Vietnam: Past, Present, and Future

[Musburger1]

A lengthy article is posted here. Link. I'd suggest reading the entire article (about a 30-45 minute read), but I'll copy an excerpt that I found interesting which kind of summarizes opposing rationales for the war from the Vietnamese perspective.

...Support from (communist) China for the Viet-Minh escalated tremendously, from weapons to advisors. Eventually the French were defeated at the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, by the Viet-Minh under general Vo Nguyen Giap. The Geneva Agreement was signed in July 1954 which partitioned Vietnam into communist North (The Democratic Republic of Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as Head) and anti-communist South (The State of Vietnam with Bao Dai as Head. He was eventually dethroned in 1955 and South Vietnam became the Republic of Vietnam), with the 17th parallel as demarcation. The partition was supposed to be temporary for two years until general elections be held in 1956. South Vietnam never agreed to hold the general elections, arguing that the Geneva Agreement was signed by the French and the Viet-Minh, and not by the State of Vietnam. It was a spin narrative, because South Vietnam benefited from that same agreement and inherited the territory south of the 17th parallel. It also applied the agreement in organizing (with US help and command) the migration of 1 million people from North to South, fleeing the communist regime; and also accepted the repatriation of communist partisans from South to North also according to the Agreement.

The French left Vietnam entirely. The Americans filled the void. The American War as the North Vietnamese call it, or Vietnam War as the Americans call it, started immediately. We are right in the Cold War. South Vietnam was presented as the “vanguard of the Free World” fighting against communism. For South Vietnam, it was a self-defense war against the aggression from the North that violated international rules by attacking a sovereign country (the South); and the sovereign country has all the rights to ally itself with another sovereign country (the US) in its self-defense. For the North, it was simply the continuation of the war for independence, with the Americans replacing the French, as they (and their South Vietnamese allies) violated the Geneva Agreement by refusing the general elections; thus it was a “Liberation” war, to finish up what was left in 1954. For world geopolitics, the war in Vietnam was symbol of the Cold war, between the “Communist World” and the “Free World”.

The relationship between North Vietnam (NVN) and the USSR and China are not as straightforward as that of South Vietnam (SVN) and the US. As revealing anecdotes, one can refer to the CIA’s estimate that general elections to be held in 1956 (per Geneva Agreement) would give the communists big victory; the US then “advised” SVN not to accept to hold elections. On the NVN side, immediately after the signature of the Geneva Agreement, Chinese Premier Chu En Lai offered a friendly hand to SVN, proposing recognition of the two Vietnams, to the big disappointment of NVN. SVN eventually declined the offer, under US “advice”.

China never wanted a strong Vietnam on her southern flank, and found a divided Vietnam as a perfect solution from her viewpoint, as we will see the Chinese attitude during the war and after the victory of NVN over SVN.

The USSR always supported the communist regime in NVN. As we said, Vietnam was the hot spot of the Cold War. NVN masterly navigated that symbolic situation to court favor of the two competing entities at the top of the communist world: the USSR and China. Both supported NVN, or may I say both have to support NVN (leadership obliges).​

So there was a confluence of events that led to the war. At the time of the Geneva agreement (1954) the Cold War was in full throttle. Interestingly, the US used their influence to prevent "democracy" as the result would have yielded a communist victory.

 

[mchammer]

Regarding a weak Vietnam wanted by the Chinese, that is correct according to Nixon's On China. On the other hand, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia all appreciate the U.S. trying to stop the Red Tide. Also, another factor was US officials not wanting to lose another country to communism like they did in China. If US did not lose China, there would not have been the Korean or Vietnam wars as we know it today.

 

[mchammer]

If the Soviets took Eastern Russia, by rights US should have taken China based on the amount of U.S. deaths in the Pacific.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So there was a confluence of events that led to the war. At the time of the Geneva agreement (1954) the Cold War was in full throttle. Interestingly, the US used their influence to prevent "democracy" as the result would have yielded a communist victory.

Are you surprised? The "democracy" ruse was always nonsense. Despite the neocon rhetoric, promoting democracy overseas has never been our priority, and it shouldn't be our priority. Our priority should be to promote and protect American interests. If a democratic regime does that, then so be it. If a thuggish military strongman or king does that, then so be it.

 

[Musburger1]

Our priority should be to promote and protect American interests.

I've come to the conclusion that the term "promote and protect American interests" has nothing to do with the promoting and protecting the common citizen, but rather the interests of the deep state, the elite, and the large corporations and megabanks. For most Americans, any benefits gained as a result of foreign meddling and interventionism eludes them and flow to those at the upper echelon

 

[mchammer]

What is good for the global American business traveler is good for America. Trust me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Our priority should be to promote and protect American interests.

I've come to the conclusion that the term "promote and protect American interests" has nothing to do with the promoting and protecting the common citizen, but rather the interests of the deep state, the elite, and the large corporations and megabanks. For most Americans, any benefits gained as a result of foreign meddling and interventionism eludes them and flow to those at the upper echelon

There's no question that this mostly means the promotion of the interests of the politically connected. However, their interests do sometimes and perhaps often are in harmony with the interests of the common citizen. For example, all wars are going to benefit defense contractors, but they also can (certainly not always) benefit the common citizen. If the US' oil supply was truly in jeopardy of being stopped, disrupted, or even reduced, it would obviously benefit the oil industry to make sure that those jeopardizing it were defeated. However, it would also benefit the common citizen who needs to gas up his car, turn his lights on in the house, etc.

 

[mchammer]

Global trade on balance helps those with skills and hurts those without.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Global trade on balance helps those with skills and hurts those without.

I think that's pretty debatable and depends heavily on the specific situation. For example, consider our importation of televisions. We used to make them. Now, we almost exclusively import them from nations whose labor forces are cheaper and generally less skilled (though I've read that US television manufacturing is actually on the uptick for the first time in decades). For us, it's a trade-off. New TVs are a lot more affordable than they would likely be if they were still made in the United States, so if your connection to the TV industry is only as a consumer, it's a definite win for you. However, if you're a US television manufacturer or work for one, it definitely sucks to be you. You lost your business, and your employees got canned.

Where's the loss for the countries that gained the television manufacturing business? They gain a lucrative industry and access to a colossal consumer market that is far bigger than their own. Workers that were previously employed on rice farms get to go work in manufacturing centers, which is probably an improvement. At a minimum, they get a new choice in line of work. And of course, the companies that gain the industry earn billions. Other than perhaps the rice farmers who will have to pay more for their workers (maybe), I don't see much of a loser on their end.

 

[mchammer]

Poor choice of words on my part. When I said on balance, I didn't mean globally. Yes, on a global basis, trade is good. I meant within a country, global trade is going to have winners and losers. Winners have skills (which is leverage), losers don't.

 

[huisache]

to quote Ray Hicks in Dog Soldiers, "what a bummer for the gooks."