Associate Prof Dr Nguyen Ngoc Hoi, former editor-in-chief of the AllPeople Defence Magazine, has emphasised the need to build a politicallystrong army and dismissed the view on apolitical military as agroundless claim in a recent article.
In thearticle, he pointed out that the concept of “apolitical military” hasappeared for long time and is used by opposition parties in multi-partycountries to limit the military’s intervention in political fights.
The veteran journalist noted that in the last decades of the 20thcentury, imperialism switched to the “peace evolution” strategy toundermine socialism after invasion wars failed. One of the ploys theyused to play was to introduce the view “the military must maintain itspolitical neutrality” to socialist countries with one party (thecommunist party) rule with the aim of depoliticising the revolutionaryarmed forces. This was actually intended to separate the military fromthe leadership of the communist party and disable the military’s role asthe party and state’s forceful tool in the cause of nationalconstruction and defence.
The tactic was successful in the SovietUnion, where leaders of the country’s party, state and army themselvesdropped the Marxist – Leninist principle of building a politicallystrong military. They made serious mistakes such as abolishing theleadership of the Communist Party over the military, and depoliticisingand neutralising the Soviet army, which was one of the important causesof the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991.
For Vietnam,hostile forces are carrying out the tactic of calling for “armed forcesto maintain political neutrality”. It is actually to demand fordepoliticising the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA).
They hope that,once the armed forces are deluded by the slogan, and military officerslose their political orientation, they would overthrow the CommunistParty of Vietnam and the socialist political institution in Vietnam, inline with the scenario of "winning without fighting".
To realisethe scheme, hostile forces have used all means, both theoretical andideological together with real actions. With the aim of eliminating therevolutionary achievements in Vietnam and driving the country’sdevelopment path into the orbit of capitalism, they have stepped upcampaigns demanding a multi-party regime over the past many years, whichwould inevitably lead to the eradication of the leadership of theCommunist Party of Vietnam over the VPA.
They openlydemanded abolishing the provision on the leadership of the CommunistParty of Vietnam over the State and society as well as the provisionthat the armed forces are loyal to the Communist Party of Vietnam asstated in the Constitution of the socialist Vietnam.
The goal ofthese tricks is to push the "self evolution", "self transformation"process within the military, making it deviate from the revolutionarygoals and ideals and the leadership of the Party, towards neutralisingthe military’s role as a firm support of the Party, State and people inthe 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 noremarkable foundation. According to the widely-recognised idea "Waris the continuation of politics" initiated by the well-known militarytheorist Clausewitz (1780-1831), the military came into being to meetthe needs of war (either offensive or defensive). Any war has its ownpolitical goal, reflecting the political stance of the sides, so theparticipating militaries are all geared to serve the political goals ofthe war. This means there can never be an apolitical army.
Second, the military, as part of the State, always bears the classnature of the State that organises and nurtures it. The military is thearmed tool of the State to protect the achievements that the rulingpolitical forces have obtained through the struggle for power.
Thefounding history of the military always associates with the birth ofthe State; while the State is the inevitable product of the classstruggle, so any State bears the characteristics of the ruling class.
Aspart of the State, the armed forces of any society depend on thepolitical orientation of the ruling class. At the same time, rulingpolitical forces always do their best to firmly control the armed forcesthrough political, ideological, organisational and policy measures.
Therefore,ever since its appearance, the military has been "imbued" with thepolitics of the State and the class holding power in society. There hasnever been and cannot be a so-called "politically neutral" military, oran army "staying out of politics" as preached by the capitalist class inorder to cover the nature of the military in capitalist countries.
Inreality, no military of any countries is "politically neutral" or"stays out of politics" so far because the military is the tool of armedforce to protect political institutions of the ruling political forces.
Itis not difficult to notice the involvement of the military in politicsin many countries, like when military coups occur in many places,especially in Asia and Africa, in recent years.
In some countriessuch as the US, the UK and France, the military is used not only tosafeguard national independence, sovereignty, and the nation, butalso for other activities such as invasion, overthrowing andintervention in other sovereign nations with the political aim oferecting pro-Western governments. These acts in fact aim to serve theruling political parties’ internal and external policies, whichultimately is the interests of the capitalist forces behind incumbentgovernments.
Looking back on Vietnam’s history of struggles fornational liberation against the French colonialists, Japanese fascistsand US imperialists, it is clear that these countries’ armies were never"politically neutral", especially when their military officers had beeneducated about their "mission" to go to Vietnam to stop the wave ofcommunism from spreading throughout Southeast Asia.
Another pointis that in countries with multi-party structure, any political party inpower always tries their best to control the military because it willmake it easier for them to maintain the power.
It is a well knownfact that the Vietnam People’s Army was born from the masses’ politicalmovements and it was organised, trained and led by the Communist Partyof Vietnam to win and protect the revolutionary administration, so thearmy itself is a political force.
The VPA’s 70-year history ofdevelopment attests to a historic fact that the VPA is a political forceabsolutely loyal to the Party, the country and people. This is first ofall reflected in the unity of the VPA’s fighting goals and the Party’spolitical objectives, which is national independence in closeassociation with socialism.
President Ho Chi Minhhas emphasised many times the need to build a politically strong army.During his visit to the military politics school (now the Academy ofPolitics) on October 25, 1951, he advised students to study hard in allaspects of politics and military, stressing that “military withoutpolitics is like a tree without root, useless and harmful”.
Buildinga politically strong military by strengthening the Party’s leadershipand fostering the military’s working class nature combined with buildingthe military’s people-ness and nation-ness were a success lesson thatthe Party and President Ho Chi Minh have drawn out when flexiblyapplying Marxism-Leninism to the process of building a new-style army ofthe proletarian class in a country with an under-developed economy.
Thehistory of Vietnam’s revolution attested to the correctness of thislesson. Since its inception, the VPA’s predecessor – the Vietnam ArmedPropaganda Unit for National Liberation was organised under the model ofparty leadership with a political officer specialising in Party andpolitical affairs.
Reality also shows that without the Party’sleadership, the armed forces would degenerate, lose their politicalorientation and fighting targets. They would no longer be the armedforce of the people and a political force fighting for the goal ofnational independence and socialism, and so they cannot fulfil thefunction of safeguarding the country and people.
Building apolitically-strong military is a top basic principle in building arevolutionary, elite and modernised army of the people.
This isthe responsibility of the entire political system under the leadershipof the Party. It is also the responsibility of the VPA itself, includingthe exposure of tricks and ploys aimed at "depoliticising" the army, DrNguyen Ngoc Hoi wrote in conclusion.-VNA
In thearticle, he pointed out that the concept of “apolitical military” hasappeared for long time and is used by opposition parties in multi-partycountries to limit the military’s intervention in political fights.
The veteran journalist noted that in the last decades of the 20thcentury, imperialism switched to the “peace evolution” strategy toundermine socialism after invasion wars failed. One of the ploys theyused to play was to introduce the view “the military must maintain itspolitical neutrality” to socialist countries with one party (thecommunist party) rule with the aim of depoliticising the revolutionaryarmed forces. This was actually intended to separate the military fromthe leadership of the communist party and disable the military’s role asthe party and state’s forceful tool in the cause of nationalconstruction and defence.
The tactic was successful in the SovietUnion, where leaders of the country’s party, state and army themselvesdropped the Marxist – Leninist principle of building a politicallystrong military. They made serious mistakes such as abolishing theleadership of the Communist Party over the military, and depoliticisingand neutralising the Soviet army, which was one of the important causesof the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991.
For Vietnam,hostile forces are carrying out the tactic of calling for “armed forcesto maintain political neutrality”. It is actually to demand fordepoliticising the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA).
They hope that,once the armed forces are deluded by the slogan, and military officerslose their political orientation, they would overthrow the CommunistParty of Vietnam and the socialist political institution in Vietnam, inline with the scenario of "winning without fighting".
To realisethe scheme, hostile forces have used all means, both theoretical andideological together with real actions. With the aim of eliminating therevolutionary achievements in Vietnam and driving the country’sdevelopment path into the orbit of capitalism, they have stepped upcampaigns demanding a multi-party regime over the past many years, whichwould inevitably lead to the eradication of the leadership of theCommunist Party of Vietnam over the VPA.
They openlydemanded abolishing the provision on the leadership of the CommunistParty of Vietnam over the State and society as well as the provisionthat the armed forces are loyal to the Communist Party of Vietnam asstated in the Constitution of the socialist Vietnam.
The goal ofthese tricks is to push the "self evolution", "self transformation"process within the military, making it deviate from the revolutionarygoals and ideals and the leadership of the Party, towards neutralisingthe military’s role as a firm support of the Party, State and people inthe 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 noremarkable foundation. According to the widely-recognised idea "Waris the continuation of politics" initiated by the well-known militarytheorist Clausewitz (1780-1831), the military came into being to meetthe needs of war (either offensive or defensive). Any war has its ownpolitical goal, reflecting the political stance of the sides, so theparticipating militaries are all geared to serve the political goals ofthe war. This means there can never be an apolitical army.
Second, the military, as part of the State, always bears the classnature of the State that organises and nurtures it. The military is thearmed tool of the State to protect the achievements that the rulingpolitical forces have obtained through the struggle for power.
Thefounding history of the military always associates with the birth ofthe State; while the State is the inevitable product of the classstruggle, so any State bears the characteristics of the ruling class.
Aspart of the State, the armed forces of any society depend on thepolitical orientation of the ruling class. At the same time, rulingpolitical forces always do their best to firmly control the armed forcesthrough political, ideological, organisational and policy measures.
Therefore,ever since its appearance, the military has been "imbued" with thepolitics of the State and the class holding power in society. There hasnever been and cannot be a so-called "politically neutral" military, oran army "staying out of politics" as preached by the capitalist class inorder to cover the nature of the military in capitalist countries.
Inreality, no military of any countries is "politically neutral" or"stays out of politics" so far because the military is the tool of armedforce to protect political institutions of the ruling political forces.
Itis not difficult to notice the involvement of the military in politicsin many countries, like when military coups occur in many places,especially in Asia and Africa, in recent years.
In some countriessuch as the US, the UK and France, the military is used not only tosafeguard national independence, sovereignty, and the nation, butalso for other activities such as invasion, overthrowing andintervention in other sovereign nations with the political aim oferecting pro-Western governments. These acts in fact aim to serve theruling political parties’ internal and external policies, whichultimately is the interests of the capitalist forces behind incumbentgovernments.
Looking back on Vietnam’s history of struggles fornational liberation against the French colonialists, Japanese fascistsand US imperialists, it is clear that these countries’ armies were never"politically neutral", especially when their military officers had beeneducated about their "mission" to go to Vietnam to stop the wave ofcommunism from spreading throughout Southeast Asia.
Another pointis that in countries with multi-party structure, any political party inpower always tries their best to control the military because it willmake it easier for them to maintain the power.
It is a well knownfact that the Vietnam People’s Army was born from the masses’ politicalmovements and it was organised, trained and led by the Communist Partyof Vietnam to win and protect the revolutionary administration, so thearmy itself is a political force.
The VPA’s 70-year history ofdevelopment attests to a historic fact that the VPA is a political forceabsolutely loyal to the Party, the country and people. This is first ofall reflected in the unity of the VPA’s fighting goals and the Party’spolitical objectives, which is national independence in closeassociation with socialism.
President Ho Chi Minhhas emphasised many times the need to build a politically strong army.During his visit to the military politics school (now the Academy ofPolitics) on October 25, 1951, he advised students to study hard in allaspects of politics and military, stressing that “military withoutpolitics is like a tree without root, useless and harmful”.
Buildinga politically strong military by strengthening the Party’s leadershipand fostering the military’s working class nature combined with buildingthe military’s people-ness and nation-ness were a success lesson thatthe Party and President Ho Chi Minh have drawn out when flexiblyapplying Marxism-Leninism to the process of building a new-style army ofthe proletarian class in a country with an under-developed economy.
Thehistory of Vietnam’s revolution attested to the correctness of thislesson. Since its inception, the VPA’s predecessor – the Vietnam ArmedPropaganda Unit for National Liberation was organised under the model ofparty leadership with a political officer specialising in Party andpolitical affairs.
Reality also shows that without the Party’sleadership, the armed forces would degenerate, lose their politicalorientation and fighting targets. They would no longer be the armedforce of the people and a political force fighting for the goal ofnational independence and socialism, and so they cannot fulfil thefunction of safeguarding the country and people.
Building apolitically-strong military is a top basic principle in building arevolutionary, elite and modernised army of the people.
This isthe responsibility of the entire political system under the leadershipof the Party. It is also the responsibility of the VPA itself, includingthe exposure of tricks and ploys aimed at "depoliticising" the army, DrNguyen Ngoc Hoi wrote in conclusion.-VNA
