Today, some people intentionally praise the allegation: The military only has the mission to safeguard the Fatherland and not the Party, State and the political institution which organise and nurture that military. Some even argue that, given its title “People’s Army,” the Vietnam People’s Army (VPA) only has the mission to protect the Fatherland and people and not the Communist Party and socialist regime. These allegations are totally unacceptable.

It must be acknowledged that they are not “new discoveries” of “democrats,” who grant themselves the right to, on behalf of people, “struggle for freedom” as they have falsely believed. They are also not politically innocent or scientifically wrong. They are actually political quibbles to realise schemes of the opportunists, revisionists and hypocrites to deny the role of the VPA.

Theoretically, in the human history, there are three socio-economic formations (slavery, feudalism and capitalism) which are linked to private ownership and control of means of production, class antagonism, states, and wars. In proportion to these structures are modes of organising armed forces (military and police) to underpin the political institutions corresponding to those types of states. Obviously, since its debut (in the slavery), despite its simple organisational form with rudimentary weapons and equipment, the military closely aligned with classes and states, and served as a tool for the classes and states to pursue their economic, political interests. It means there is not and cannot be a military without connection with classes and states. A military is only the violent tool of the class or state which organises it.

In our modern society, regardless of big or small nations, the East or the West, there are not any nations without a ruling political party although they have few or many political parties. Consequently, when considering whether a society has few or many political parties, ones should not simply look at the number of political parties in that country. Currently, besides the two main parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party), there are other smaller parties in the United States. What classes do those political parties belong to? Whose interests do those political parties represent in the society if it is not the bourgeoisie? Similarly, Germany has the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and so on. The main political parties in France are the Socialist Party and the Republican Party. The United Kingdom has the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and so on. Nearest to our country is Thailand, which has two main political parties – the Democratic Party (Yellow Shirt) and the Pheu Thai Party (Red Shirt). Do those parties represent working people? Don’t those parties control the militaries and use them as a violent tool in their own interests?

Clearly, there are not and cannot be any militaries which are not linked to any ruling political parties, whatever parties they are in a bourgeois society. In some countries, the military even makes loyalty pledge to the head of the state (obviously the head of the ruling political party). Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States clearly reads: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.” Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, the President shall take the following Oath of Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear that when I execute the Office of President of the United States I will respect and protect rights and freedom of people and citizens, comply with and defend the Constitution, sovereignty, independence, security, and national integrity, and faithfully serve the people.” Article 3 of the French Constitution clearly reads: “National sovereignty shall vest in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum. Neither section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.” Thus, no individual or social organisation grant themselves the right to change the Constitution. However, it is a pity that, exploiting freedom of speech of our Party and State, some organisations and individuals in Vietnam grant themselves the ultimate right to amend the Constitution.

Recent political, social crises in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine, and the bygone crisis leading to the collapse of socialist regimes in Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union, militaries have always been the target of exploitation and implication by political forces with a view to turning them into the tool to seize and preserve regimes. Social upheavals were preceded by military coups in many countries. Further studies reveal that within or behind the militaries was still active political organisations and parties, and interference of external political forces with the aim of directing the military coups towards their “values.”

In historical, social terms, any fatherland is founded on two aspects, including the natural-historical and social ones. As far as the natural-historical term is concerned, the fatherland is linked to inhabited territories of human communities in the history, including land, air, seas, islands, and so forth. In social realm, the fatherland is always linked to a specific political institution, which represents the development trends of that fatherland. The histories of Vietnam and the world have proved that there is not and cannot be a vague, abstract fatherland. The fatherland must always be aligned with a certain political institution, whatever the political institution is and whoever the political institution serves. As with any other militaries in the world, the VPA also performs the function of national defence. This is an evident, undeniable truth. If defence of the fatherland is only coined as protection of national territorial integrity in order to conclude that the VPA only has the mission to safeguard the Fatherland (natural-historical aspect) and not the Party, State and socialist regime, it will be a terrible mistake in both academic and political, social terms. Although it is unintentional or intentional, that concept has encouraged wrong, reactionary allegations with a view to damaging the cause of building and defending the Fatherland of our Party and people.

In a higher aspect, defence of the fatherland is always linked to defence of the political institution of that fatherland. There is not vague, non-history, classless defence of the fatherland. Faithfulness to the fatherland and constitution also means faithfulness to that political institution. When protests broke out between the yellow-shirts (the People’s Alliance for Democracy - PAD) and the red-shirts (the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship – UDD) in the 2006-2011 period in Thailand, plunging this country into political crisis, the military sided with the government to suppress Thaksin supporters and restore social order. When Thai politics became unstable in 2013, General Prayuth Chan-ocha launched a “coup” to overthrow the Yingluck Shinawatra government and restore social order and discipline. Those realities reveal that the military not only defends the fatherland but also safeguards the political institution which organises and fosters it. The VPA was founded, educated and trained by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) and President Ho Chi Minh so why does it only need to be loyal to the Fatherland and not the Party – its founder? The viewpoint of only defending the Fatherland and not the Party, which is the highest representative of that political institution, is a bold fabrication and an unprincipled, unrealistic argument.

Practically, the bourgeois military, whatever social background it belongs to, is still a tool for the bourgeoisie to preserve their political and economic power and suppress working people at home and abroad. Protection of the bourgeois political institution and capitalist regime is the clearest, deepest manifestation of the bourgeois military in its capacity as the violent tool of the bourgeoisie and capitalist state. To achieve that goal, the bourgeoisie has lavished money on educating and training soldiers in bourgeois ideology. The military of capitalist state has a system of radio and television stations, and a number of books and newspapers published with the aim of extolling capitalism while smearing and distorting revolutionary, scientific nature of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism. U.S. military has a big propaganda apparatus, called “military information and education agency,” to conduct ideological work. This agency is established in all services and arms. Apart from leading propaganda work, this agency also prepares and publishes textbooks concerning ideologies, articles for radio broadcasting and newspapers, and movies to extol capitalism. German military even sets up commissioned officer and noncommissioned officer schools to train and educate soldiers according to ideologies and norms of the capitalist state. Russian President Vladimir Putin, on 30 July 2018, signed the order to reinstate the Military-Political Directorate within its Defence Ministry. The new directorate will be tasked with advising the President and Minister of Defence on building the Russian Federation Armed Forces in politics to counter the hostile forces’ acts of sabotage in ideology and politics. Therefore, building militaries in politics and ideology, and cultivating combat goals and ideals for military personnel are appreciated by all militaries.

The allegation that the military is neutral, stays away from politics, and only has a mission to defend the fatherland is also attributed to erroneous perception of some people, lack of a thorough understanding of political pluralism and multiparty political system in capitalist states. In states with multiparty political system, parties always request the militaries to be neutral and stay away from politics to ensure that the armed forces do not side with any political parties when parties have not come into power yet. Having come into power, obviously those political parties will control the militaries and request them to be faithful to the presidents and prime ministers, or have real power to govern the ruling parties. Faithfulness to the states, presidents and governments, in essence, is loyal to the ruling parties. Safeguarding the states and fatherlands also means defending the parties and political systems of those countries. Thus, whether it is constitutional or not, there are no militaries staying away from politics as someone has thought mistakenly.

The VPA works with the whole Party and people to attain the goal of national independence and bringing our country out of the yoke of slavery and dependence on foreign countries. Our military, under the leadership of the Party and Uncle Ho, played the core role in defeating the two major imperialists to usher in a new era – national independence, unification and advancing towards socialism. Where would our people move forward without the Communist Party of Vietnam and Vietnam’s People’s Army? Perhaps, this question is easy to answer and an obvious truth. Many people, however, still pretend not to understand. When he was alive, General Vo Nguyen Giap used to be questioned [by foreign generals and researchers] why the VPA had been able to defeat two big imperialists in unequal struggles with very rudimentary weapons. The general affirmed that it would be hard to answer this question without studying the history of Vietnamese people and revolutionary line under the leadership of the CPV. One would fail to understand the nature, goals and combat ideals of the VPA, as well as their sacrifice for national independence without studying them in relation to the CPV. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin reminded us that the bourgeoisie wanted to be the ruling class. If they really ruled the country, they had to express that authority through their military organisation. There was not a neutral military, which stayed away from politics and only defended the fatherland, whichever class that military belonged to, whatever political system that military served, and whenever that military served. The military always belonged to a specific class and state to undertake political missions of that class and state.

The allegation that the military only safeguards the fatherland is not only a political innocence, quibble, non-science, and unreality but also an injurious propaganda in political terms with a view to disrupting the VPA’s political foundation, making it lose direction and combat goals, and unable to play a core role in the defence of the Fatherland and preservation of political stability, giving a pretext for external intervention aimed to overthrow the socialist regime in our country. Consequently, it is necessary to struggle and reject that allegation.

Doctor Do Van Ngoan and Master Nguyen Viet Man