ORIGINS - Spring 2021

Page 1

ORIGINS


ORIGINS Contents The Impact of French Colonisation on Vietnamese Culture French Colonial rule in Vietnam France’s long-standing debt to Vietnam The First Indochina War Ho Chi Minh- A life of five names Who was responsible for the 1963 coup? Vietnamese and American Propaganda in the Vietnam War 1968: An exploration into Guerrilla Warfare, the Tet Offensive and the My Lai Massacre How significant was French imperial rule in Vietnam in causing the US’s withdrawal in 1973? Agent Orange and illegal American Warfare: Impact of the Vietnam War on the North and the South The Vietnamese: invaders or saviours? The Corruption of the Government and the Downfall of Freedom of Speech by 1998 in Vietnam A History of Vietnam’s Political Economy Vietnam’s two-child policy in 2008 Modern day cyber censorship in Vietnam The South China Sea Islands and its ongoing disputes The development of the trade relationship between the US and Vietnam Vietnam’s Success Against the Coronavirus Pandemic


ORIGINS Editors’ Note Origins is North London Collegiate School's History and Politics publication that was taken over in 2018 by co-editors, Elisa Remme and Talya Samji. Established five years ago by Saibhan Bains and Maria Sigrid, with the help of Mrs Brown and Dr Goward, Maria Sigrid approached us with the opportunity to revive Origins, and we were quick to agree. Our goal is to help others learn more about the history of a country that is not covered in the school curriculum and to spread the knowledge that we have gained through researching and writing these articles. For each edition, a new country is selected, and the history, politics and foreign affairs of that country is broken down and covered by a writer. Previously, we have selected Cuba and South Africa and have covered the events in the past 150 years, which have led the country to exist as it does now. We hope that you learn something new and enjoy this edition as much as we have enjoyed making it! Elisa Remme and Talya Samji With many thanks to our writers: Zahra Ahmad

Kitty Liss

Fope Akinyede

Alexandra Morgan

Keira Cummings

Emilia Ord

Schuyler Daffey

Karel Ohana

Sophie Empson

Katie Pannick

Charlotte Fox

Emma Pollet

Megan Grewal

Maheria Abid Rashid

Nitya Kapadia

Lara Rivilin

Jemima Lee

Aria Banerjee Watts

Front cover: Mary Qurban A special thank you to Miss Holley who made this possible!

If you would like to get involved in the next edition, please either email remmeelisa@nlcs.org.uk or samjitalya@nlcs.org.uk


ORIGINS Significant Dates 1858 - French colonial rule begins. 1930 - Ho Chi Minh founds the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP). 1941 - ICP organises a guerrilla force, Viet Minh, in response to invasion by Japan during World War II. 1945 - The Viet Minh seizes power. Ho Chi Minh announces Vietnam's independence. 1946 - French forces attack Viet Minh in Haiphong in November, sparking the war of resistance against the colonial power. 1950 - Democratic Republic of Vietnam is recognised by China and USSR. 1954 - Viet Minh forces attack an isolated French military outpost in the town of Dien Bien Phu. The attempt to take the outpost lasts two months, during which time the French government agrees to peace talks in Geneva. Vietnam is split into North and South at Geneva conference. 1956 - South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem begins campaign against political dissidents. 1957 - Beginning of Communist insurgency in the South. 1959 - Weapons and men from North Vietnam begin infiltrating the South. 1960 - American aid to Diem increased. 1962 - Number of US military advisors in South Vietnam rises to 12,000. 1963 - Viet Cong, the communist guerrillas operating in South Vietnam, defeat units of the ARVN, the South Vietnamese Army. 1964 - Gulf of Tonkin incident: the US says North Vietnamese patrol boats fire on two US Navy destroyers. US Congress approves Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorising military action in region. 1965 - 200,000 American combat troops arrive in South Vietnam. 1966 - US troop numbers in Vietnam rise to 400,000, then to 500,000 the following year. 1968 - Tet Offensive - a combined assault by Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army on US positions - begins. More than 500 civilians die in the US massacre at My Lai. Thousands are killed by communist forces during their occupation of the city of Hue. 1969 - Ho Chi Minh dies. President Nixon begins to reduce US ground troops in Vietnam as domestic public opposition to the war grows. 1970 - Nixon's national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, and Le Duc Tho, for the Hanoi government, start talks in Paris.


ORIGINS 1973 - Ceasefire agreement in Paris, US troop pull-out completed by March. 1975 - North Vietnamese troops invade South Vietnam and take control of the whole country after South Vietnamese President Duong Van Minh surrenders. 1976 - Socialist Republic of Vietnam proclaimed. Saigon is re-named Ho Chi Minh City. Hundreds of thousands flee abroad, including many "boat people". 1979 - Vietnam invades Cambodia and ousts the Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot. In response, Chinese troops cross Vietnam's northern border. They are pushed back by Vietnamese forces. The number of "boat people" trying to leave Vietnam causes international concern. 1986 - Nguyen Van Linh becomes party leader. He introduces a more liberal economic policy. 1989 - Vietnamese troops withdraw from Cambodia. 1992 - New constitution adopted allowing certain economic freedoms. The Communist Party remains the leading force in Vietnamese society. Taken from BBC Vietnam Profile Timeline


ORIGINS Map of Vietnam


ORIGINS The Impact of French Colonisation on Vietnamese Culture Vietnam is a small country in south-east Asia enriched with a beautiful culture very different to our own in the western world. One major turning point in Vietnamese culture was the formation of French Indochina in, which was made up of what is now known as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. French Indochina was formed in October 1887, after the Sino-French War, in which France was successful in fighting China for power over Vietnam. Once France had taken control over Vietnam, its culture immediately began to alter. Although the Vietnamese government has attempted to remove any sign of French rule since its declaration of independence in September 1945, French influences throughout the country are still very apparent; Vietnam was under the control of France for so many years that French culture has become a part of its own. The influence of the French is clear in the Vietnemese cuisine. Before the French colonisation, Vietnam had a relatively diverse cuisine, with the main source of influence being China, as they are neighbouring countries, and so ingredients and even specific dishes, such as wontons, were passed to Vietnam from China. The cuisine was also based on the idea of a balance of five different elements – bitter, salty, sweet, sour, and spicy, as well as a balance of ‘warm’ and ‘cool’ ingredients, but not in a literal sense that would be obvious to western tasters. However, nowadays, many of Vietnam’s national dishes are just Vietnamese versions of French dishes, that have been modified in order to make use of local ingredients. For example, ‘banh mi’ is a type of sandwich that emerged as the Vietnamese took on the French tradition of baking baguettes, but instead of using plain flour, they use rice flour to make the dough, as rice flour is widely available in Vietnam. The reason why cuisine in Vietnam changed during the French colonisation of Indochina is that the traditional Vietnamese food was not fit to the taste of the French colonists and their families, and they wanted a cuisine that was more similar to their cuisine back home. An example of economic exploitation which led to a change in Vietnemese culture, was interestingly coffee. Before Vietnam was taken over by France, the preferred hot drink was tea, just like it was in China. However, when France first came to Vietnam, they brought coffee with them, and later discovered that the climate there was perfect for growing coffee beans. This led to many coffee bean plantations being set up, and coffee was quickly integrated into the Vietnamese culture. Similar to how Vietnamese baguettes are made with rice flour rather than plain flour, Vietnamese coffee is drunk cold with condensed milk as a sweetener, rather than hot with no milk, like the French usually drink it. However, the reason for this is not to make use of local ingredients like it is for the baguettes, but instead because the type of coffee drunk by the French was so different to the basis of Vietnamese cuisine that instead of fully accepting the coffee as it was presented to them by the French, they modified it to fit their own taste. Today, even though Vietnam is an independent country, it is the second largest coffee exporter in the world, and as well as being a huge part of their culture, it is vital to their economy. The French influence in Vietnam can also be seen in religion. One of the original reasons why France wanted to colonise Indochina, alongside the economic reasons, was to spread Christianity: the French leaders of Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity believed that they had a sacred duty to spread their religious beliefs into other countries and eliminate nonChristian religions. Before Vietnam was taken over by France, Vietnam was officially atheistic, with the main religions being Vietnamese Folk religion (which is a set of local worship traditions devoted to multiple gods, rather than an organized religion) and Buddhism. Even though today Vietnam still identifies as an atheist country, due to the French missionaries, Christianity has become more popular in Vietnam, with 7% of the Vietnamese population labelling themselves as Christian today, as a result of Christianity being passed down through generations. It is not


ORIGINS uncommon in Vietnam for people to wear the Catholic cross or have a shrine for Jesus in their home in addition to their ancestor altar, which is part of a Vietnamese tradition where people worship their late ancestors. This tradition is upheld due to the belief that deceased ancestors continue to live in another realm, and will give advice and bring good fortune in return for offerings made at the altar. Christian holidays in Vietnam have their own Vietnamese traditions, for example, for Christmas, people attend a midnight mass on Christmas eve and then return home for a Christmas dinner, consisting of duck rather than turkey. The introduction of Christianity in Vietnam is also reflected in the architecture. Some of the most famous buildings in Vietnam today are churches, for example, the Notre-Dame Basilica in Saigon. The architecture of the churches and other buildings in Vietnam are also clearly influenced by the French colonisation of Indochina. Before the colonisation of Vietnam, the architecture was designed to both fit in with Vietnamese folk customs and protect people from wild animals, and so buildings often took on the shape of a boat or a tortoise shell, with decorative roofs. Now when visiting Vietnam, many of the building features include symmetry, columns, and arches, which are all also common in French architecture, although it had to be modified in order to fit the climate in Vietnam, which is very different to that in France. Overall, there are many differences in Vietnamese culture before and after the French colonisation of Indochina, which include changes in cuisine, religion, and architecture. While much of France’s influence is still visible in different aspects of Vietnam’s culture, since Vietnam has become an independent country, it is slowly gaining back some of its beautiful, original culture and character. By Charlotte Fox


ORIGINS French Colonial rule in Vietnam The decision to invade Vietnam was made in July 1857 by Napoleon. France adopted a principle called ‘mission civilisatrice’ which loosely means ‘civilising mission’ in an attempt to justify colonisation. French imperialists held the view that it was their duty to colonise these underdeveloped areas around the world and to “enlighten” them through modern ideas. They believed that these places would remain “uncivilised” and “backwards” without their involvement. However, France’s main goal was not actually to “help” Vietnam, but profit and economic exploitation. France took over all areas of the administration, Vietnamese bureaucracy was void of any real power. Vietnamese emperors were also removed and were replaced by those who were loyal to France. France took huge advantage of Vietnam’s natural resources with rice, coal, rare minerals and rubber being the main products. There were huge numbers of Vietnamese people working in these industries, but because the main aim of this expansionism was profit for France, very little was reinvested into Vietnam’s economy. This economic “progress” which was created through this colonial system only benefited the French and the very small group of wealthy Vietnamese. Workers on these plantations in French Indochina (the group of French colonies in South East Asia in general) were known as ‘coolies’, a derogatory term for Asian labourers. They worked exhaustingly long hours for barely any money and some labourers were even paid in rice instead of money. The conditions were dreadful, and it was not unusual for several workers to die on any given day. The French tyre manufacturer, Michelin, were notorious for having extremely horrendous conditions for their labourers and between the two world wars, one plantation recorded 17,000 deaths. This exemplifies the abysmal conditions that these Vietnamese workers had to operate under for extremely little if any wages, and to enable the French to line their pockets. Whilst there were clearly numerous issues with French colonialism in Vietnam, there were some benefits for the Vietnamese people as well, the most evident being the improvement of education. Primary schools were opened by French ministers, officials and some families where they taught both French and Viet languages. A number of Viet students were also provided scholarships to study in France. However, this progress was only in cities as there was no attempt to help educate the children of farmers. Furthermore, the curriculum at said schools was used to emphasise the necessity of French control by stressing the supremacy of French values and culture. This demonstrates how France did not actually want to “educate” Vietnam and its people but solely wanted to establish control and exploit their resources. Yes, France did help progress education within Vietnam; it was not available for everyone and French officials were not concerned with making it accessible to as many people as possible, but ultimately it was all self-serving. As time progressed, increasing numbers of Viet citizens resented French rule as quality of life in cities had declined and huge numbers of people were forced to take low-income jobs working in factories or coal mines. This led to huge numbers of people turning to nationalistic hopes for independence as they realised that France was exploiting both Vietnam’s resources and people. By Emma Pollet


ORIGINS France’s long-standing debt to Vietnam On 7th May 1954, after a four-month siege led by Vietnamese nationalist, Ho Chi Minh, French colonialist forces were forced to surrender at Dien Bien Phu; a defeat that was the figurative death knell for French colonialist influence in Vietnam. The Geneva Accords of 21st July, 1954, concluded the war, and effectively excluded France from the country, decisively ending an era of French Vietnamese domination. But the process of decolonisation in Vietnam was far from facile; in fact, it was an elaborate, drawn-out affair that lasted just short of a decade, and involved the Vietnamese people having to go to war to rid themselves of the yoke of French influence. The destructive nature of colonisation in Vietnam, and the lengths that the Vietnamese people had to go to, to achieve decolonisation raises the question as to whether France is morally obligated to compensate Vietnam in the present. Indeed, the notion of a ‘colonising debt’ is one that is particularly significant, due to the legacy of colonialist influence most often being one of destruction and subjugation; one that is seared even now into the culture and emotional landscape of a country. The desire for decolonisation in Vietnam was driven in large part by reaction to the atrocities of colonialism on the native people. The habitual argument in favour of colonialism suggests that the colonialist influence brought with it improvements in education, transport, infrastructure and medical care. This is proven erroneous, however, by the fact that in 1939, less than 15 percent of all school age children received any form of schooling, and 80 percent of the population was illiterate. The economic improvements lauded by some were likewise not beneficial to the majority of Vietnamese people, having only profited the small class of wealthy Vietnamese created by the colonial regime. The lack of civil liberties, and the exclusion of the Vietnamese from the modern sector of the economy (particularly trade and industry) similarly served to repress the native population. Vietnamese land was seized by the French and collectivised into large rubber and rice plantations, on which local farmers were forced to labour under appalling conditions. French colonists also imposed a range of taxes on the local population, and placed monopolies on important goods. Indeed, France became notorious for its callous attitude towards the Vietnamese people; Robert D. Shulzinger asserts that France’s “rule was often incompetent, usually inconsistent, and regularly harsh”. Is it any wonder then, that Vietnam wished to regain its freedom? This treatment, in addition to traditional Vietnamese resistance to foreign rule (in the 10th century AD, Vietnam succeeded in overthrowing Chinese imperialism), served to create a strong independence movement in Vietnam, advocating for immediate decolonisation. Although the anti-colonial movement in Vietnam existed as early as the establishment of French rule, with guerrilla groups composed of individuals from defeated armies, the resistance did not properly gain traction until after the Second World War. Previously, there had been resistance movements on a smaller scale. In 1908, for example, the Vietnamese people held mass demonstrations demanding tax reductions, a phenomenon that occurred in multiple cities. Yet it wasn’t until after Japan’s surrender in World War II that Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent of France; a step that heralded the beginning of the First Indochinese War. The presence of an enormous crowd gathered in Hanoi’s Ba Dinh Square, applauding the proclamation, demonstrated that decolonisation was driven by popular support. Indeed, the fact that the Vietnamese people were willing to go to war for their cause is indicative of an overriding desire for independence, and serves to demonstrate even more acutely the extent of French tyranny and oppression.


ORIGINS The process of decolonisation was far from painless. After the Viet Minh declared Vietnam an independent state, French forces opened discussions with the Viet Minh, but the talks collapsed in 1946. Despite signing an agreement on 6th March 1946 that declared Vietnam a free state, the French navy bombed the Vietnamese city of Haiphong on the 23rd of November, killing thousands of people in a bid to reclaim power in Northern Indochina. In response, the Viet Minh attacked the French districts of Hanoi, resulting in dozens of casualties. This was the beginning of a brutal eight-year war, in which both sides would suffer enormous losses, under which the very fabric of Vietnam would be altered irrevocably. Evidently, decolonisation was a violent event that wreaked immense destruction on both the people and the land. Chinese and American intervention, aiding the Vietnamese and French forces respectively, further escalated the conflict, by supplying both sides with weapons, equipment and instructors. As Vietnam became a battleground for rivalling ideologies, one might argue that the meaning behind the conflict was lost, which was essentially to gain independence for the Vietnamese population. Ultimately, it is irrefutable that French colonialism in Vietnam served to disenfranchise and suppress the native population. France’s actions cannot be justified, and thus certainly it owes a debt to the Vietnamese population for the crimes inflicted upon them. The difficulty and violence required to remove French influence similarly contributes to this debt. The importance of discussing the idea of a ‘colonising debt’ cannot be understated. We must ensure that as a society, we recognise the wrongs perpetuated by colonising nations in the past to guarantee that the same does not occur in the present. By Schuyler Daffey


ORIGINS The First Indochina War It is a common misconception that the end of the Second World War provided peace for the entire world, and that the Cold War was an entirely non-violent conflict. However, this view is incredibly Eurocentric, as we forget that there was violence in other parts of the world that were encompassed in the realm of the Cold War, and the First Indochina War can be viewed as a starting point. Firstly, the causes of the war must be discussed in order to fully understand its consequences, and I would argue that the overarching cause of the First Indochina War would simply be the opposition to the return of French rule and the desire for independence. At the Potsdam Conference 1945, it was agreed that Indochina (an area of land encompassing parts of modernday Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) would be included under British rule, but they were eventually overrun by the French who were not prepared to abandon their interests in Vietnam. This created a significant clash in interests – the French wanted to re-establish full colonial rule over Vietnam while Hanoi (the Capital of Vietnam) was keen to ratify their independence. As we have seen with multiple other wars and conflicts, clashing interests are prone to turn violent, and this is exactly what happened in November 1946 when the French naval vessels attacked Haiphong and caused numerous civilian casualties. The national independence force, known as the Viet Minh and led by Ho Chi Minh (who was to later become the leader of Vietnam) did not abandon their goals, and employed guerrilla tactics to fight back. The French were subsequently defeated by the Viet Minh. One of the key questions that arise with the First Indochina War is why the French were so brutally defeated. I believe that there is no outstanding factor that can definitively answer this question, but rather the combination of different factors together. Firstly, the French seemed to ignore one of the main reasons for the cause of the war, which was the desire for independence from the Vietnamese. They fought as if Vietnam were already theirs, without considering that Vietnam had a strong incentive to create a strong opposition. Additionally, the Viet Minh were heavily aided by China starting in 1949 (due to the start of the communist regime in China), which greatly helped them improve their guerrilla warfare. However, I would argue that while this factor was definitely significant in the result of the First Indochina War, its significance was limited due to the fact that President Eisenhower stepped in to aid the French due to his longlasting fear of the ‘domino effect’ (a fear of the spread of communism). However, the key battle that decided the fate of the conflict was the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in late 1953. This battle revealed that the French forces were no match for the Viet Minh, especially as the Viet Minh now had the overwhelming support of the Vietnamese people. They cut off all the roads to Dien Bien Phu, and it slowly became obvious that the French had entered this battle with too much confidence, and the French government sought an agreement with Vietnam in the 1954 Geneva Conference. The 1954 Geneva Conference proposed a change that would later become one of the long-term causes of the Vietnam War. Due to the fragmented state of the remains of the French Empire in Vietnam, the country was split into two – the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the State of Vietnam, as well as establishing the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Laos. Not too long after in 1954, the tricolore was lowered for the last time at the monument Hanoi Citadel, symbolising the end to Vietnam’s colonial rule once and for all. However, on a more international scale, people were already starting to realise that South Vietnam seemed to be more like a remnant of the French Empire, while North Vietnam adopted radical communist ideologies. Thus, the end of one brutal war was simply the start of another disastrous conflict.


ORIGINS Graham Greene’s The Quiet American is an example of the media’s response to the end of the First Indochina War and French decolonisation in Vietnam. I believe that it is important that we delve into literature that discusses matters such as these, as otherwise we end up studying conflict without realising the violence and cruelty that was encompassed within it. We cannot detach the study of conflict with the sensitivity we need when approaching it, and I found this particularly pertinent when looking at the First Indochina War. By Alex Morgan


ORIGINS A Ho Chi Minh – A life of five names Ho Chi Minh, the face of Vietnamese nationalism and resistance, was one of the most influential communist leaders of the 20th century, and his accomplishments have shaped the trajectory of global politics post- World War Two. As the founder of the Indochina Communist Party, his life was devoted to the pursuit of freedom for Vietnam and to the introduction of Communist rule. His vision and skills positioned him as the President of North Vietnam from 1954 until his death in 1969 and his work is forever honoured in the name of Vietnam’s largest city, Ho Chi Minh city. But before this immortalisation, his varied career passed through 4 namings, each part of a distinct stage in his influential life. Nguyen Tat Thanh, The Accomplished Ho Chi Minh was born as Nguyen Tat Thanh in 1890 just after Vietnam had become part of French Indo China- French Imperialist forces had occupied Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 1987. Not much is known about his early years, but the first record of nationalist influence in his life is his father’s dismissal from his post as a scholar at the imperial court (Vietnam was still nominally under the rule of an Emperor) for criticising French rule. He was able to obtain a good education at a grammar school in Hue, a city in central Vietnam, and reportedly became a school master and was apprenticed at a technical institute in Saigon in the early years of his working life. Ba The details of Ho Chi Minh’s travels in his adult life are somewhat hazy, but it is estimated that he spent at least a decade abroad. In 1911, he left Vietnam for the first time on a French steamer. He spent over three years on the ship as a cook under the name Ba, and he travelled widely, visiting cities across the world in Europe, Africa and North America. After his years at sea, he lived in London from 1915-1917 and then moved to Paris, where he worked in a number of jobs: gardener, sweeper, waiter, photo retoucher and oven stoker. Most importantly, his time in France was the start of his political career. Nguyen Ai Quoc, Nguyen the Patriot Ho Chi Minh lived in Paris until 1923 under the name Nguyen Ai Quoc. There, he began his anti-colonial movement by gathering a group of Vietnamese living in France. Notably, Ho addressed the representatives of the Great Powers at the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. In an eight-point petition, he demanded that those living in Indochina be granted equal rights with its French colonial rulers. While this was barely registered by the peacemakers at the conference, he became a hero to any politically conscious Vietnamese. This was also his first contact with American leaders which would obviously be important later in his life. The next stage in his political career was co-founding the French Communist party in December 1920 on its breakaway from the Socialist Party. Chen Fang After his years in Paris, Ho went to Moscow for instruction under Comintern, Lenin’s organisation to promote worldwide revolution. Perhaps the most doubtful of all of his reported aliases, some sources report that he lived under the name Chen Fang during his time in Russia. He gained recognition for his moving tribute to Lenin after his death in 1924 and for his active role


ORIGINS in the Fifth Congress of the Communist International. Notably, he criticised the French Communist party for not putting greater effort into opposing colonialism. His speech at the Congress was also significant in displaying the translation of European Communist ideas into the societies of South East Asia- he discussed the importance of the revolutionary role of oppressed peasants, the main working class in Vietnam, as opposed to industrial workers in Russia. Ly Thuy Around this time, he also spent a number of years in China to help establish the resistance movement in Indochina. Under the assumed name of Ly Thuy, he travelled to Canton (modern day Guangzhou), a communist stronghold, and he formed the Vietnam Thanh Nien Cach Menh Dong Chi Hoi (Vietnamese Revolutionary Youth Association). Ho Chi Minh and his recruits, mainly all political exiles, formed the first home of Indochinese nationalism in their struggle against French colonial rule. However, the Chinese communists were expelled in 1927, and Ho fled to the USSR. He then went to Brussels, Paris and finally Siam (Thailand) where he acted as a representative of the Communist International in South East Asia. The Indochinese Communist Party In May 1929, members of the Thanh Nien formed the Indochinese Communist Party. Branches in some Vietnamese cities began work but others were reluctant to begin operations without Ho’s leadership while he was in Thailand. So, on account of the trust the Soviets placed in him, Ho returned from Siam and oversaw the founding of the party, called the Vietnamese Communist Party at the time. This name was changed on Soviet advice. Ho’s skills as a leader were clearly on display in this phase of his life- he managed the branches of the organisation skilfully and was pragmatic with his vision for revolutionary accomplishments. Importantly, he maintained a close relationship with Moscow, an important task for any Communist revolutionary at the time, and a hurdle at which some of his contemporaries fell. Ho Chi Minh, The Enlightened One The Japanese invasion of 1941 brought Ho Chi Minh home to found the Viet Minh, a communist independence movement. The weakening of French colonial rule with the Nazi occupation of France signalled an opportunity for rebellion, despite the new leadership of Japanese forces. Here, he adopted the name Ho Chi Minh, the Bringer of Light or Enlightened one. Unfortunately, when the organisation sought help from the Chinese government, Ho was imprisoned for 18 months as the Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-Shek, distrusted the validity of Ho’s commitment to communism. This displays again the conflict often seen between Ho Chi Minh’s nationalism and communist ideas. Uncle Ho A series of events led to the Viet Minh announcing Vietnamese independence from Japanese occupation and French rule at the end of World War Two. The next twenty years were full of conflict and failed attempts at treaties with the French. Throughout, Ho continued to work towards a liberated and unified Vietnam and notably was determined to use negotiation. This was challenged by the more militant amongst his followers. Until the early 1960s, Ho Chi Minh was leading the communist North against the American backed Communist South and was leading the government and negotiations, as well as crafting the highly successful military strategy of the North Vietnamese forces. By the end of his time in office, he had become less actively involved in leadership, but remained crucial to the movement as a symbol and had a cult


ORIGINS following comparable to that of other Communist leaders of the 20th century who affectionately called him Uncle Ho. In conclusion, it has been fascinating to consider the many stages of Ho Chi Minh’s life. His various successes as a Communist revolutionary in the 20th century are noteworthy, particularly because of the intersection of his work with other political movements. It must also be acknowledged that he not only launched a successful Communist movement but also resisted two occupying powers, Japan and France, as well as arguably leading the country to military victory against the greatest of the Capitalist countries, America. The Vietnam War is perhaps the greatest of America’s failures in the Cold War, and Ho Chi Minh can take credit for this defeat. This exploration of his life has shown us that while his various aliases are foggy at times, his importance to our understanding of 20th century colonial and political history is clear. By Aria Banerjee Watts


ORIGINS Who was responsible for the 1963 coup? The war in Vietnam was heavily influenced by the murder of the sitting president Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother (who was also a chief advisor Ngo Dinh Nhu) on the 2nd of November 1963. Prior to the death of the two brothers, the United States advised the government in South Vietnam on their next moves in their war against the ‘Viet-Cong’ and the government of North Vietnam. American influence was beginning to increase; however, they were not as concerned when assessing the next steps (the war against the North and South would continue) and were not prepared to deploy many more troops than were already stationed and training alongside the South Vietnamese army. However, American policy drastically changed in the wake of the murder of the President Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu, which can be seen solely from American participation in the war, as the number of troops involved would eventually reach more than 500,000. Furthermore, the murder of the sitting president in the United States, John F Kennedy, less than three weeks after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu, placed a new head of state in charge of the war policies. However, what was not clear to the public, was the information given to Kennedy prior to the Coup of Diem, as well as the CIA’s covert role. It is undeniable that the deaths of Diem and Nhu affected the outcome of the war in Vietnam, changing the course taken and speed of which the war escalated. As mentioned in The Pentagon Papers Volume 2 (pp. 201-276) the United States decided to encourage the overthrow of Diem, as they believed that more rebellious generals offered a greater prospect of winning the war, which was their main priority. Before the assassination of Diem, the United States tried to limit their involvement in Vietnam, in order to enable themselves to be involved in various countries as part of their attempt to limit the spread of communism and the influence of the USSR. However one could argue that in making the conscious decision to allow the coup to take place and tacitly support it, the U.S. inadvertently deepened its involvement in the conflict, therefore changing the course of the war. Diem’s Government had managed to alienate popular support after its repressive actions against the Buddhists, an intrinsic factor in the fall of the Diem-Nhu regime, therefore favouring the North Vietnamese as the victors in the conflict. However, when the military coup leaders emerged in the political landscape within South Vietnam, they chartered a manageable base of stable political support, and when it came time for the Coup against the Diem-Nhu regime, they were faced with little opposition. This transfer of power was riddled with instability, of which the U.S. assumed significant responsibility for the new regime, therefore evidence of a deepened involvement in the conflict. The beginning of the political unrest within the Diem-Nhu can be traced back to the regime’s violent suppression of a Buddhist demonstration on May 8th in which nine people were murdered and a further fourteen injured. This led to public outrage and a broadcasting of the Buddhist ‘struggle’ within Vietnam, subsequently sponsoring many protests by the public, performing acts such as defying the ban on flying the Buddhist flag, claiming religious and ethnic repression and discrimination. By the following June, it was clear to the regime that they were not faced with a minority opposition, but rather widespread insecurity and crisis in confidence in their leaders on behalf of the majority of the public. When this factor became clear, they worked with the Buddhists to ease tensions, but no concrete concessions were made by Diem. The outrage on behalf of the Buddhists in Vietnam called for a crisis in American foreign policy.


ORIGINS The U.S. entered the conflict with a policy of unequivocal support for South Vietnam’s struggle against North Vietnam, as well as Diem, which had previously been declared by the US as the only national leader of Vietnam capable of unifying the country in their battle against the spread of communism, but when the public disaffection for Diem persisted with no concessions made on behalf of Diem after repeated U.S. persuasions to repair his public image, the U.S, felt as though they had to change their course. Diem was not focused on his public image, nor was he swayed by numerous threats by the U.S. of their withdrawal of support, and after frankly humiliating attempts to get Diem to attempt an ‘Americanesque’ method of diplomacy, America decided to begin looking at possible outcomes of a military coup. It could be argued that this was the beginning of the crux of every problem involving the United States from 1945 to present day, and that the United States is a self-serving nation. Therefore tacitly condoning a military coup would place the new leader of Vietnam in a submissive position to the United States, open to manipulation and easier to control, in the face of Diem’s defiance. Not only can this be seen in Vietnam, but in over seventy-two covert operations set to meddle in foreign politics since 1945. Therefore, it is clear to see that the U.S. was a catalyst to the assassinations of Diem and Nhu, particularly because of vested personal interest. A quote, directly from the federal archives states ‘Aware of our fundamental commitment to him, Diem could with relative impunity ignore our wishes. It reversed the real power relationship between the two countries. Coupled with Diem's persistent and ruthless elimination of all potential political opposition, it left us with rather stark alternatives indeed when a crisis on which we could not allow delay and equivocation finally occurred.’ The matter seemed to be decided on the part of the Americans as to whether they would carry out the coup when, on the 12th of August, when Nhu ordered attacks resulted in the wounding of about 30 monks, the arrest of over 1,400 Buddhists and the closing of the pagodas, after they had previously been looted by the Army. By the end of August, the U.S. had come into contact with the rebel leaders performing the coup and had set the time in November for the coup to take place. Further, they made the decision to reiterate the NSC on the operation and the McNamara-Taylor report (appraisal of in the war on behalf of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and its American advisers against communism) meaning that all legal documentation showed no evidence of the United States encouraging the coup as it was a war crime. The overthrowing of Diem, without the involvement of the United States, was always a possibility, however their involvement and role as proprietor of the assassinations holds them responsible for the political instability that followed, as well as their loss in the Vietnamese War. By Zahra Ahmad


ORIGINS Vietnamese and American Propaganda in the Vietnam War American Propaganda in the Vietnam War: As President Eisenhower said: “Public opinion wins wars.” This reflects America’s approach to propaganda in the Vietnam War. The primary focus of American propaganda during the war was to improve public opinion by salvaging America’s image. In the autumn of 1967, the US government under President Lyndon Johnson began the propaganda campaign often referred to as the “Optimism Campaign”. This campaign gave 600 journalists access to military leaders and troops in Vietnam and enabled news outlets to relay information about the controversial war to the American public, however, the government imposed stringent guidelines regarding the information the media were allowed to release. The American government controlled the primary sources of information and focused on military success rather than failures. The Military Assistance Command officers in Vietnam, complying with orders that estimates of the North’s strength must be shown to be decreasing, reported that the North’s strength had depleted to 225,000 men in January just before the large scale Tet Offensive. In actuality, communist forces were far larger than disclosed. Years after this propaganda campaign, the same officers were asked again to estimate the scale of enemy forces in January 1968 and they deliberated it to be at least 287,000 men. Furthermore, in all public statements given by government officials, language with any negative connotations was censored so as to not hurt public opinion. Famously, during the Vietnam War, the United States coined the term “collateral damage” to describe killed or wounded civilians in an attempt to reduce humanity and pathos by the American public. These propaganda techniques, which concealed the truth of affairs in Vietnam, did partially work as displayed by the “Gallup Poll” which asked participants “Do you think the U.S. and its allies are losing ground in Vietnam, standing still or making progress?” The proportion of those who answered “making progress” increased from 35% in July 1967 to 50% in December 1967. Despite the government’s campaign efforts, President Johnson had to deal with opposition to the Vietnam War from the public. Propaganda could only do so much, and when protests broke out in the mid-sixties, Johnson tried to quash any dissenters by directly sending people to confront protesters. Beginning in 1965, anti-war protests on college campuses began to attract attention. The first of these protests occurred in the University of Michigan in March of 1965. Other universities also replicated their own resistance movements. In response to these protests, the government sent out “truth squads” in attempts to dispel the protests. However, this was largely ineffective as the protests had picked up momentum and a large proportion of American citizens agreed with the movement. America also harnessed propaganda to target their enemies in North Vietnam by harming their morale. America heavily bombed North Vietnam during the war, they then released millions of leaflets to its citizens stating that the bombing would cease if they surrendered. Over four days in February 1966, 20 million leaflets were dropped over North Vietnam in a huge propaganda campaign. The US also dropped radios on North Vietnam which were programmed to only broadcast South Vietnamese stations to inundate the public with pro-South messages. They wanted to sway public opinion in favour of the capitalist South. Another method which was utilised was the unloading of toys, clothing and food over North Vietnam to show its citizens that the South’s alliance with America was propitious. It is debated whether these methods of propaganda were effective as they did not precipitate surrender.


ORIGINS Here are some examples of leaflets the US dropped over North Vietnam:

This leaflet shows an image of the My Dac Bridge which was attacked and destroyed on 22 April 1965. It says: “Compatriots of the North coming south to threaten and conquer our people should realise: If Communist North Vietnam continues its warlike invasion of the South, then we must continue bombing every part of North Vietnam.” This widely distributed leaflet has a clear and threatening message to the North Vietnamese which would evoke desperation and instil fear because the Americans heavily bombed North Vietnam and it was clear that they would not stop until they surrender. The leaflets did also take a softer approach instead of fear-mongering by promising a better future if North Vietnam surrenders:

For example, this leaflet shows peaceful scenes and says: “If Communist North Vietnam stops its destructive warfare in the South, then the land will be peaceful and prosperity will be achieved in both South and North Vietnam. There will be improvements and prosperity everywhere. It will allow every young man and woman to be well educated. It will permit everybody to be well provided with food throughout the year.” In such desperate times for the citizens of Vietnam, this leaflet would have greatly appealed to them and their wish for a better future. Vietnamese Propaganda in the Vietnam war:


ORIGINS Vietnamese propaganda was very different to American propaganda, its purpose predominantly was to raise morale and explain the nationalist cause to the Vietnamese people. North Vietnamese artists were essential in spreading Communist ideology to the front line to inspire soldiers and reach Vietnamese people in both the North and South. The main form of propaganda was posters and many artists from Vietnam went to the USSR to study Soviet propaganda. Drawing inspiration from that, the artists created many motivational posters appealing to the public’s sense of nationalism. A recurring symbol in propaganda posters during the Vietnam War was Ho Chi Minh who played an integral role in Vietnam’s struggle for independence against Japan and subsequently France. Many people regarded him as a father-like figure and he was commonly referred to as “Uncle Ho”.


ORIGINS

The poster above which depicts Ho Chi Minh amongst lotus flowers translates to: “I am waiting for my country”. This message alongside a greatly revered leader would have motivated the public to fight against the US for their country. Moreover, the bold red and gold colours in this poster are emblematic of Communism and highlight Ho Chi Minh in a star resembling a halo, further presenting him as a great leader. The imagery of lotus flowers which is present in many posters would have inspired a sense of pride and nationalism amongst the North Vietnamese as it was the national flower of Vietnam. The poster above depicts a young woman holding doves with the flag of the Vietcong in their beaks. The message says: “Victory is ours”. This image is one of the most widely renowned pieces of propaganda in the Vietnam war due to its striking imagery. It presents an idealistic future for Vietnam of peace which the doves represent. The fact that the flag of the Vietcong is in the doves’ beaks shows the belief that the North Vietnamese’s plight was a noble cause for eventual peace and reunification. Lastly, the bold message would have inspired action from many civilians and given them hope for the war. By Emilia Ord


ORIGINS 1968: An exploration into Guerrilla Warfare, the Tet offensive and the My Lai Massacre 1968 was a year of major developments in the Vietnam War, beginning with the violation of a New Year’s Peace Treaty by the North Vietnamese People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and ending with a casualty total of approximately 305,000 troops from the Anti-Communist forces and 120,000 troops from the other, much smaller Communist forces. The Viet Cong, the Communist guerrilla force, used guerrilla warfare in order to level the playing field against the much larger anti-Communist forces, which were comprised of mostly South Vietnamese and American soldiers. Guerrilla warfare is the use of knowledge of the landscape in order to avoid open battle with the enemy, where, due to the South’s superior technology, the North would have been decimated. Furthermore, this tactic also involves the launching of raids and surprise attacks, before disappearing into the undergrowth. A 200-mile tunnel system was created under the orders of Ho Chi Minh in order to aid the guerrilla fighters in travelling across the land without being spotted by the aboveground American troops. These tunnels weren’t merely means of travelling, they were essentially military bases. The jungle terrain was often boobytrapped with spikes and grenades, and the tunnels often were misleading, such as false chimneys created to hide cooking spaces. The Viet Cong had experience with this tactic, having used it in their fight against the Japanese and French after World War Two. The American troops were at a disadvantage as they were used to fighting in open spaces and the Viet Cong were ordered to avoid open battles with the Americans where they would have the advantage. The use of small units and tactics of ambush and sabotage meant that the VC maintained a hold on the countryside and left the larger population centres to the government authorities. On January 30th, the PAVN and Viet Cong decided to change tactics, launching an offensive now known as the Tet Offensive due to it commencing on the first day of the Vietnamese new year, Tet. The Viet Cong attacked 13 cities in South Vietnam and, 24 hours later, a further 120 attacks took place, the most ambitious being that on the US Embassy in Saigon. During this incident, a Viet Cong platoon managed to break in before it was destroyed by the US. Despite the element of surprise, the Viet Cong forces were spread too thin for a strong offensive and were successfully countered by the US and South Vietnamese troops, striking a crushing tactical blow to the North. It was an attempt by the North Vietnamese leaders to end the stalemate between the North and South by rousing support and discontent in the South, which in turn would bring down the South Vietnamese government and army. They also hoped to prove to the US that it could not win the war. By moving away from their classical guerrilla tactics and attacking the South, the North’s troops ended up playing to their enemy’s advantage. The American organisational, technological, and logistical superiority was clearly evident in the high numbers of communists killed and the total of 24,000 weapons captured. Furthermore, the South had rejected the North’s attempts at galvanising a revolution. However, it greatly eroded American public support for the war as the US death toll increased to over 500 a week during the initial phase of the offensive. As the casualties continued to rise, public support began to wane, which wasn’t helped by the role of the US media. The US media helped foster the belief in North Vietnamese strength and aggression, and the Tet Offensive produced some of the most powerful images in the media. Photographers such as Eddie Adams helped bring the brutality of the war to the front page of international newspapers.


ORIGINS On March 16th, the My Lai massacre took place. It is one of the most horrific events of violence against unarmed citizens during the Vietnam War. Charlie Company, part of the American Division’s 11th Infantry Brigade, slaughtered more than 500 people who lived in the small village of My Lai, killing nearly all inhabitants. Young girls and women were raped and mutilated before being murdered. The soldiers of the company had been warned that all found in the Son My area were considered Viet Cong or sympathisers and were ordered to destroy the village. The soldiers, led by Lieutenant William Calley, found no Viet Cong in the village, and despite finding only a few weapons in the huts, Calley ordered the villagers to be shot. All who tried to escape were gunned down and huts were set on fire, with those inside shot if they tried to flee. The massacre continued until Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his aircraft between the troops and the fleeing villagers, threatening to open fire if the company continued their attack. He and his crew aided dozens of survivors by flying them to receive medical care. American officers covered up the brutal carnage for a year until it was reported in the American press by Ron Ridenhour, a soldier in the 11th Brigade who had only heard reports of the massacre. He began a campaign to bring it to light, writing letters to President Nixon, the Pentagon, several congressmen and many more. After receiving no response, Ridenhour gave an interview to journalist Seymour Hersh who published the story in November 1969, a year and a half after the slaughter had taken place. By Keira Cummings


ORIGINS How significant was French imperial rule in Vietnam in causing the US’s withdrawal in 1973? Vietnam experienced generations of oppressive and exploitative French imperial rule that began in the late 19th century. Vietnam’s experience as a colonial possession was similar to that of other colonies; there was an absence of civil liberties for the native population, and attempts by the French to impose ‘civilization Francais’, which ultimately stifled Vietnamese culture. French occupation was beneficial for the elite; social discrepancies grew as land ownership became concentrated amongst a small class of the wealthy and this began to create an attraction amongst ordinary Vietnamese for the socialist ideology. Vietnam also had another imperial experience: the invasion of imperial Japan during the Second World War. This invasion was significant as in response to another imperial attempt the League for Independence was created, under its leader with socialist sympathies - Ho Chi Minh. After the war and in the tense climate of the Cold War in the 1950s this leadership became increasingly threatening to the US, who perceived Minh as a Communist menace, something which would lead to their withdrawal in 1973, as they failed to realise that he was a leader far more committed to Vietnam’s independence than creating a communist state modelled on China. The US, in the atmosphere of McCarthyism, was hysterical about the expansion of Communism, they feared the prospect of a Vietnamese satellite state, of what Cuba had become in 1965, and in this fear would then wage war against an enemy whose purpose for fighting they failed to fully grasp. When the French were finally driven out of the country after losing the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and Vietnam was split at Geneva that same year, the US was even more alarmed by this perception of a Communist threat. President Eisenhower gave his support to the antiCommunist leader of the South and under Kennedy soldiers were sent to ‘advise’ Southern troops. This intervention paved the way for complete military involvement and was a mistake as the US were globally criticised for behaving like an imperial power, engaging in affairs that did not directly involve them. This comparison had a striking affinity to the earlier French and Japanese colonisers and in turn made the Vietnamese response even more relentless and unyielding; they possessed experience battling imperialists, and the superpower US with large global influence must have seemed similar to European colonisers. Part of the US’s inability to understand Minh’s leadership and aims for full independence and not solely his socialist sympathies was their commitment to preventing Communism’s expansion. In fact, their foreign policy had been changed to containment in 1947 as part of the Truman Doctrine to prevent the USSR spreading Communism; many countries in Eastern Europe had become a soviet buffer zone and the US sought to prevent more countries from falling to Communism also. This policy of containment was why President Johnson’s Defence Secretary McNamara encouraged intervention in Vietnam because of the possibility of a ‘Red Asia’ if Communism continued to spread, as they believed it would if Vietnam continued under Minh’s leadership. Containment encompassed the ‘domino theory’, the idea that if one country fell to Communism others would also, and this is what the US was averse to. Yet, as this article has previously argued, the US was wrong to assume that Minh was primarily dedicated to a Communist state and fighting America neo-imperialism, rather than Capitalism. Containment, therefore, was not needed so urgently as the US perceived and their limited view would lead to US withdrawal in 1973 because the Vietnamese fought with unyielding determination against more oppressors who sought to undermine their independence.


ORIGINS Proof of this military resolve was the Tet Offensive of 1968 launched by the North. Although the US and their Southern allies eventually crushed it, its initial success cast doubt on the US’s imminent victory. Furthermore, it became evident the US was not fighting a newly formed Communist force of a small country, but rather a group whose commitments to Vietnam’s liberation stretched back decades and were deeply rooted from when it was colonised by the French. This led to withdrawal as the US were not able to sustain this war, it drained over $100 billion whilst more than 58,000 US soldiers were killed; the North were relentless in the fight against these US ‘imperialists’ which the legacy of the French had created. Of course, other factors such as protests within the US and the disproportionate selecting of draft cards contributed to America’s withdrawal as it became too much of an unpopular war, but a fundamental reason for their withdrawal was the legacy of the French imperialists. As this article has contended, the French impact cannot be undermined as it shaped the events of the 1950s; the rise of the League of Independence (a coalition body which fought and campaigned for Vietnamese independence) had socialist sympathies and was threatening to the US, which meant that the French retreat led to the US becoming far more involved. This involvement was fuelled by the view that Minh was solely dedicated to Communism when in reality he cared far more for Vietnam’s independence and this nationalist effort forged the relentless battle of the North as it had a deeply rooted ideology, something the US had not anticipated. Therefore, the significance of French rule in causing US withdrawal is greatly significant, as the US were fighting a war in the legacy of the imperialists they represented to the North and they themselves failed to grasp the true meaning of the conflict to their enemy. By Kitty Liss


ORIGINS Agent Orange and illegal American Warfare: Impact of the Vietnam War on the North and South Despite the Vietnam war ending nearly 45 years ago it is still a topic of discussion in today’s society; films and books, both fiction and non-fiction, ensure that the lasting effects and impacts of the war are not forgotten. However, the popular media’s coverage on this war, particularly in the Western world, remains considerably one sided, focusing on the American people and veterans and their experiences. For example, two of the biggest films this year related to the Vietnam war: ‘Da 5 Bloods’ and ‘The Trial of the Chicago Seven’, were both primarily about the experiences of American soldiers, civilians or veterans. Whilst the war had a great impact on American society, it can be argued that the Vietnamese people’s stories are equally important, if not more. Unfortunately, the impacts of the war on Vietnamese civilians are often overlooked in Western media because if they were properly acknowledged, it would result in the US government having to wholly acknowledge and atone for its war crimes in the Vietnam war. Undoubtedly, American warfare was responsible for the majority of the devastation and destruction that so many local Vietnamese people experienced during the war and long after, and this article seeks to illuminate the direct effects of the war on both North and South Vietnamese citizens. When in 1965 US troops arrived in Vietnam, they soon realised that the jungles provided ideal hiding places for the Viet Cong and that rice paddies and rural villages were good sources of food and supplies for them. To eradicate the enemy’s useful sources the U.S. military bombed the South Vietnamese countryside using airplanes and heavy artillery for many years. Although the USA’s allies were the South Vietnamese people, it didn’t stop the US military from using more than 14 million tons of explosives during the war, predominantly the bombing was concentrated on the South Vietnamese countryside - American planes dropped more than twice as many bombs as US forces had used during World War II, all on an area about the size of California. On average the USA used 142 pounds of explosives per acre of land. The facts and figures expose the extent of the destruction caused by America bombing, however, the personal devastation that occurred is often lost in these unfathomable numbers. Tragically, not only did the bombings result to many deaths, but those who managed to survive the annihilation of the farms and villages in the countryside, became homeless refugees (after their families had lived there for generations). Subsequently, many of these people fled to the cities, and ended up living in makeshift refugee camps in Saigon because four million Vietnamese (one-fourth of the total population of the South) were fleeing to the outskirts of cities and towns and moreover, sixty percent of the population lived in urban areas, meaning the cities were not equipped to handle the huge number of refugees. Edward Doyle and Stephen Weiss write in A Collision of Cultures: Americans in Vietnam, 1957–1973 that "There were insufficient housing, sanitation, transportation, social services, and jobs to accommodate the tens of thousands of newcomers who settled in each month,”. With job prospects being as bad as living standards for the refugees, many of them were forced to participate in illegal activities to earn money. An estimated 500,000 South Vietnamese women became prostitutes during the war. Many of these women were poor peasants who had no other way of feeding their families. There was also an active drug trade in Saigon during the war and they were sometimes sold by children on street corners. Many South Vietnamese found these illegal jobs more attractive than a legal one because ultimately a woman who worked as a prostitute could earn more money in a week than her peasant family would usually earn in a year. These people formed a new, privileged urban class which upturned the structure of Saigon society. Suddenly, construction workers and drug dealers made significantly more money than policemen and soldiers in the South Vietnamese army. This created a city of people with distorted morals and values in the city as they began to prioritise jobs that would enable them to


ORIGINS purchase luxuries, even if these jobs were illegal or immoral. Many blame American influence for this and there is a reason that in his book ‘Vietnam: A History’ the renowned historian Stanley Karnow commented that ‘The United States, motivated by the loftiest intentions, did indeed rip South Vietnam's social fabric to shreds.” Families were torn apart, children were corrupted, young men were mutilated, the prostitution of women occurred and all this was caused by a country ruined by war and the society would continue to feel its effects for generations. Unfortunately, the story was no different in North Vietnam. Whilst it didn’t face as much destruction from bombing (the US military still dropped one million tons of bombs on North Vietnam during the war), it experienced illegal American warfare in a different way. Between 1961 and 1971 the US military sprayed a range of herbicides across more than 4.5 million acres of Vietnam to destroy the forest cover and food crops used by enemy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. The most infamous herbicide the USA used was called Agent Orange, it was deadly because it contained dioxin in the form of TCDD, so it had immediate and long-term effects and is universally known to be a carcinogen. In addition, to the environmental devastation, 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. The effects are still evident in the modern world, Vietnam claims half a million children have been born with serious birth defects, while as many 2 million people are suffering from cancer or other illness caused by Agent Orange. In 2004, a group of Vietnamese citizens filed a class-action lawsuit against more than 30 chemical companies, including the same companies that settled with U.S. veterans in 1984 over the same issue. The case was dismissed in 2005 and in a final appeal in 2008 it was rejected again by another US court, understandably this outraged Vietnamese victims. However, the harsh truth is they will never receive reparations from the US government because as Fred A. Wilcox, author of Scorched Earth: Legacies of Chemical Warfare in Vietnam, told the Vietnamese news source VN Express International, “The U.S. government refuses to compensate Vietnamese victims of chemical warfare because to do so would mean admitting that the U.S. committed war crimes in Vietnam. This would open the door to lawsuits that would cost the government billions of dollars.” At the hands of illegal American warfare the lives of both North and South Vietnamese were destroyed and it altered Vietnamese society for generations. The bombings and utilisation of herbicides were only part of a much more upsetting picture; victims of war were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. This war’s impacts will be felt by the Vietnamese people for decades. By Megan Grewal


ORIGINS The Vietnamese: invaders or saviours? Pol Pot was the political leader of the Communist Khmer government which led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Though this seems like a relatively short period of time, the damage and destruction that the regime wreaked on Cambodia led to it being regarded as one of the most barbaric and murderous regimes in recent history. The Khmer Rouge’s main aim was to socially engineer a classless society through a so-called ‘agrarian revolution’ which directed its aim at city residents, intellectuals, civil servants, religious leaders and the ethnic Vietnamese. During the time that Pol Pot was in power, an estimated 1.5-2 million Cambodians died of disease, starvation, overwork or execution, which was around a quarter of Cambodia’s 7 million person population at the time. A prime example of the cruelty of the government was the S-21 detention centre - only 7 out of the roughly 20,000 people there are known to have survived. Vietnam’s invasion in 1978 of Cambodia, or Democratic Kampuchea as it came to be known under Pol Pot’s regime, was preceded by several events that galvanized Vietnam’s army into action. It is important to note that Vietnam and Cambodia have historically been enemies, which can be attributed to Vietnamese occupation which lasted up till the mid-1800s. However, in the years leading up to the war, their diplomatic relationship was tumultuous and featured a period of time in which North Vietnam aided the Khmer Rouge, supplying them with weapons and training in 1971 and a further 4,000 tons of weapons and ammunition in January of 1975. The collaboration between the two countries broke down due to the Khmer Rouge’s fear that the Vietnamese communists had never given up their dream of creating an Indochinese federation with Vietnam as the leader. This led the Kampuchean government to invade the Vietnamese island of Phu Quoc in May 1975 and claim it as part of Democratic Kampuchea. The forces continued onwards, occupying Tho Chu, another Vietnamese island, where they executed around 500 civilian residents. The justification for the raids was the Khmer Rouge rhetoric of conquering lands that had historically been part of the Khmer Empire. By the end of May, however, Vietnamese forces had mobilised and eventually recaptured both Phu Quoc and Tho Chu, pressing on to invade the Kampuchean island of Koh Poulo Wai. The island was returned to Kampuchea in August 1975 and Kampuchean sovereignty over the island was formally recognized. Relations between Democratic Kampuchea and Vietnam improved somewhat in 1976, in part because of Pol Pot’s preoccupation with internal challenges to his leadership and, in May, a year after the Khmer Rouge’s first attempted to invade Vietnam, Democratic Kampuchean and Vietnamese representatives met in Phnom Penh in order to establish a commission to resolve border disagreements. As well as this, throughout 1976 there was an exchange of official “messages” between Kampuchea and Vietnam congratulating and supporting various statements. In July 1976, following the establishment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a reunified country, Phnom Penh Radio even went so far as to broadcast a commentary which proclaimed the "militant solidarity and friendship between peoples of Democratic Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam grow constantly greener and sturdier". However, this tentative peace was not to last and, with Pol Pot back in the forefront of the regime in 1977, the situation rapidly fell apart. This was mostly due to both countries’ leadership harbouring private suspicions of the other which inevitably led to a deterioration of their diplomatic relations. From the Vietnamese perspective, it was vital for them to exercise some sort of control over Kampuchea seeing as they viewed themselves as the driving force behind the communist revolutions throughout Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, in Phnom Penh, the Kampuchean leadership had developed a fear and hatred of the Vietnamese leadership as a result of Vietnam's historical dominance over their country. From the Kampuchean perspective, the


ORIGINS Vietnamese strategy to dominate Indochina involved infiltrating the communist parties of Kampuchea and Laos with Vietnamese-trained cadres. Incidents escalated along all of Democratic Kampuchea’s borders, meaning that alongside Vietnam, Thailand and Laos were also on the receiving end of the Khmer Rouge’s brutality. In retaliation to the renewed attacks on the villages in Vietnam’s border areas, Vietnam launched airstrikes against Democratic Kampuchea. In September, Kampuchean artillery struck several Vietnamese villages, alongside this Kampuchean infantry overran villages on the border. Shortly afterwards, the KRA (Kampuchean Republic Army) continued their advance into Thailand, resulting in as many as 1,000 Vietnamese civilian casualties. The following month Vietnam counterattacked in a campaign involving 20,000 personnel. With a further 58,000 reinforcements, Vietnam was able to march through the province of Svay Rieng, stopping just short of entering the provincial capital. Despite the threat the Vietnamese retaliation posed, the Kampuchean government remained defiant and on December 31st 1977, Democratic Kampuchea “temporarily” severed all political and diplomatic relations with Vietnam until Vietnam withdrew. A week after this statement was released, on January 6th 1978, the Vietnamese forces, led by defence minister General Vo Nguyen Giap, retreated from Democratic Kampuchean territory (only 38 kilometers from Phnom Penh) having been unable to achieve Vietnam’s political objective; the Khmer Rouge remained unwilling to negotiate seriously. During the withdrawal, the Vietnamese army was able to evacuate thousands of prisoners and civilian refugees from Kampuchea. Instead of being sobered by the Vietnamese show of force, the Kampuchean government boasted that the Vietnamese withdrawal was a major victory for Democratic Kampuchea. Early in 1978, following their attack, the Vietnamese leadership again attempted to destabilise the Khmer Rouge’s regime, this time from within Democratic Kampuchea, supporting internal resistance which led to the Eastern Zone becoming a focus of rebellion with Pol Pot labelling the region a “nest of traitors”. This, in turn, led to an intensification of massacres of ethnic Vietnamese and their sympathisers in the Eastern Zone. On 12 April 1978, the Kampuchean government declared that Kampuchea and Vietnam could negotiate again if the Vietnamese gave up their ambitions of expanding and recognised Kampuchea's sovereignty. However, there was also a pre-condition requiring Vietnam to meet several obligations through a seven-month trial ceasefire. The Vietnamese government immediately rejected this demand. In response, on April 18th 1978, the Khmer Rouge sent forces across the border into south-Western Vietnam, attacking the village of Ba Chuc and massacring 3,157 civilians. As 1978 wore on, the aggressive actions of Democratic Kampuchea in the border areas finally surpassed Vietnam’s threshold of tolerance. A military solution was looking more and more like the only viable option at this point. Vietnam soon amassed 150,000 soldiers, well-supported by heavy artillery and airpower, and launched a full-scale invasion on Democratic Kampuchea on December 25 1978, gaining control of Phnom Penh less than two weeks after, on January 7th 1979. And by January 10th, three days after the successful coup, Vietnam created a puppet government called the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, a socialist state aligned, unsurprisingly, with Vietnam and its ally the Soviet Union. Following their takeover of Cambodia, Vietnam consequently occupied it for a decade. Despite constant pressure from the international community, it was only in 1989 that Cambodia was truly ‘liberated’- with Vietnamese forces withdrawing completely following the Paris Peace Agreement. It’s important to note that while in control of Cambodia, Vietnam was decidedly kinder to its population than the Khmer Rouge, who are infamous for their strict, Communist regime. Vietnam ran Cambodia like a colony, with every decision having to go through the


ORIGINS Vietnamese government and, in the early portion of the occupation, having a Vietnamese “minder” sitting in on every meeting held with Kampuchean officials. Perhaps the most damning evidence of all was that even after they had been ‘liberated’, many Cambodians fled to refugee camps in Thailand fearing the installation of yet another Communist government. There is still controversy today over whether Vietnam was in the wrong to invade, by all accounts they were provoked and were justified in retaliating, yet the fact that they occupied the country 10 years after ‘liberating’ it lends some credence to the view that the Vietnamese were invaders. Whilst this may be true, were they not also liberators? Did they not overthrow Pol Pot, remove the Khmer Rouge regime - a regime that pioneered an attempted genocide of its own citizens? Do they not somewhat deserve to be regarded as saviours by, not only Cambodia but also the wider international community? Now, armed with the facts, it’s up to you to decide on where you fall in this debate. By Lara Rivlin


ORIGINS The corruption of the government and the downfall of freedom of speech by 1998 in Vietnam From 1997 to 1998, there was a financial crisis that spread across the whole of the Asian continent. Vietnam was particularly affected by this crisis, and their economy suffered greatly with FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) falling from $1.78 billion in 1998, to $921 million in 1999. This resulted in public grievances, as people blamed the government for the economic downfall and the hardships the country was facing. The government solution to this public discontent was to blame individuals, especially in matters of corruption and abuse of power, in attempts to redirect public attention. One famous incident was the trial of a senior party member, Pham The Duyet, a politician who faced charges of corruption. The punishment for corruption became very heavy, despite the Vietnamese government itself being corrupt. This was due to weak legal infrastructure, financial unpredictability, and conflicting and negative bureaucratic decisionmaking. All of this had an adverse effect on the government’s tolerance of freedom of expression. By the end of 1998, Vietnam had formed close relations with China; the Prime Minister of Vietnam traveled to China in November. This further influenced Vietnam’s government system to be modelled after China, encouraging Vietnam to follow in their footsteps even more in the way that they responded to economic problems and governmental corruption - by cracking down any public dissent. By 1999, political unrest in Vietnam had increased, and many people were dissatisfied with the freedoms and civil rights that they were granted by the government. In 1999, Tran Do, who was a senior member of the Communist Party at the time, was expelled after publicly calling for democracy and freedom of expression. This demonstrates how dire the situation was, the Vietnamese government was going to extreme lengths to conceal any public opposition to their ruling. There were many ways in which the government limited freedom of speech and expression in 1999. For example, the Vietnamese media was owned and controlled by the state. Any publications that were not compliant with the government’s wishes in what they wanted to be published, were taken down and any other newspaper and radio outlets were shut down. The government especially did not want anyone to report on the high-levels of corruption within the regime, so when a well-known newspaper editor did exactly this, he was detained and imprisoned for over a year. The government also announced plans to regulate local internet use to increase control within the nation and track users’ actions online. Another way the government controlled and limited freedom of speech was through their strict rulings on assemblies. All group meetings required a permit to be legal and groups were strictly banned from discussing any political issues. There was also a law which states that advocating for political change was illegal. All of these examples limited the opportunity for any form of opposition to exist under this Vietnamese government. The laws implemented alongside fear of the government were the main reasons there were very few opposition groups. There was one form of opposition to the government; human rights groups, which complained that the government was a direct obstacle to practising basic human rights. However, these groups were not prominent and had little impact on the Vietnamese people and against the government. Overall, the Vietnamese government were hypocritical about issues concerning corruption; they scapegoated individuals guilty of this crime and punished them very harshly to divert public


ORIGINS attention away from the economic mismanagement by the government. The Communist Party of Vietnam paralleled and modelled its government to China which had weak legal infrastructure, which led to governmental corruption. This resulted in an immensely unhappy population. However, no one was able to complain openly about this as it was a public offence. So, the greater the political and economic problems faced by Vietnam became, and the more corrupt the government became, increasing the public need for freedom of expression to criticise the government and expose these difficulties to the world. By Katie Pannick


ORIGINS A History of Vietnam’s Political Economy The Growth of Vietnam’s Economy After reunification in 1975, Vietnam’s economy was largely centrally planned, albeit with a considerable informal sector. Private trade and manufacturing were nationalised and collective farming meant most citizens were not permitted private agricultural plots. In 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam launched a political and economic renovation campaign, known as Doi Moi, which would promote a multi-sectoral economy, open door policies, and recognise private property rights spearheading 25 years of change. This was intended to engender a smooth transition from the previously centrally planned economy to socialist market mechanisms, otherwise referred to as a “market-oriented socialist economy under state guidance”. Actual implementation of Doi Moi did not begin until 1988, when a deepening economic crisis and declining support from the Soviet Union incited the government to slash spending, encourage foreign investment, and liberalise trade. Effectively, this saw a move from the old Confucian view which favoured “educated scholars serving the government” to fostering a culture of entrepreneurship. By 1994, over 17,400 entrepreneurial firms started up. The 1987 Law on Foreign Investment permitted a surge of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) into Vietnam, reaching 10% of GDP in 1994. Indeed, the macroeconomic stability derived from Doi Moi meant Vietnam was the largest FDI recipient among developing countries and economies in transition, relative to the size of its economy. It is important to note that realpolitik was a significant contributing factor to policymaker’s introduction of market features. The growth of price and market mechanisms came as a result of incremental change over three decades. Hence, there was no radical shift in power structure. Early examples of liberalisation include the normalisation of illegal trade sanctioned by local officials, which was habitually carried out by managers of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). These clandestine approvals created markets for otherwise illicit commodities, whilst opening up the labour market to official positions that controlled these activities. Indeed, it was often SOE managers and local officials who would lobby senior party peers to accept market changes. Beyond the reduction of SOEs, agriculture was decollectivized, and fixed prices and subsidies were ended. These liberal measures saw the output of food staples per capita increase sufficiently (approximately 1.2 million tonnes were exported) for Vietnam to become the world’s third largest exporter of rice in 1989 after a half century of decline. Vietnam successfully reconfigured its trading partners from fledgling ex-communist countries to new partners such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. GDP growth averaged nearly 8 percent annually through the 1990s. This was accompanied by a rapid reduction in poverty, more political openness, and cultural diversity. Notwithstanding the unequivocally positive effects of economic restructuring, it must be acknowledged these play a significant role in Vietnam’s primary economic challenge today- that of how to address its ‘missing middle’, or the shortage of private medium-sized enterprises. As Beresford comments in ‘Doi Moi in Review’, “The sheer rapidity of change…presents some serious challenges concerning the way forward…Few non-Vietnamese observers appear to think that socialism is any longer relevant to the Vietnamese case.” However, there has been a marked lack of progress in unwinding state economic ownership.


ORIGINS The Vietnamese aphorism: ‘SOEs are your son, FDI enterprises are your mistress’s son, and private enterprises are somebody else’s son’ pithily encapsulates the country’s challenges with broadening the economy to address the missing middle. More than 95 percent of Vietnamese companies are small-scale, and they struggle with structural lack of access to credit and land. Foreign investors often have more bargaining power when negotiating with local governments on taxation and access to land. Thus, it is difficult for SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) to compete, and a lack of internal competition over the past decade has resulted in larger export-focused FDI enterprises, which have little incentive to establish business rapports with domestic firms. This is compounded by the effects of an ever-opening international economy. Vietnam’s various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and international trade arrangements make it difficult for the government to extend subsidies or special treatment to its SMEs. The contrived relationship between export-focused industries and the rest of the domestic economy further imperils Vietnam’s macroeconomy. Consequently, Vietnam has struggled to reap the full benefits of its impressive trade and investment performance. Vietnam’s economy today Vietnam’s economic and social potential is underpinned by its progress in key human development indicators, including maternal health, electrification, and literacy. Whilst in 1993, more than half of the population lived in ‘extreme poverty’, today only 3 per cent do, with more than 40 million people coming out of poverty over the past two decades. With its Chineseinspired Confucian emphasis on education, Vietnam achieved the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education in 2015, with a net enrolment of 99 percent. Vietnam is one of Southeast Asia’s most eminent economic performers. with favourable demographics- a population of 90 million and a growing middle class-, good income distribution, and attractive human capital compared to similar countries. It has attracted considerable FDI, including a record US$15.8 billion in 2016, up 9 per cent from 2015. This has spurred growth in the production of crude oil, light manufacturing, and tourism. Technology multinationals such as Intel and Samsung, are large investors in the country, with Samsung assembling nearly one-third of its smartphones in Vietnam. Mobile phone handsets now make up 20 percent of Vietnamese exports. The country is also the second-largest supplier of apparel to the United States, Japan, and South Korea. During the 2000s, Vietnam’s GDP per capita increased by an average of 7.9 per cent per annum. Since 2010, annual growth averaged 6.5 per cent and in 2016 reached 6.4 per cent. After joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007, Vietnam’s exports more than trebled from US$45 billion in 2006 to US$190 billion in 2016. Over the same period, merchandise trade as a share of GDP expanded from 127 per cent in 2006 to 173 per cent in 2016. According to the IMF, “To maintain growth and raise its quality, Vietnam needs to modernize economic institutions”, notably in terms of fiscal and monetary management. They point towards continued tightening of credit policies, developing capital markets, and building a modern market infrastructure to help enhance the financial sector’s ability to support sustainable growth. Further, as highlighted above, they state the “Recapitalization of Vietnam’s state-owned commercial banks should also be a priority”. Vietnam’s population will be aging rapidly in coming decades, making deeper reforms in the pension system now a priority. In Vietnam, the dependency ratio is expected to double in the


ORIGINS next 25 years, and replacement rates (the percentage of an individual's annual employment income that is replaced by retirement income when they retire) are around 70 percentsignificantly higher than the 54 percent average for countries in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Retirement ages are also low, at 55 for women and 60 for men - far below both the OECD and other Asian countries’ averages. Thus, among the policy changes now under discussion in the National Assembly are raising the retirement ages to 62 for men and 60 for women. Although reforming pensions is an arduous process as they take decades to complete, the IMF recommend that the National Assembly should start as soon as possible to ensure long-term sustainability. Continued monitoring and reforms will be needed to ensure that vulnerable groups are adequately protected from aging and other risks. By Karel Ohana


ORIGINS Vietnam’s two-child policy in 2008 What was the two-child policy and why was it implemented? The goal of the two-child policy was to maintain national population growth at 2 percent. This policy applied to every family within Vietnam, except for families that were ethnic minorities, who were allowed to have a third child. In 2008, 86 million people lived in Vietnam, two thirds of whom were under the age of 35. Faced with this baby boom, the government in Vietnam feared that this would cause negative economic and social impacts on the future of Vietnam. In the first nine months of 2008 there was a 10% rise in birth rates from the previous year, sparking official alarm, calling for the two-child policy to be enforced. Is this policy familiar to the people of Vietnam? In the 1960s, the same two child policy was introduced in the north of Vietnam, and punishments were enforced to lower the population of the country. For example, payment cuts were given to couples who had a third child. However, following the Vietnam War these restrictions were gradually eased and the population of Vietnam began to grow steadily once more. The policy came into effect for the second time in the 1988 when many of the Vietnamese officials feared that a population boom was on the horizon. The policy was abandoned in 2003 as there was a question of whether this policy violated the principles of family planning. Following this, it was replaced by the Vietnamese government’s encouragement of a “smallfamily norm”. According to UN sources the fertility rate has since fallen back to 2.1, and in most East Asian countries there has been a rapid fertility decline in recent decades to two children or fewer. So in short, the two child policy was successful then. Was it successful? Since the reintroduction of the two-child policy in 2008, figures from Vietnam’s General Office showed that there was a population of 90.5 million people in 2014, but the birth rate in certain provinces had been falling over four years. In 2015 at the National Assembly session in Vietnam, during discussions of whether Vietnamese parents should be allowed to have more than two children, the Head of the General Office for Population Family Planning Mr. Nguyen Van Tan said “If the birth rate gets too low it can be difficult to raise it again, we have seen what has happened in many nearby countries such as South Korea and Japan.” This poses the question of whether this policy should be relaxed, as it is still in place today, and population researchers in Vietnam have provided three separate scenarios for Vietnam’s population size. In the first scenario, if the birth rate continues to fall with the policy, the country’s population will be 99 million by 2049. In the second scenario, if current birth rates are maintained, the population will be between 105 and 110 million by 2049. In the third, with the policy relaxed, the population will be 120 million by 2049. Whilst opinions differ on these three scenarios, Mr Tan commented “Vietnam still needs to control its birth rate but how to do this appropriately without reducing the birth rate is a problem.”


ORIGINS

A table showing summary statistics of women’s birth cohorts in Vietnam, ethnic majority versus ethnic minority: Censuses

Census 1989

Census 1999

Census 2009

Ethnic majority

Ethnic minority

Ethnic majority

Ethnic minority

Ethnic majority

Ethnic minority

1.83 (2.05)

2.23 (2.31)

1.93 (1.63)

2.40 (1.93)

2.19 (1.19)

2.8 (1.60)

No child

38.62

33.69

22.2

18.31

7.79

5.41

One child

14.65

13.2

20.45

16.36

15.01

9.74

2 children

15.87

14.37

27.25

24.31

45.04

34.81

At least 3 children

30.86

38.74

30.1

41.02

32.16

50.04

Percent employed

0.76 (0.42)

0.91 (0.29)

0.79 (0.41)

0.91 (0.29)

0.867 (0.33)

0.96 (0.20)

Mothers’ age

25.35

24.69

35.36

34.86

45.12

44.41

Number of children Percent having

How does this compare to China’s one-child policy? China had been actively influencing its population growth for several years, beginning after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. China’s population was encouraged, by officials, to grow to increase manpower, and although no official policy was put in place, government propaganda condemned contraceptives, and as a result the population doubled over the next twenty years. However, this did not come without consequences.


ORIGINS Due to the population’s rapid increase, food supply became scarce and from 1959 to 1961 a famine killed an estimated 15 – 30 million people. As a result, the government introduced a onechild policy, and if the people did not adhere to the policy, they would face the possibility of sterilisations, abortions, and similar to Vietnam’s two-child policy – they would be fined harshly. There had been several initiatives for birth control before the one-child policy was introduced, which had achieved large reductions in the national birth rate. Despite this, the large drop began to level off after 1976, prompting officials to seek more drastic measures, and in 1979 the Chinese government officially established their one-child policy. In contrast to Vietnam’s two-child policy, the Chinese government increased the legal age for marriage in China to 22 years for men, and 20 years for women with the hope that this too would help to decrease the birth rate. The birth rate in China fell from 1979 onwards, and the rate of population growth dropped to 0.7%. Although this seemed positive, due to traditional cultural preference for boys, large numbers of female babies ended up homeless or in orphanages, and in some cases they were even killed. In 2000, it was reported that 90% of foetuses aborted in China were female. As expected, this had drastic effects on the gender balance of the Chinese population, and today it is estimated that men outnumber women by more than 60 million. To conclude, when looking at the figures and percentages from both Vietnam’s two-child policy and China’s one-child policy, it is clear to see that the actions of both of the country’s governments were effective, as they both achieved their aims: to decrease the birth rate. Personally, I believe that Vietnam’s approaches to tackling the increase in birth rate in all of the years 1960, 1988, and 2008, were more effective in the long term than China’s approach. However, the situation in China was significantly more concerning than Vietnam, and as today China has a population of 1.4 billion, and Vietnam 95.54 million, it is clear that China had a much larger scaled problem than Vietnam. It can be said that the crisis in China in 1951 could perhaps be looked at as an example of what the situation in Vietnam would have been, had the Vietnamese government not taken any action. By Jemima Lee


ORIGINS Modern Day cyber censorship in Vietnam As to be expected with a communist regime, it is no secret that the Vietnamese government restricts many basic civil and political human rights. Despite the inaccurate depiction of its human right records painted by Vietnam at the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Vietnamese human rights are largely under threat. Over the last decade, although Vietnam has become a less repressive society, human rights in Vietnam have seen little improvement and continue to be significantly restricted. Freedoms that comply with the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, of which Vietnam, a UN member state, is subject to, such as the rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the right to freely practice beliefs and religion are frequently violated by the Vietnamese government. In spite of the minor improvements seen in recent years, the end of the decade saw a surge in prisoners of conscience – political or religious prisoners- so it is clear that human rights will continue to be a serious problem in Vietnam. Control of media is integral to the Communist government of Vietnam. According to the 2018 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, Vietnam ranks 175 out of 180 countries. The most recent Vietnamese Constitution states that "The citizen shall enjoy the right to freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, of access to information, to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations. The practice of these rights shall be covered by the law." However, whilst there is legal recognition of these freedoms, in reality, they are rarely acted upon. Censorship of the media is part of the everyday life of a Vietnamese person. According to BBC, there are only 8 news outlets, all of which are state run. Internet censorship in Vietnam prevents citizens from accessing website that criticize the Vietnamese government in any way which includes international human rights organisations. Content from Youtube, Google and Facebook are severely restricted. The so called ‘online police’ blocks ‘politically sensitive’ websites and are said to monitor online activity. In recent years, activist bloggers have caused the Vietnamese government strife, with at least 14 people put on trial in 2019 and sentenced to prison for “making, storing, disseminating or propagandizing information, materials and products that aim to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” Those who are not in prison ‘face regular harassment and intimidation’ according to the Human Rights Watch. Furthermore, in January of 2019, Vietnam enforced a new cybersecurity law that was deemed controversial by many. This new law vaguely described the government’s intentions to regulate data processing by technology companies and restrict the Internet connection of users who post ‘prohibited’ content. In short; it gives the government more discretion to censor free expression and tighten their grip on internet censorship. Although censorship is a main way in which the Vietnamese government attempt to control their citizens, many other human rights are violated in order to maintain control. Criticism of the oneparty regime is strictly prohibited in Vietnam and those guilty could face police intimidation, assault, detention, imprisonment for example. When put in custody, detainees can go for months without access to legal counsel and conditions in detention centres are less than ideal. In 2019, according to data from Radio Free Asia, at least 11 people died in custody with no investigation into these deaths nor an explanation. Enforced disappearances of political opponents are also not uncommon in Vietnam. Lastly, as with many communist regimes, despite religion being permitted in Vietnam, religious groups are constantly persecuted. Approval from the government and registration is required from all religious groups and they only operate under government-controlled management boards. Whilst there may be churches and Buddhist temples, they are primarily for show and to keep up appearances for tourists. Like many, those who identify within a particular religious


ORIGINS group are subject to public criticism, harassment, imprisonment, constant surveillance, renunciation of their faith and in more extreme cases; torture and detention. By Fope Akinyede


ORIGINS The South China Sea Islands and its ongoing disputes The South China Sea is the source of a multitude of disputes between its surrounding countries: Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, China, and Vietnam, Origin’s focus in this term’s issue. Tensions surrounding the sovereignty of islands, oil exploration, and fishing rights (to name some of the issues) has led to disagreement, and often conflict, of which Vietnam has been a frequent target. The area is immensely significant as one-third of the world's maritime shipping passes through it, with $3.37 trillion total trade passing in 2016, and is host to large potential oil and natural gas reserves, estimated at 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making competition inevitable, and it is clear why so many nations want access to these waters. Vietnam lays claim to the Spratly and Paracel Islands through their alleged occupation since the 17th century, but their sovereignty is challenged by China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei, all of whom (excluding Brunei) occupy some of the maritime features. China and Taiwan both declare ownership over almost the entire area, within what is known as the ‘nine-dash line’, a vague, undefined and highly controversial demarcation line as it lacks historical and legal support. Just one example of aggression transpires on the 2nd May 2014, when China established an oil rig near the Paracel Islands, violating Vietnam’s territorial claims. This resulted in a clash which repeated some months later, leaving seventeen Vietnamese injured and damaging ships on both sides. The ‘nine-dash-line’ has caused further conflict surrounding fishing in what Vietnam calls its exclusive economic zone in ‘the East Sea’ which has been home to Vietnamese fishermen for centuries. The obstruction and harassment of Vietnamese wooden fishing boats by China’s much larger steel boats, threaten what the Vietnamese say is a core resource on which at least 1.4 million of its 96 million population depend for their livelihoods. However, China is not the only threat; Indonesian campaigns against foreign fishermen resulted in the destruction of 23 fishing boats from Malaysia and Vietnam on 5 April 2016 and the death of a Vietnamese fisherman in late 2016, leading to protests in Vietnam. As well as fishing vessels suffering from Indonesian authorities, Indonesian pirates pose yet another challenge. Attacks and hijackings are common and also carried out by Filipino and Moro (an ethnic group in the Philippines) pirates in response to Vietnam is increasing military spending on the navy. Vietnam’s use of diplomatic protest and public statements are weak; with China’s increase in activity in recent years and Vietnam’s cancelation of several oil and gas development projects as evidence, a change in response needs to be developed if Vietnam is to become a serious contender. By Sophie Empson


ORIGINS The development of the trade relationship between the US and Vietnam Vietnam and the USA have had a rocky relationship in the past, stemming from ideological differences that influenced much of modern history in the latter part of the 20th century; a relationship stemming from the Cold War. The Vietnam War, considered a proxy war by many, lasted 19 years, and was a violent battle of communism versus capitalism, leading to the death of millions of soldiers and civilians, the damage of which can still be seen today. As the USA were effectively forced to pull out of Vietnam, the two countries shared no trade for almost two decades, with the White House extending the embargo that President Nixon had implemented. However, as time has gone on, diplomatic relations have evolved into an entirely new relationship, and as expected, these trade embargoes have changed. A trade embargo is a form of economic sanction, where a government prohibits the exchange of specific goods with another country. Typically, these are formed in times of unfavourable economic and political conditions between countries, as they can have severe consequences on a nation’s economy. In 1975, North Vietnam took over the city of Saigon in South Vietnam, and in retaliation, a trade embargo was put in place by America. For two decades, trade ceased to exist between the two nations. 19 years later, on the 3rd of February 1994, President Clinton made the monumental decision to lift the embargo, in efforts to reconcile the relationship of the two countries, and uncover the fate of American Prisoners of War who had not returned home after the USA removed itself from Vietnam. Even at the time, this had mix reactions back in the USA. Many businesses were eager for this to happen, as they were looking forward to expanding their companies to Vietnam and its surrounding nations. However, organisations that represented veterans and their families were appalled by this, claiming it was an insult to the sacrifices the soldiers had made. Additionally, this situation was not helped by the fact people thought Clinton was a ‘draft-dodger’, and had made open protests against the War. In 2000, Clinton became the first President to visit Vietnam since the War. In 2016, during the time of the Obama administration, the USA lifted the embargo on sale of arms to Vietnam, ending a 50 year ban. Whilst the White House insisted it was because they wanted further normalisation of relations between the two countries, many people thought it was because Vietnam has stood up to China’s influence in the region. Vietnam is one of the countries that is engaged in a dispute with China over islands in the South China Sea; this area is rich in oil and gas reserves. One policy of the US is the right to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Furthermore, Vietnam was a key player in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a USA-led trade deal, that was speculated to have been created to stand up to the growing influence of China in the region. Similar to 1994, there were mixed reactions to this decision. The Vietnamese President, Tran Dai Quang, stated, ‘At this stage, both sides have developed a level of trust and cooperation’, as well saying it was, ‘clear proof that both countries have completely normalised relations’. Likewise, Obama said it was, ‘our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process towards moving toward normalisation with Vietnam’. On the contrary, a Chinese state-run newspaper had a headline declaring, ‘Obama unable to turn Hanoi into an ally’. Many human rights activists were furious with this decision, as they believed that President Obama had given away their only leverage to demanding better rights for the political prisoners in Vietnam. Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch stated that “Obama has jettisoned what remained of US leverage to improve human rights in Vietnam – and basically gotten nothing for it,”


ORIGINS The future of relations between the two countries seems to be positive, with Vietnam being America’s closest ally in Southeast Asia, and the USA going the extra mile to vouch for Vietnam to improve its international standing. Similarly, their trade relationship is flourishing; the bilateral trade between them has grown from $451 million in 1995, to an estimated $81.3 billion in 2019. 2020 was a celebration of 25 years of diplomatic relations between the countries, suggesting that despite the unusual times we live in, this relationship, both economic and diplomatic, seems to stay strong. By Nitya Kapadia


ORIGINS Vietnam’s Success against the Coronavirus Pandemic Vietnam shares an 800-mile border with China, and trade across this border is essential to the Vietnamese economy. Although well established, it also suffers an under-developed healthcare system, much less so than European countries such as the UK. Its population of 95 million further facilitates its vulnerability to Covid 19 and compromises the country’s ability to emerge from the pandemic successfully. In spite of this, Vietnam suffered fewer than 1400 cases to date and experienced a total of 35 deaths. It is widely known that the pandemic in the United States became largely politicised very early on, with President Trump publicly expressing spite towards China for the virus’ origin there. The Trump administration’s narrative was skewed as they increasingly linked the virus to China. Throughout this, the proliferation of rumours and conspiracies on social media further diverted the pandemic from anything more than a health crisis. Vietnam, however, exercised effective and efficient governance by abstaining from any politicisation of the pandemic. In fact, the Head of Hanoi centre for disease control was jailed for 10 years for overstating the cost of Covid 19 equipment in an attempt to avoid the undermining of the healthcare sector and the anti-Covid 19 agency. A fundamental reason for Vietnam’s success is that it benefited from a more responsive society than wealthier countries such as the UK and US. Critically, the Vietnamese government had experience from the SARS pandemic of 2003 and the Avian Influenza of 2010. As a result, they knew the importance of acting promptly and were familiar with the measures and precautions that were vital to the suppression of the virus. The Vietnamese public themselves were also familiar with infectious diseases and the necessary measures that are required to combat a pandemic. They are certainly more compliant than citizens of the UK or US for example, where infectious disease is not as common. Wuhan announced its first death in January, after which Vietnam immediately took action, enforcing both flight control to and from China, and heightened security at their border. Crucially, the Vietnamese government did not rely on or await advice from the World Health Organisation to take action. Rather, they took appropriate action over a month before the WHO declared Covid 19 a pandemic. After news of the first positive case in Vietnam, all flights to and from Wuhan were terminated, and temperature screening and health checks were imposed at every border. All arrivals were taken directly from the airport to Vietnamese quarantine centres and schools were shut from the end of January through to mid May. On the contrary, other countries only implemented these measures months into the pandemic, wasting valuable time and costing lives. Vietnam also adopted a meticulous contact tracing strategy very early on in the pandemic. Selfisolation proved significant as evidence increasingly indicated that greater than half the number of cases are asymptomatic. This involved people in direct contact with any positive coronavirus case being traced, contacted and ordered to self-isolate in health centres and government facilities, avoiding further transmission. This system was so intrusive and rigorous that even indirect contacts were ordered to self-isolate at home, eliminating any possibility of transmission. The army carried out extreme sanitisation of infected households and neighbourhoods, effectively approaching the pandemic as ‘biological warfare’. Vietnam’s approach here is dissimilar to that of the UK, whose contact tracing system was implemented much further on into the pandemic. It is important to note, however, that Vietnam’s authoritarianism facilitated


ORIGINS compliance with this exhaustive approach, and, if emulated, would be comparatively ineffective in a democratic country. Whilst most European countries imposed a national lockdown, Vietnam adopted a localised containment approach, in which outbreaks were specifically honed in on, such as in Son Loi and Ha Loi, wherein the citizens were quarantined for 14 days, with no entry or exit out of the area until no cases were confirmed. Vietnam defeated the coronavirus pandemic not once, but twice, adopting the same excellent strategy in the second wave in July. Whilst they prioritised the Vietnamese healthcare system over the economy in the first wave, the government factored in the vulnerability of the economy during the second. In fact, Vietnam is one of the only countries to have a positive GDP growth during this pandemic. Cases initially emerged in Da Nang and rapidly spread to other cities such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Min City. This time, the Vietnamese government struck a balance between strict regulations taken to contain the virus and protective measures taken to avoid long-term economic damage. Measures were re-imposed locally instead of nationally, such as the shut down of transport in and out of the cities, closure of businesses, limits on numbers present in gatherings, and masks being made mandatory in public. As measures became more selective, specific international flights, such as those for work purposes, were made available. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s aggressive test and trace system continued nationally. Another key factor in its success was the ability of the Vietnamese government to establish excellent communication with the general public to both inform them about the virus, and to encourage them to follow orders diligently. Websites, telephone hotlines and phone apps were set up to update the general public on the pandemic and relay key information given by medical advisories. Reminders were regularly sent out to citizens via text messages to ensure that the national message was spread far and wide. The government also set up a propaganda campaign that utilised war motifs and patriotic images to unite the public against a common enemy, communicated through loudspeakers, street posters, press and social media. This militarisation of Covid 19 encouraged solidarity and collective action, placing a sense of responsibility on each individual and, in turn, prompting the public to co-operate with the government. Vietnam fundamentally seized its small window of opportunity to suppress the virus in its early stages by initiating preparation on a massive scale in early January upon learning of the new mysterious virus in Wuhan, even before any confirmed cases had arisen in Vietnam. Measures were selective yet rigorous wherever imposed, with governance remaining focused, coherent and transparent all the while, paving Vietnam’s path to success. By Maheria Abid Rashid


ORIGINS

“Nothing is more precious than independence and liberty.” ~Ho Chi Minh


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.