Not basic

And this is because in a process of negotiation the position advanced at the outset is never formulated as to be so basic to what is regarded as the point beyond which you cannot retreat. If there was, or had been, any meaningful consultation with Saigon, such an extraordinarily basic statement of position would have been effectively precluded.

Each side in any negotiation always begins by demanding its optimal objective as the direction of subsequent negotiations.

What Saigon has done is to dispense with any optimal policy and instead, insistently (and publically) repeat their only credible and non-retreatable position.

This not only encourages the belief that the Americans would actually settle for a coalition government, but also strengthens the position of Hanoi who will now be content to wait for this favourable settlement secure in their belief that the Americans will eventually come around.

So, rather than being ignored altogether, Saigon has elected to assume a posture of belligerent intransigence?meaningless if devoid of American support?which has played right into Hanoi's hands.

Saigon's generals will not, and cannot, accept a coalition government because such an occurrence would immediately signal the abrupt political demise of these men.

Thus their stance, rather than being particularly "hard", is instead the only one which the configuration of mobilised power within Vietnam will permit with the absence of the Americans.