The Vietnam War: Struggle for and Against Land Reform and National Freedom - Research Paper Example

?The Vietnam War: Struggle for and Against Land Reform and National Freedom Martin Luther King’s A Time to Break Silence During the heat of the Vietnam War, the United States’ own backyard was also wracked with domestic unrest brought about by a united opposition against the government’s belligerent approach. Organizations from all over the country, especially those based in the universities were criticizing the war because of the fact that it prompted the mobilization of many young people for a war that is thousands of miles away and seemingly did not have any direct consequences to the country. There were a few major personalities in the anti-Vietnam War protest movement, however, who voiced out opposition from the perspective of the Vietnamese people. One of these is Dr. Martin Luther King, who at that time was already known as the principal leader of the African American civil rights movement. More popularly known as a great civil rights activist, King surprised many other participants of the civil rights movement when he explicitly presented his stand on the war. Interestingly, while King was not a firebrand like those who manned the barricades set up in the universities during violent anti-Vietnam war protest actions, his views on the issue was more radical in essence. He did not dwell on the superficial but related issues to the war. Instead, his opposition was firmly grounded on the fact that the Vietnamese people were merely struggling to assert national freedom and land reform. The war therefore was not one between the anti-Communists and the Communists; it was one that was fought between the forces that wish to achieve a Vietnam that is genuinely free from foreign control and those that seek to relegate it to a semi-colony; between the peasants who desire agrarian reform and the landlords and foreign businesses who seek to maintain ownership of vast tracts of land. In April 4, 1967, Dr. King delivered a speech in front of a large group of people at Riverside Church in New York City. The occasion was that it was a meeting attended by members of the Clergy and Laity Concerned. It was through this speech, which was aptly titled A Time to Break Silence that he first articulated his stand against the Vietnam War. Considering how influential he is not just among the blacks but the whites as well, there were concerted efforts from the Johnson Administration to belittle or to denigrate his arguments. The media also criticized his speech. There were certain parts of the speech that certain leading newspapers actually treated as almost traitorous when uttered in a time of war. The key reasons why he opposed the war were also the very points criticized by the Johnson Administration’s press officers. For King, the US role in the war was not that of a liberator but that of an aggressor. He believed that the presence of US troops in the Southeast Asian country was meant to control it and turn it into an American colony. In order to achieve this aim, the US government employed the vicious force of arms to subjugate the people. For this, he called the US government headed by Johnson as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” (A Time to Break Silence). This label naturally incensed the Johnson Administration. In the speech, King also mentioned that the war has re-channeled government resources that could have been used to fund social services and other programs that were supposed to alleviate the conditions of the poor. Prior to the escalation of the war, the Johnson Administration was popular among the poorer sections of the population because of its War on Poverty program. However, with the increased presence of US troops in Vietnam, the military expenses grew considerably. As a result, “even before Congress forced the president to cut domestic spending in order to secure funding for the Vietnam War, the administration was willing to cut antipoverty spending on its own” (Campagna 61). King did not spare this particular action of the US government from criticism. Ultimately though in his speech, King pointed out that the US already feared the possibility of a more widespread and comprehensive land reform program that would be implemented in South Vietnam if it should fall to the National Liberation Forces and the North Vietnamese Army. At this point, King once again exposed himself as not just a civil rights activist but a social activist as well. He did not see that racial discrimination as the problem in America but capitalism too. In fact, he did raise the point that “there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism” (Franklin 125). With such statement, it is only expected that King would also consider that the war waged by the Vietnamese against local landlords and foreign aggressors who wish to maintain the status quo with respect to land ownership is just. A History of Colonialism and Feudalism In order to understand the root causes of the Vietnam War and to determine whether Dr. King was right when he pointed out that the Vietnamese people were fighting for national liberation and land reform, it would be necessary to look back into the country’s history. For a long time in modern history, Vietnam was not a free country. In 1884, the French occupied a large part of Indochina, subjugating sovereign kingdoms including that which is now Vietnam, and turned the area into a colony. The French introduced capitalism to Vietnam but not to develop the economy of the colony but to make it into a raw material base and source of cheap labor that meant for the businesses that were mostly foreign. In this regard, the French never implemented land reform as this would be detrimental to the very objective that they have for occupying the country. When the economy of Vietnam remains backward, agricultural, and semi-feudal, it becomes much easier for the French to exploit its natural resources and local labor. In the setup that existed then, the vast tracts of lands were owned by only a few landlords. This made it easy for the French colonialists to dictate what crops should be planted and how should the land be used. The landlords whose main interest is to earn profits out of the land and the labor of the peasants would not hesitate to concur to what the French wished. If the lands had been freely redistributed to the peasants through a genuine land reform, the tendency to prioritize domestic or village food consumption demands could arise. Land reform would deprive the colonialists of raw material bases. Land reform would result in more opportunities for the tillers, making work on the land more available. It would therefore deprive the French of sources of cheap labor. The French colonialists insisted that they spurred the development of a once backward country because of the infrastructure that they have established. They had established road and railway systems. They constructed bridges and ports on the coastal areas. The Mekong was made into a major transport route too. However, these infrastructural projects were not meant to begin the process of industrialization in the colony. Instead, these were meant to support mining activities and agricultural production for exports. From the huge landholdings in the interior, these infrastructure, made it possible for extracted minerals and export crops to reach the cities and ports in which these are made ready for destinations abroad. Apparently, this setup did not improve the lives of the majority of the Vietnamese people. Only the landed few as well as some local middlemen were able to benefit from the semi-feudal economy. Of course, the ones who really had taken the most advantages are the foreign companies, mostly French. On the part of the rural population who comprise the majority of the Vietnamese people and who served as the forces of production, semi-feudalism only led to extreme poverty and hunger. For 50 years, from 1890 to 1930, “the colony of Vietnam did export some 57.8 million tons of rice, which, as minerals, was not regarded an export product that promoted economic development but rather the result of colonial exploitation policy, a policy of deprivation” (Vietnam Economic Overview). As a result of this, an ironic situation ensued; Vietnam was feeding other countries with millions of tons in rice exports while its peasants, were hungry. In 1945, there were over 2 million of them that died of starvation in just a month’s time. For the Vietnamese people, it was clear that the land problem could only be linked directly to the fact that they were under the French colonialists. As a result, when the Viet Minh or the League for the Independence of Vietnam was established, the program of action was to call for the full independence and pave the way for land reform program on a much larger scale. At the core of the Viet Minh, was the Communist Party headed by Ho Chi Minh. It was the Communist Party that came up with the analysis that that for Vietnam to progress, it should first free itself from the burden of feudalism. However, land reform, which would dismantle the economic basis of feudalism, could not be achieved for as long Vietnam is under the rule of a colonialist or imperialist, particularly France. It was clear that “to exploit the peasantry, the French imperialists needed not abolish feudalism as they did in their own country; but they maintained it to help in their exploitation, that is why they left no stone unturned to collude with feudalism” (Duan 58). The struggle against feudalism and the implementation land reform were two major reasons also that mobilized the peasants in the revolutionary war for independence from the French. More accustomed to the cohesion that was distinctly characteristic of small rural villages, the peasants were not much into patriotism or to the goals of establishing socialism. However, once they were made to understand that the immediate goal of the revolution was to distribute the lands to the tillers, they enthusiastically joined the Viet Minh. Proving the fact that the revolution waged against French was not only patriotic but agrarian in character, the bulk of Viet Minh’s revolutionary army is of peasant origin. Its most ardent supporters are the rural villages that are scattered all throughout the country. Land reform, therefore, is a key element in the struggle for national liberation in Vietnam. A Revolution for National Freedom and Land Reform The Viet Minh already had no illusions from the start that the French colonialists would easily succumb to demands that they leave Vietnam and, consequently, grant independence. The economic benefits that France had acquired by maintaining a colony that provides them with cheap raw materials for their industries as well as cheap labor were just too much to give up. The French armed forces soon unleashed campaigns that targeted the anti-colonial forces in the country, particularly those that belonged to the Viet Minh and the Communist Party. It became obvious that in order to achieve national freedom and advance land reform, the only way method viable was to wage a revolutionary war against the French imperialists. In fact, during the struggle against the Japanese invaders, the Viet Minh sought an alliance with France and establish a united front against the fascists but the French forces did not only oppose the overtures. They also launched violent attacks on civilians who supported the Viet Minh. In the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, it was pointed out that instead of agreeing to the proposal of an alliance against Japan, “the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Vietminh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang” (Ho 20). By the using force on the Vietnamese, it became clear that waging a revolutionary war was the only option feasible in order to achieve national independence, which is a requisite for land reform. When the Viet Minh began launching offensives against the French forces, the peasants took an active role not just as combatants but also as logistical support. Even the women and children contributed by serving as the eyes and ears of the Viet Minh guerillas. The motivation was that the victory of the revolution means the acquiring their own lands to till without having to pay rent to landlords. While the Viet Minh was able to liberate a sizeable portion of the country’s northern areas and established people’s governments at the local level, much of the south remained under the French. At the end of World Wart 2, the country was divided into two. North Vietnam ruled by the Viet Minh and the Communist Party while South Vietnam became a republic and was greatly supported by the Western countries, particularly the US (Hanhimaki and Westad 209). With a government that has the Communist Party at the core, the fully liberated North Vietnam embarked on a land reform program on a more massive scale. At that time when the revolutionary war versus the French was still being waged, the Viet Minh only employed land confiscation from landlords who are absolutely opposed to the revolution. The confiscated lands were distributed among the peasants. On the other hand, there were landlords who were supportive and they were treated leniently by the revolutionary land reform program. However, North Vietnam also experienced certain errors in the implementation of the land reform program. For example, the once moderate policy in land confiscation and distribution which the Viet Minh was much known soon changed; “under Chinese guidance a radical, class-based campaign was launched in 1954, and it led to considerable conflict and confusion” (Womack 171). Fortunately, the Vietnamese Communist Party soon found out hurrying the land reform implementation could only result in excesses that would only be counterproductive. While the land reform program in North Vietnam, might have encountered problems, this had not failed to inspire the rest of the Vietnamese people, especially in the south. Stories of how peasants in the north were able to increase their productivity and to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having to set aside a particular portion to serve as rent inspired those in the south. The Struggle for Land Reform in South Vietnam The US already knew that the hesitance of South Vietnam’s government to implement land reform would only result into its further isolation from the people that it rules. The peasant masses that lived in the rural villages had lost trust in the government, particularly when it was ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem. The US also knew that if Diem does not introduce land reform and other economic programs, there would more instability in the country. Although the US through its ambassador did inform that social reforms be introduced in the rural areas, “Diem was out of touch with the situation in the countryside, and little was done to carry out much-needed land reform, vital in winning the allegiance of the peasants” (Tucker 1462). However, being its staunchest supporter, it would seem impossible for Diem to just ignore the US recommendations for land reform. The truth, however, was that the US was really bent on land reform. In fact, this issue had also become a source of debate. Until 1960, most of the assistance that Washington gave to South Vietnam was war materiel and military advisors. Of the billions of dollars that the US Congress willingly allocated for South Vietnam, only two percent of this budget was for land reform. Without the funds needed to acquire the lands from the landlords, Diem and his lackeys as well as the US saw an excuse why they could not launch a land reform program. This was expected for Diem had a history of being a very trusted ally of South Vietnam’s landlord class. After the French left, there was already a great number of lands that had been redistributed by the Viet Minh to the peasants in South Vietnam. However, instead of recognizing this and continuing what had been initiated by the Viet Minh, Diem instead disregarded this and he embarked on a mission to assist the former owners, most of them landlords, in recovering the land. As a consequence, Diem did not only shun land reform, he also strengthened the feudal structures in the country. Sensing that a renewed revolutionary activity could occur in South Vietnam due to the absence of land reform, the Americans finally managed to convince Diem to pass a land reform law. Called as Ordinance 57, the law presented a land reform program that greatly differed to the kind of land reform that as being advanced by the National Liberation Front. Diem’s program “asked tenants to pay for the land they received, it did not promise a thorough resolution of the tenancy problem (landlords were entitled to retain much of their land), and corruption and apathy on the part of officials kept the ordinance from being thoroughly implemented” (Moise 621). The US knew that this was just a token land reform program. Its main purpose was not actually to realize the aspirations of the peasants but to counter the tide of revolution. Conclusion As has been presented, it is clear that the Vietnam War may have belligerents presenting themselves as for or against Communism but for the Vietnamese who were waging it, the basis was more fundamental. It was one that was grounded on the need to free the land and the dismantling of feudal structures through land reform. The war acquired the character of being a struggle of national liberation because the Vietnamese knew that they could not implement land reform before first ending the dominance and intervention of any foreign power in the country. Apparently, Dr. Martin Luther King was right in his speech when raised the argument that the war was not conflict between Communism and anti-Communism; it was just that the Vietnamese people desire for land reform but foreign and local powers wished to maintain the feudal or semi-feudal setup. Works Cited Campagna, Anthony. The Economic Consequences of the Vietnam War. New York, NY: Praeger, 1991. Duan, Le. On the Socialist Revolution in Vietnam, Volume 1. Hanoi, Vietnam: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1967. Franklin, Robert Michael. Liberating Visions: Human Fulfillment and Social Justice in African-American Thought. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. Hanhimaki, Jussi and Westad, Odd. The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ho Chi Minh. “Vietnamese Declaration of Independence.” Selected Works, Volume 3. Hanoi, Vietnam: Foreign Languages Pub. House, 1962. King, Martin Luther. “A Time to Break Silence.” 1967. 25 November 2011 . Moise, Edwin. “Land Reform, Vietnam.” The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. Ed. Spencer Tucker. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Tucker, Spencer. The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. “Vietnam Economy Overview.” Socialist Republic of Vietnam Government Web Portal. 25 November 2011 . Womack, Brantly. China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Read More