Makers of the Twentieth Century: Ho Chi Minh
'Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh' was the chant of radicals
in the 1966s and 1970s, idolising the Communist leader who led Vietnam's
Revolutionary struggle first against French colonialism and then
against the United States' involvement in Vietnam. An article by Milton
Osborne.
More than a decade has passed since Ho Chi Minh died. With that
passage of time it is already difficult to remember the passion his
name generated in the West as he led Vietnam, first in the struggle for
independence against France and then in the war against a rival
Vietnamese state backed by the vast power of the United States. Even his
bitterest opponents found it hard not to accord him grudging respect
for his single-minded pursuit of the goal of Vietnamese independence and
unity. Among students in both Europe and the United States in the
turbulent 1960s he became a rather unlikely cult figure, so that the
chant ‘Ho, Ho, Ho, Chi Minh’, was as much part of radical demonstrations
as the singing of the ‘Internationale’ or the clashes with police.
Whether he was seen as a hero or a vicious dictator, he certainly was a
person who could not be ignored and seemed unlikely to be forgiven.
Ho
Chi Minh has not, of course, been forgotten in his own country, nor by
students of Vietnam in the West, but his posthumous reputation outside
Vietnam appears less striking than the fame he achieved during his
lifetime. In part this is a reflection of a shift in world interest to
other crises and problems. So much has changed over the eleven years
since Ho died. The Middle East and the energy crisis have replaced
South-east Asia as a focus for attention. America’s rapprochement with
China has led to a new set of alliances in which a readiness to
disregard Vietnam, or to treat it as an appendage of the Soviet Union,
has become a feature of governmental thinking in the United States. More
is involved, however, in the present lack of interest in Ho Chi Minh.
His name has faded from international awareness for reasons that go
beyond the lapse of time and the redirection of interest towards new
issues. In part the partial eclipse of his reputation reflects the way
in which Ho was often seen as a symbol rather than as an individual
revolutionary politician. It is not too much to say that in the West
there were many Hos. There was a French Ho and an American Ho. There was
a Ho admired by radicals and a Ho condemned by those who supported the
American role in Vietnam.
Similar comments might be made about
other world figures who were praised or reviled for the virtues or
failings they were believed to symbolise. In the case of Ho Chi Minh
another factor is involved which probably goes some additional way
towards explaining the limited amount of attention his name currently
receives. More than anything else, Ho was a man of political action. His
reputation grew as he and his fellow revolutionaries became the leading
force fighting against French colonial power and then against the
United States. He was not a theorist. His achievements were enormous and
then he gained success against tremendous odds. In Vietnamese terms he
wasthe man of his time. But he was not a Lenin nor a Mao. Overall, his Selected Works
makes dull reading, not simply because they are often marked by
repetitious Communist jargon, but equally because Ho wrote in relation
to immediate political issues. Read outside the time and the
circumstances in which they were written his speeches and messages seem
like routine exercises than stirring calls to revolutionary action. Yet
this was a man who helped to shape the twentieth century. How did this
happen, and what were Ho’s lasting achievements?
Much of the
mystery that once surrounded Ho Chi Minh’s life has been dispelled. In
the late 1940s there was still doubt concerning the true identity of the
man who led the Viet Minh in the struggle against the French.
Politicians and scholars asked whether Ho Chi Minh was the same man as
Nguyen Ai Quoc, the passionate Vietnamese Communist who first came to
prominence in the period immediately after the First World War. Now we
know that Ho Chi Minh and Nguyen Ai Quoc were indeed on and the same
person. We know that his name at birth was again different. Born Nguyen
Sinh Cuong, in Nghe An province of Central Vietnam on May 19th, 1890, he
changed his name many times throughout his life. His two best known
public names are significant for their meaning. As Nguyen Ai Quoc he was
asserting his deep feeling for his country, for the name may be
translated as ‘Nguyen who loves his country’, or, as is more usually the
case, ‘Nguyen the Patriot’. When, during the Second World War, he chose
to use his other well-known public name he was underlining his own
conviction as well as that of others that he was the man to lead
Vietnam’s revolution against the French. For as Ho Chi Minh his name
indicated that he was ‘Ho who enlightens’.
Nothing gives greater
emphasis to the remarkable character of the man than the fact that his
return to Vietnam in 1940, still calling himself Nguyen Ai Quoc, came
after an absence of nearly thirty years. During that time he had
travelled the world as a member of a ship’s crew, worked as a hotel
employee in London – possibly as an assistant to the great chef
Escoffier – and been one of the founding members of the French Communist
Party. As an agent of the Comintern he had been active in China and
Thailand as well as working directly in relation to his own country. His
return to Vietnam in 1940 was followed by yet another of the remarkable
developments that were a feature of his long and varied career. After a
lifetime successfully spent evading the French security services he was
thrown into prison in China when he made a visit there in 1942 with the
aim of establishing a working relationship with Chiang Kai-shek. He was
to remain in prison for about eighteen months, a period whenhe wrote
poetry that many judge to be his finest literary achievement. His
release was followed by the temporary triumph of the August 1945
Revolution, which proclaimed Vietnam’s independence from France. He was
the undisputed leader of the subsequent bitter Franco-Vietnamese War,
the First Indochina War, and his leadership remained vital despite his
advanced age during the Second Indo-China War, which was still raging
when he died on September 3rd , 1969. No false emotion is evoked in
remarking that the memory of Ho’s leadership played a large part in
sustaining the Vietnamese politicians and generals who finally brought
the Second Indo-China War to a successful military conclusion nearly six
years after his death.\
When Ho's early travels came
to an end with his arrival in Paris in 1917 he quickly became involved
in political action. The six years he spent in Paris were important for
many reasons. It was in Paris that he became a member of the French
Communist Party and a convert to Lenin's views on the colonial issue.
The Paris years showed him to be a man of tireless energy, one who was
concerned to present his political views in a direct and untheoretical
manner. Not that Ho Chi Minh was able to muster a large number of
supporters for his position. But he achieved much in the face of
considerable handicaps. When, shortly after he arrived in the French
capital, the Versailles Peace Conference took place Ho's French was
insufficiently expert for him to draft the document he wished to present
to the conference delegates listing the 'Claims' of the Vietnamese
people. Nevertheless, he was able to enlist the assistance of a
compatriot and the Revendications du peuple annamite became the
first major document associated with Ho's name and was distributed to
the delegates and to members of the French parliament.
While he worked to support himself Ho studied and wrote. He founded a newspaper, Le Paria , in which some of the important sections of his lengthy critique of French colonialism, Le Procère
, Nguyen Ai Quoc. He was ‘the Patriot’ who, aware of the potential
power of international Communism, sought to apply that power to
Vietnam’s national problems. It would be impossible to overestimate the
force of his personality, a force that was reflected in the appeal he
had for his countrymen despite the long periods he lived outside
Vietnam. If his writings lack the attraction of theory, they were
clearly appropriate to the circumstances in which they were written in
the eyes of his countrymen. History does not permit us to assess what
might have happened if someone other than Ho had been at the helm of
Vietnam’s revolutionary struggle and its wars against the French and the
Americans. He was there and his strength of purpose laid the basis for
the defeat of those who believed it was possible to maintain a divided
Vietnam, part Communist and part non-Communist. To the extent that the
American defeat in Vietnam was a major feature of contemporary world
history, Ho Chi Minh’s role in bringing that defeat makes him one of the
notable figures among twentieth-century leaders. Whether he would have
seemed so important if the French had not tried to return to Vietnam and
if the United States had not intervened to support the Diem regime in
southern Vietnam is another, ultimately unanswerable question.
Notes on Further Reading:The best available biography of Ho Chi Minh is the thoughtful and very readable work by Jean Lacouture, Ho Chi Minh: A Political Biography (New York, 1968). A failry slim Vietnamese account of his life, available in translation, is that written by the well-known Hanoi politician, Truong Chinh, President Ho Chi Minh: Beloved leader of the Vietnamese people (Hanoi, 1966). Ho's own writings are available in a four volume English translation, Ho Chi Minh, Selected Works , four volumes (Hanoi, 1960-62). Much of what is contained in the Hanoi publication may be found in Bernard Fall, ed., Ho Chi Minh on Revolution (New York, 1967).
No comments:
Post a Comment