that there was direct proof of New Zealand soldiers being exposed to cancer-causing toxins in Vietnam.
Acceptance of the health effects on veterans and their children should never have taken so long. Add to that the shameful way in which returned soldiers were treated by the general public, and it is clear that these servicepeople were themselves among the victims of the Vietnam war.
Editor, Laura Franklin
