Vietnam & After

The U.S.'s stance on imperialism--"Enlightened Self-interests" or "Neocolonialism"

In today's age it is hard not to be critical of the United State's foreign policies now and in the past. Being raised during a period where the atmosphere was mostly war-free can create a biased state of mind in regards to aspects such as war, colonialism, etc. However just as in some professions, political analysists must find a way to disconnect their innate knowledge of wrong and right in order to conceptualize the bigger picture of wrong and right. Meaning sometimes it is imperative to sacrifice life, liberty and the very pursuit of happiness by a small number of people in order to ensure these same rights for a larger amount of people. Which is the reason why war is legal and often thought to be necessary. This is the very notion that the United States used to justify their actions during the French war. the criticism placed on the united states at this point was how and why would an anti-colonial, democratic nation such as the U.S. support imperialism by the French. Aside from the need for France to be a strong ally, Communists were the enemy. According to the U.S. they didn't just want to keep their political views to themselves, they wanted take impose them on the rest of the world. This needed to be prevented. Ngo Dinh Diem's appointment was in Washington's favor Niel Sheehan author of "A Bright Shining Lie" claims. He goes on to state:

"Washington wanted native regimes that would act as surrogates for American power. The goal was to achieve the sway over allies and dependencies which every imperial nation needs to work its will in world affairs without the structure of old-fashioned colonialism."

Ngo Dinh Diem challenged Ho Chi Minh's ideals. He stated that communism was evil and accused Ho of destroying the Vietnamese traditions. like Ramon Magsaysay, Filipino paragon of an anti-communist and progressive Asian leader, Diem was helping the Vietnamese people understand this greater good theory. Thus imperialism had to seem like a good thing if it was to be supported by people under imperialistic rule. "Enlightened self-interest" was the reasoning behind U.S.S support for imperialism. The U.S. had to give the impression,and also believed, that they were helping these nations by modernizing them and at the same time indirectly fighting communism.

The communists however had another perspective. They felt the U.S. imperial system was "a more insidious form of colonialism than the old European variety. They termed it "neocolonialism"".

So which term best suits the U.S.? The answer would just be a matter of perception and opinion based on one's political ideals. Another question that remains is did American support of imperialism benefit the greater good of the world the way it claimed to? How can it when so many lives were lost in preventing something that could have possibly never happened.      

Effects of Imperalism.

"It was all for nothing,...In the prison camp the Viets told us they had won because they were fighting for an ideal, and we were not."- A French survivor of Dienbienphu

The quote i chose was from Young's book, The Vietnam  Wars. I feel this quote adequately expresses the opposing side of imperialism. Although a French man is speaking, he speaking the words of a Vietnam man. Throughout history we have seen the underdogs and the impossible happen, such as the Americans defeating the British Army and likewise with the Vietnamese's defeating the French Army. The Vietnam were fighting for freedom of there homeland, the French were fighting for something that was not theirs. I feel that quote explains this properly, they were fighting for something bigger then the French could understand at the time. Although many were shocked and the French were embarrassed, i feel that Vietnamese win is similar to many others that have to do with imperialism. Those who are conquered have a stronger will to fight for death then those who are the conquerors.

Did John F. Kennedy have it right?

"I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance 
in Indo-China can conquer an enemy which is everywhere, and at the same
time nowhere, and has the sympathy and covert support of the people".   
                                             
                                                     Senator John F. Kennedy 1954

After the Korean War debacle (1950-1953) with the loss of 33,000 American troops, America did not have the stomach for another Asian  war.  France had put the U.S. in a very precarious position.  When the French were being defeated at the siege of Dien Bien Phu (1954), they asked the U.S. for military intervention.  President Eisenhower considered the situation seriously, but did not have enough support from Congress to make the committment.  The sentiments of Congress as stated in the quote by then Senator John F. Kennedy reflect the idea that this was one situation that we did not think was a winnable effort.  If this is so, then did we change our stance on our relationship with France?  Was our monetary investment lost?  Did Kennedy have it right then?  If this was his thinking, then why did he involve us deeper later?

U.S invovlment in the French war with Vietnam

The United States became a main ally for France, in the war between the French and the Vietnamese. In 1954 America was paying 80 percent of France's war expense. The more aid the United States gave to the french, the more the Vietnamese people thought of them as enemies. The United States was involved in Vietnam because the belief was if South Vietnam fell to communism other countries in South East Asia would. When the French withdrew all its forces from Vietnam, the United States felt it was their job to become involved in Vietnam and stop the spread of Communism. Even from the beginning involvement of the United States in Vietnam they were some Americans who were against it. Some Americans felt we became involved in a fight that was no ours. The United states became involved in Vietnam long before sending troops there. While the prevention of Communism seems justifiable, the degree of invovlement of The United states in Vietnam was massive and was one of the reasons why the war between Vietnam and the United States happened.

Will over Technology

The French had every advantage possible when they were fighting the Vietnamese.  Their weapons were more advanced, they had more money, and better military training.  So then why did they lose?  Simple, the Vietminh had nothing to lose and everything to gain.  Therefore, the Vietminh were not going to stop.  They were going to do what ever it took to win. 

"Secret roads were constructed; transport consisted of a mobilized populace pushing loaded bicycles.  Artillery pieces were disassembled for the mountain journey and then reassembled in secret caves.  Even a mountain river was rechanneled so that when the summer rains came the valley would be flooded."(The Perfect War pg 64,66)

The Vietminh's will beat the French's technology at Dien Bien Phu. 

"The camp's defensibility assumed that the Vietminh could not emplace artillery and ammunition in mountains surrounding the valley fortress.  On March 13, 1954, shelling from the mountains began."(The Perfect War pg 64)

Now this could be the French's arrogance that allowed this to happen, but the Vietminh's will made it happen.

A Nation Divided

Since it's existence, Vietnam was a country struggling to gain freedom. The Vietnamesee were constantly at war, fighting for their Independence. Although at some points they defeated their enemies and gained independence, it was only a matter of time before their freedom was lost to the hands of another country. However, during this gruesome struggle, the one thing the Vietnamese constantly held on to, was their sense of patriotism. Their loyalty was tested however, when the French seized control, and divided their nation.

"The French would dwell lovingly, for example, on the supposed quaint backwardness, the natural simplicity of the "Annamite" as contrasted with the suave sophistication of the Saigonese or the oxlike toughness of the Tonkinese. Such myths of differentiation became increasingly important as native political challenges to colonial rule intensified in the twentieth century. They were a prime rationale for sustained French presence, for the job of "mediating" regional differences, of providing the necessary order among implicitly divisive native principalities."

Although during this time the Vietnamese could never really be called a nation with regards to power, territory, and government. They were however, a nation of people who shared similar customs, beliefs, and practices. They were a community, bonded by their desire and determina tion to gain control over their land. In this respect, the Vietnamese had all the power they needed. The French saw this as a threat, and therefore divided this nation of people in order to alleviate their power. The French separated this community, and created traits. Traits, in which the French used in an attempt to destroy the unity of the Vietnamese. Making one area feel as if they were inferior to another area because they didn't posses certain qualities. When in actuality they were all the same.

The Division

Early History

North Vietnamese Aggressors

Apparently once a county defends itself after thousands of years of  being oppressed, taxed, impoverished and ruled by other outside nations it becomes a foreign aggressor. This is the term used to reference Vietnam after defeating France in 1954 in Dien Bien Phu.  France and the Vietminh settle on a line to divide creating North and South Vietnam;The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the Vietminh) and The Republic of Vietnam (France appoints Boa Dai back as emperor), but because the Vietminh are communist, President Eisenhower does not allow American Diplomats to accept nor sign the agreement. "A nominally non communist coalition regime would eventually turn the country over to Ho [Chi Minh] with no opportunity for the replacement of the French by the United States or the United Kingdom." 

Was the United States considered an aggressor in 1776? No, we called our selves Patriots and we stood and fought for our independence and freedom from Great Britain who ruled over us, taxed and failed to represent the rights of the people of the colonies. According to the words of Secretary of State Dulles he refers to Vietnam as aggressors "We hope to find that the aggressors come here in a mood to purge themselves of their aggression." I guess you learn a little about aggression after being pushed around for a thousand years...