Associate Prof Dr Nguyen Ngoc Hoi, former editor-in-chief of the All
People Defence Magazine, has emphasised the need to build a politically
strong army and dismissed the view on apolitical military as a
groundless claim in a recent article.
In the
article, he pointed out that the concept of “apolitical military” has
appeared for long time and is used by opposition parties in multi-party
countries to limit the military’s intervention in political fights.
The veteran journalist noted that in the last decades of the 20th
century, imperialism switched to the “peace evolution” strategy to
undermine socialism after invasion wars failed. One of the ploys they
used to play was to introduce the view “the military must maintain its
political neutrality” to socialist countries with one party (the
communist party) rule with the aim of depoliticising the revolutionary
armed forces. This was actually intended to separate the military from
the leadership of the communist party and disable the military’s role as
the party and state’s forceful tool in the cause of national
construction and defence.
The tactic was successful in the Soviet
Union, where leaders of the country’s party, state and army themselves
dropped the Marxist – Leninist principle of building a politically
strong military. They made serious mistakes such as abolishing the
leadership of the Communist Party over the military, and depoliticising
and neutralising the Soviet army, which was one of the important causes
of the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991.
For Vietnam,
hostile forces are carrying out the tactic of calling for “armed forces
to maintain political neutrality”. It is actually to demand for
depoliticising the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA).
They hope that,
once the armed forces are deluded by the slogan, and military officers
lose their political orientation, they would overthrow the Communist
Party of Vietnam and the socialist political institution in Vietnam, in
line with the scenario of “winning without fighting”.
To realise
the scheme, hostile forces have used all means, both theoretical and
ideological together with real actions. With the aim of eliminating the
revolutionary achievements in Vietnam and driving the country’s
development path into the orbit of capitalism, they have stepped up
campaigns demanding a multi-party regime over the past many years, which
would inevitably lead to the eradication of the leadership of the
Communist Party of Vietnam over the VPA.
They openly
demanded abolishing the provision on the leadership of the Communist
Party of Vietnam over the State and society as well as the provision
that the armed forces are loyal to the Communist Party of Vietnam as
stated in the Constitution of the socialist Vietnam.
The goal of
these tricks is to push the “self evolution”, “self transformation”
process within the military, making it deviate from the revolutionary
goals and ideals and the leadership of the Party, towards neutralising
the military’s role as a firm support of the Party, State and people in
the cause of national defence.
The tricks are sophisticated and furtively, but wrong in terms of both theory and reality, Hoi affirmed.
From the theoretical angle, the view on apolitical military has no
remarkable foundation. According to the widely-recognised idea “War
is the continuation of politics” initiated by the well-known military
theorist Clausewitz (1780-1831), the military came into being to meet
the needs of war (either offensive or defensive). Any war has its own
political goal, reflecting the political stance of the sides, so the
participating militaries are all geared to serve the political goals of
the war. This means there can never be an apolitical army.
Second, the military, as part of the State, always bears the class
nature of the State that organises and nurtures it. The military is the
armed tool of the State to protect the achievements that the ruling
political forces have obtained through the struggle for power.
The
founding history of the military always associates with the birth of
the State; while the State is the inevitable product of the class
struggle, so any State bears the characteristics of the ruling class.
As
part of the State, the armed forces of any society depend on the
political orientation of the ruling class. At the same time, ruling
political forces always do their best to firmly control the armed forces
through political, ideological, organisational and policy measures.
Therefore,
ever since its appearance, the military has been “imbued” with the
politics of the State and the class holding power in society. There has
never been and cannot be a so-called “politically neutral” military, or
an army “staying out of politics” as preached by the capitalist class in
order to cover the nature of the military in capitalist countries.
In
reality, no military of any countries is “politically neutral” or
“stays out of politics” so far because the military is the tool of armed
force to protect political institutions of the ruling political forces.
It
is not difficult to notice the involvement of the military in politics
in many countries, like when military coups occur in many places,
especially in Asia and Africa, in recent years.
In some countries
such as the US, the UK and France, the military is used not only to
safeguard national independence, sovereignty, and the nation, but
also for other activities such as invasion, overthrowing and
intervention in other sovereign nations with the political aim of
erecting pro-Western governments. These acts in fact aim to serve the
ruling political parties’ internal and external policies, which
ultimately is the interests of the capitalist forces behind incumbent
governments.
Looking back on Vietnam’s history of struggles for
national liberation against the French colonialists, Japanese fascists
and US imperialists, it is clear that these countries’ armies were never
“politically neutral”, especially when their military officers had been
educated about their “mission” to go to Vietnam to stop the wave of
communism from spreading throughout Southeast Asia.
Another point
is that in countries with multi-party structure, any political party in
power always tries their best to control the military because it will
make it easier for them to maintain the power.
It is a well known
fact that the Vietnam People’s Army was born from the masses’ political
movements and it was organised, trained and led by the Communist Party
of Vietnam to win and protect the revolutionary administration, so the
army itself is a political force.
The VPA’s 70-year history of
development attests to a historic fact that the VPA is a political force
absolutely loyal to the Party, the country and people. This is first of
all reflected in the unity of the VPA’s fighting goals and the Party’s
political objectives, which is national independence in close
association with socialism.
President Ho Chi Minh
has emphasised many times the need to build a politically strong army.
During his visit to the military politics school (now the Academy of
Politics) on October 25, 1951, he advised students to study hard in all
aspects of politics and military, stressing that “military without
politics is like a tree without root, useless and harmful”.
Building
a politically strong military by strengthening the Party’s leadership
and fostering the military’s working class nature combined with building
the military’s people-ness and nation-ness were a success lesson that
the Party and President Ho Chi Minh have drawn out when flexibly
applying Marxism-Leninism to the process of building a new-style army of
the proletarian class in a country with an under-developed economy.
The
history of Vietnam’s revolution attested to the correctness of this
lesson. Since its inception, the VPA’s predecessor – the Vietnam Armed
Propaganda Unit for National Liberation was organised under the model of
party leadership with a political officer specialising in Party and
political affairs.
Reality also shows that without the Party’s
leadership, the armed forces would degenerate, lose their political
orientation and fighting targets. They would no longer be the armed
force of the people and a political force fighting for the goal of
national independence and socialism, and so they cannot fulfil the
function of safeguarding the country and people.
Building a
politically-strong military is a top basic principle in building a
revolutionary, elite and modernised army of the people.
This is
the responsibility of the entire political system under the leadership
of the Party. It is also the responsibility of the VPA itself, including
the exposure of tricks and ploys aimed at “depoliticising” the army, Dr
Nguyen Ngoc Hoi wrote in conclusion.-VNA