Vietnamese imperialism and the Second Indochinese War

[MisaoFan]

So I've been studying Southeast Asian politics since this year and I've been talking to many fellow anons on /int/ and researched plenty of things through sites such as Radio Free Asia. Two days after the anniversary of 1973 Paris Peace Accords which drew the Second Indochinese War and the subsequent communist invasion of all three former colonies of French Indochinese (Cambodia is no longer communist today), there's one thing that certainly bothered me: what's with Vietnam and its imperialist stance when it comes to controlling Cambodia and even more so with Laos? The Indochinese Federation proposal, the Japanese occupation of these countries, the rise of communism in Southeast Asia... that says it all.

Is there any reason as to why Vietnam exploits its western neighbors in every way even before the French colonization came? What about the bombing campaigns and how hostile are the U.S. relations with the three countries?

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by MisaoFan

So I've been studying Southeast Asian politics since this year and I've been talking to many fellow anons on /int/ and researched plenty of things through sites such as Radio Free Asia. Two days after the anniversary of 1973 Paris Peace Accords which drew the Second Indochinese War and the subsequent communist invasion of all three former colonies of French Indochinese (Cambodia is no longer communist today), there's one thing that certainly bothered me: what's with Vietnam and its imperialist stance when it comes to controlling Cambodia and even more so with Laos? The Indochinese Federation proposal, the Japanese occupation of these countries, the rise of communism in Southeast Asia... that says it all.

Is there any reason as to why Vietnam exploits its western neighbors in every way even before the French colonization came? What about the bombing campaigns and how hostile are the U.S. relations with the three countries?

I lived in Vietnam, so my view here may be distorted.

Regarding the exploitations, Emperor Gia Long, during his war with the Three Nguyen Brothers, had several times taken help from Cambodia and Laos. However, after he defeated Nguyen Quang Toan and established the Nguyen dynasty, Emperor Gia Long consolidated his power, and his son, Emperor Minh Mạng, made Cambodia and some parts of Laos into suzerains of Dai Nam.

The Indochinese Federation... Well, there were not many documents in Vietnamese that talked about Laos and Cambodia, so I am not in a position to say anything. What is well known is that Emperor Tự Đức did not have a stomach for war with the French, and the Hue government actively broke into the For War side and the For Peace side. After Tự Đức's death, the French attacked Hue, followed by the 1883 Accord that made Vietnam a colony, and then the turbulent period when resistance forces popped up everywhere and the throne changed hands four times within a few years.

Probably by the time whole thing with the Indochinese Federation, Vietnam's hand was tied?

(But wait, are we talking about the same Indochinese Federation?)

The various times Vietnamese troops moved into Cambodia and Laos during the Indochinese War and the Vietnam War, it were either for attacking the French/American (There were parts of Cambodia and Laos that the Ho Chi Minh road passed through, which was critical to the war.) or to assist the local Communist-aligned forces. It was true that Hanoi really, really wanted their allies to take the helm in these two countries.

And for Pol Pot... We certainly screw up, I admit that. It took him declaring war on us after 1975 that we realized that, though. It was for the better that Cambodia became neutral today.

If you want to ask why we have an imperialist stance when it comes to Laos and Cambodia... Well, it might be that it is a realpolitik thing. We might be no better than oppoturnists.

On the other hand, Vietnamese does have an unconscious fear about being conquered. It was embedded in each of us when we heard the history, about all the times some foreign nations invaded Vietnam. Toward the end of the 80s, Vietnam almost came to blow with Thailand, and before that, Thailand did acted as an ally to America to the Vietnamese war. It could be possible that Hanoi wanted Laos and Cambodia to act as a buffer to a potential war with Thailand.

[MisaoFan]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Probably by the time whole thing with the Indochinese Federation, Vietnam's hand was tied?

It had to do with the fact that the French incorporated all three countries into a confederated colony. That gives some indirect inspiration that Ho Chi Minh wanted an Indochinese Federation with Vietnam as the dominant force, that's why the precursor of the Communist Party of Vietnam was called Indochinese Communist Party at the time.

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by MisaoFan

It had to do with the fact that the French incorporated all three countries into a confederated colony. That gives some indirect inspiration that Ho Chi Minh wanted an Indochinese Federation with Vietnam as the dominant force, that's why the precursor of the Communist Party of Vietnam was called Indochinese Communist Party at the time.

Ah that. It is true that the thought of a Soviet Indochinese did popped out a few times, but from the exerpts I read, they were all from newspaper. I can not tell for sure if any of our leaders were seriously considering something like that.

One interesting note is that Ho Chi Minh was once being disciplined by the Third International (or just Moscow) for being too nationalistic. That was after the Indochinese Communist Party was formed.

Also, the name Indochinese Communist Party was chosen partly because of the pressure from the Third International. It was also why Ho Chi Minh was not chosen for the role of General Secretary. That role went to Trần Phú, who had a more international mindset.

[MisaoFan]

What made me wonder is why is Vietnam the sole trader for Laos two years before the Third Indochinese War (1979-1993), aside from very close friendship they even signed the 1977 treaty that remains in place today; this means according to my views that Vietnam is willing to exploit Laos' national resources as much as they want, perhaps even absorbing the country itself as I think Laos' national identity is poorly build and nationalism is probably a pretense as it is under control of its neighbors. The same could be said for Cambodia as Vietnam annexed it during the Third Indochinese War, I suspect that Vietnam itself doesn't have enough national resources but exploitation is pretty much used to the advantage of its politics.

Both Laos and Cambodia are neutral countries today but in the former case I doubt it, the country remains the most bombarded in the world thanks to US-laid campaigns, it's the reason why the Lao government (especially the conservative old guards) doesn't like USA, but I made a thread on Reddit to ask what meant for the relations between the two countries.

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by MisaoFan

What made me wonder is why is Vietnam the sole trader for Laos two years before the Third Indochinese War (1979-1993), aside from very close friendship they even signed the 1977 treaty that remains in place today; this means according to my views that Vietnam is willing to exploit Laos' national resources as much as they want, perhaps even absorbing the country itself as I think Laos' national identity is poorly build and nationalism is probably a pretense as it is under control of its neighbors. The same could be said for Cambodia as Vietnam annexed it during the Third Indochinese War, I suspect that Vietnam itself doesn't have enough national resources but exploitation is pretty much used to the advantage of its politics.

Both Laos and Cambodia are neutral countries today but in the former case I doubt it, the country remains the most bombarded in the world thanks to US-laid campaigns, it's the reason why the Lao government (especially the conservative old guards) doesn't like USA, but I made a thread on Reddit to ask what meant for the relations between the two countries.

Again, I can not really in the position comment about the 1977 treaty, but like it said, it might well be the Vietnamese leaders at the time were trying to keep Laos and Cambodia really close. Annexation? That I am not really sure, but then again, it sounded like more hassle than its worth.

And about Cambodia today... I do not know very well about their politic, but I do know that many resent Vietnam and their distaste manifest in the form of the border dispute with us. There are even parties built around the sentiments. For these people, America might seem like a good ally.

Secondly, Cambodia is one of the most dollarized countries in the world. I once travelled there, and if anything worth more than 1$, then it was most likely they would trade in dollars.

As for Laos, I do not know enough to say anything.

[MisaoFan]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

As for Laos, I do not know enough to say anything.

If you want to know about Laos itself and its relations with its neighbors, Wikipedia and the like are your friends of research. I hope someone with similar high knowledge of the unpopular country like me will help explain it to you in summary.

On another question, why is Laos called "Lao" (its official name is Lao People's Democratic Republic, in use in most major international organizations in which is a member state) inside the country, given how it used in many companies such as Lao Airlines, Lao Bar Association, Lao Federation of Trade Unions among others? Is it because of its insufferable past?

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by MisaoFan

On another question, why is Laos called "Lao" (its official name is Lao People's Democratic Republic, in use in most major international organizations in which is a member state) inside the country, given how it used in many companies such as Lao Airlines, Lao Bar Association, Lao Federation of Trade Unions among others? Is it because of its insufferable past?

You are asking the wrong question. The question should be why Laos is called Laos. And the answer is, blame the French.

[MisaoFan]

Originally Posted by Kakurin

You are asking the wrong question. The question should be why Laos is called Laos. And the answer is, blame the French.

I don't think it's that wrong of a question I asked but still, here's that. Whereas the rest of Southeast Asian countries still call themselves by colonial names even inside the country (even when translated into their own native languages), the same can't be said for Laos in that when they show up in international events and organizations the government call itself in full formal name (Lao P.D.R.) rather than an informal one.

There's even one funny fact that the term "Laotian" is, according to the government is also associated with the troubling colonial past.

In local language, Laos in an informal fashion is called Pathet Lao (also the name of a communist organization that later rule the country even today), compare that to Thailand which is called Prathet Thai inside the country. Hilariously both are ethnolinguistically, culturally and historically related (before the 1975 coup d'état, Laos was a six-centuries old Buddhist monarchy).