US Leaders Destabilized the Global South, Viet Nam, & Ukraine
Destabilization and War Bring Opportunity for Resource Control & Profits, for a Superpower
Free weekly newsletter: Real Reason for the US-Viet Nam War
1st & 3rd Saturdays each month, by 9 a.m. East Coast US time.
2d & 4th Saturdays each month, by 9 a.m. East Coast US time. Topic:An unrebutted fact in The 1619 Project book (16 Nov 2021).
Cites for some facts are in Roesch, B. (2021). Corporate Tsunami in Countryside Paradise: 1875–1900 Origin of US War in Viet Nam, First Edition Revised. See briandroesch.com
On Russia’s February 2022 criminal invasion of Ukraine, ample evidence exists that US leaders provoked the invasion to destabilize the region, a move that demonstrates their long-term pattern to gain power. For, historians and journalists have proven, beyond any doubt, that during 1945–2022, US leaders conducted coups, invasions, and destabilizations throughout the Global South to gain power, rather than to spread democracy.[i]
Despite that record, US leaders now ask the Global South to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and committing war crimes. That request is “open, rank hypocrisy . . . striking lots of people around the world” observes Professor Vijay Prashad. The hypocrisy is serious. Various historians show that war crimes by US leaders and their proxies range from machine-gunning banana plantation workers during a 1954 Guatemala coup, to death squads in Central and South America, to supporting the murder of The Congo Prime Minister in 1962—for the purpose of denying fair trade and democracy throughout post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa—to, as Prof. Prashad says, “the Amiriyah shelter [Baghdad, Iraq], 1,500 civilians killed in 1991 when the United States bombed a shelter, knowing full well there were civilians there.”[ii]
In that pattern, democracy not being important, hypocrisy arises in that the US gives military assistance to three-fourths of the world’s dictators. That percentage was reported in 2021 by Freedom House.[iii]
Bolivia’s former president, Evo Morales, writes: “If the salvation of humanity is far away, it is because Washington insists on using its bullets against the world’s people.” Similarly, from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Bertrand Russell wrote in 1967:[iv]
. . . the system which has taken control of the United States and perverted its industrial life into a grotesque arsenal for a world empire. It is the vast military machine, the great industrial combines, and their intelligence agencies which are regarded by the people of three whole continents as their main enemy in life and the source of their misery and hunger.
Loading in 1950: Steps to Destabilize & Take Over the War in Viet Nam.
Astonishingly, yet another dimension of that hypocrisy is now exposed: US State Department files contain admissions that the US-Viet Nam War of the 1960s was primarily a US colonial attack, not a Cold War confrontation between the US and Soviet Union. Those admissions reside in National Archives files. They contain thousands of State Dept reports from Viet Nam, revealing previously hidden US colonial operations in Viet Nam during the 1870s–1940. (Sample pages of the reports may be viewed in earlier issues of this newsletter at: https://briandroesch.substack.com Click “see all” to see report pages displayed in the earliest issues.)
Even during public agony in the 1960s, asking what the war was about, US leaders never told the public about the reports or the early US presence. To this day, the leaders have not informed the public about them. But US leaders brought the war in the 1960s, trying to seize Viet Nam and resume that early colonial activity.
In 1950, US leaders began preparing to take over the French invasion if the French lost. During the 1960s, this became the US leaders’ largest effort against any nation that challenged their resource control.
The steps the US leaders took amounted to a destabilization of Viet Nam. Upon Viet Nam’s 1954 victory over France, which achieved an expectation of independence, Viet Nam was immediately destabilized by the presence of US soldiers, and by the political efforts that were underway. Among the steps the US leaders took were:
Step 1 On April 5, 1950, as France had been suffering battlefield defeats, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the situation had deteriorated and would accelerate without further US aid.[v]
Step 2. On March 6, 1950, a survey mission headed by R. Allen Griffin concluded that rehabilitation was a pressing problem in southern Viet Nam. During 1950, 21 US officials were in Viet Nam, many working on such matters.[vi]
Step 3. Operating in Viet Nam by mid-1950 were: Bethlehem Steel, Caltex Oil, Petroleum Oil, and Florida Phosphate Corporation.[vii]
Step 4. In April 1950, John Foster Dulles entered the State Department’s Far Eastern Division as a chief advisor to Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Dulles was America’s highest paid international lawyer, and he and the Assistant Secretary of State for Far East, Dean Rusk, opposed support to nationalism in Viet Nam. Dulles was a trusted advisor to Nelson Rockefeller of Standard Oil, which had operated in Viet Nam since the 1880s. In the 1890s as a child, Dulles (born 1888) had begun learning about foreign policy from his grandfather who, as a secretary of state in the 1890s, received US consular reports personally addressed to him from Viet Nam.[viii]
Step 5. In July 1950, a Department of Defense (DOD) and State mission traveled in Viet Nam, studying how guerrillas were able to resist the French.
Step 6. During August and September 1950, US officials met in Japan with Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem had fled from Viet Nam, as he had refused to join the nation of Viet Nam in its anti-colonial war against the French. In the Spring of 1950, Viet Nam issued an ultimatum to Diem: join or be killed. He chose to flee. From Japan, Diem moved to the US. He remained in the US, with some stops in Europe, until 1954, when US leaders sent him back to Viet Nam as the figurehead for their takeover of the war. During his 1950–54 absence, the CIA station in Viet Nam was in contact with his brothers in Viet Nam: In 1954, the CIA reported that Diem and his brothers “did not have any significant mass following in Vietnam.”[ix]
Step 7. In 1950, the CIA gave arms and money to Thailand’s dictator, General Phibun. Phibun then forced Viet Nam arms buyers to leave that country; he allowed an ongoing presence of US Army Air Corps advisors and technicians there since World War II. Later, the US used bases in Thailand for bombing missions into Viet Nam.
Step 8. In September 1950, some Viet people—not from the DRV—attended a meeting in London of participants in a new Colombo Plan. The Plan had been announced in 1949 for economic development of newly independent Asian nations. Most funding was planned to come from US leaders. The non-DRV people marked the Plan as an attempt to block the DRV from involvement in developing its own country.
Step 9. In early 1951, Allen Dulles convinced a French espionage chief in Washington to override French worries about the CIA, and to authorize opening a CIA station in Viet Nam. It opened by April 1951. Dulles had moved, on January 2, 1951, into the CIA’s third highest office, which controlled US overseas covert operations.
Step 10. On March 4, 1951, a CIA contingency estimate was requested on consequences of actions the US might take in Indo-China.
Step 11. On August 23, 1951, Allen Dulles moved into the CIA’s second-highest office, Deputy to the CIA Director.
Step 12. In November 1951, Griffin returned to Viet Nam and said that economic development using US funds was ineffective because of lack of grass-roots support. He cited the “insecurity, hunger and wretchedness of masses of people.”
Step 13. During 1952–54, Professor Wesley Fishel in the US worked with Ngo Dinh Diem on a plan for running a government in Viet Nam if the US took over the war. During this time, Diem met with various US officials. He gained approval of some. In 1954, when the French defeat became more probable, Diem was selected as the puppet for a US takeover of the war.
Step 14. As a prior newsletter in this series shows, when Viet Nam defeated France in 1954, the ensuing 1954 Geneva Accords explicitly recognized that Viet Nam was one nation; the Accords did not create two countries or states, but US leaders ignored that:
That newsletter shows that the Geneva Accords gave France a duty to temporarily remain in the southern half until a Viet Nam election, and to kick out any foreign soldiers who tried to enter the southern half. But US leaders disregarded the Geneva Conference results and told France to leave. Due to big power politics, France broke its duty under the Geneva Accord and left without kicking out the US.
US Leaders Destabilize Eastern Europe and Ukraine
Similar to the steps taken in Viet Nam after 1950, U(S leaders acted after 1991, to destabilize Eastern Europe and Ukraine in ways that threatened Russia. In 1991, the existence of the Soviet Union ended. Russia emerged with less power and a smaller economy. For example, important economic institutions in Ukraine had been intermeshed with the Russian economy under communism.[x]
When the Soviet Union ended, Russia agreed that West Germany and East Germany could be reunited. At the same time, in discussions at the highest level of government, the US Secretary of State said that NATO would not be extended one inch eastward from Germany.[xi]
That understanding, while not included in a treaty, left the road open for diplomacy and negotiations on issues, such as (1) changes from the communist economies that had been woven together between Russia and satellite states like Ukraine, and (2) security concerns in Eastern Europe countries, and in Russia.
However, the US and NATO chose to extend NATO into Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states on Russia’s border. And, in 2008 in the Bucharest Declaration, the US and NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “will” become members of NATO. Then, in 2018, “the United States government unilaterally walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty),” says Prof. Prashad.[xii]
“Mr. Putin and the Chinese government have said that they fear the placement of mid-level — these intermediate nuclear missiles near the Russian and Chinese border,” Prof. Prashad points out in April 2022.[xiii]
In comparison, in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, US leaders considered Russian missiles in Cuba to be a grave threat to the US. From Russia’s point of view, the threat of NATO missiles in Ukraine is similar.
Russia also had understandable concerns about whether Ukraine would have economic ties to Europe rather than to Russia. The abandonment of diplomacy, when the intent for Ukraine to be in NATO was announced, closed a door for diplomacy and negotiations.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin, formerly of the KGB, was the president of Russia. He used the legitimate Russian concerns as an excuse to invade Ukraine during 2014, seizing the Crimea. And, he continued backing separatists in two Ukraine provinces, where a civil war broke out. In February 2022, he used similar excuses to invade Ukraine.
Conclusion. Ukraine is the latest example of US leaders disregarding diplomacy, and instead favoring destabilization. With destabilization comes opportunity to seize resource control by force. US leaders now have that opportunity: They are supplying weapons for Ukraine’s defense, and then seeing how much damage the weapons do to Russia.
While Ukraine has a right to defend itself, and Russia has no right to invade, the situation is like many others in which the NSC played a role of destabilization and power grabbing.
More urgency arises. Some foreign policy hawks have written that the war in Ukraine presents the US “a historic opportunity to regroup and reload.” Professor Andrew Bacevich warns of that view, which comes after US military failure in Afghanistan.[xiv]
Another warning comes from both Prof Prashad and Prof Bacevich: The war in Ukraine distracts many people from the impending climate change catastrophe.[xv]
[i] Kinzer, S. (2006). Overthrow : America’s century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq (First ed.) NY: Times Books/Henry Holt; Prashad, V. (2020). Washington bullets. Monthly Review Press; Blum, W. (2014). America’s deadliest export : Democracy—the truth about US foreign policy and everything else. Halifax, N.S; London; NY: Fernwood Pub., Zed Books; Blum, W. (2003). Killing hope : U.S. military and CIA interventions since World War II. London: Zed.
[ii] Democracy Now! (April 15, 2022). “Vijay Prashad on the War in Ukraine & the West’s “Open, Rank Hypocrisy” in Condemning War Crimes” https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/15/vijay_prashad_russia_ukraine_global_south
[iii] Support for dictators. Hoh, M. (22 Nov, 2021). “Nearly 3/4 of the World’s Dictators Receive US Weapons and Military Assistance.” Counterpunch. https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/22/nearly-3-4-of-the-worlds-dictators-receive-us-weapons-and-military-assistance/
[iv] Bullets for people. Prashad, V. (2020). Washington bullets. Monthly Review Press, Kindle Location 65. System regarded as source. Russell, War Crimes in Vietnam, p. 120.
[v] JCS 1950 deteriorated. United States. Department of Defense, United States-Vietnam relations, 1945–1967, study prepared by the Department of Defense (Pentagon Papers), Bk. 1, IV. A. 2, p. 5 (Pentagon Papers).
[vi] Griffin mission mid-1950, problem. Miller, Misalliance, p. 54, Kindle location 1059–1068. Griffin Plan concrete step intervene. Lê, T. Từ Điển Sài Gòn – Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh, p. 131. During 1950–54 US aid officials in Viet Nam. Montgomery, John D. (1960). Working Paper No. 4 For Meeting Feb 25, 1960, Organizational and Administrative Relationships and Foreign Aid Policies. NY: Council on Foreign Relations, p. 10.
[vii] 604. Central Committee letter about US effort. Ban Chap Hanh (7 July, 1950). “Về việc chống thực dân Pháp,” Số 19/CT-TƯ, Trung Ương Đảng. Viet Nam National Museum of History (April 2018). Display, Colonial exhibits. Ha Noi: Viet Nam National Museum of History. Ho named corporations in Viet Nam re military aid. Ho, C., & Rogers
D. Spotswood Collection. (1968). Ho Chi Minh on revolution : Selected writings, 1920–66. New York: New American Library, p. 216.
[viii] JF Dulles enters State Dept April 1950, actions on Korea, Japan. Acheson, Present at the creation, pp. 96, 539–542. Grandfather, Uncle Bert, visitors, Davis, mansion. Immerman, R. (1999). John Foster Dulles : Piety, pragmatism, and power in U.S. foreign policy (Biographies in American foreign policy) : no. 2). Wilmington, Del.: Scholastic Resources, p. 3, Kindle locations, 404–10. JF Dulles Senator 1949, advisor to Secretary State through 1953, diplomat reputation. Kinzer, The Brothers, Chapter 4, Kindle location 1646–1650, 1684–1694. Dulles on loss of China re Far East. Millett, The war for Korea, 1945–1950, Epilogue and Prologue June 1950, Kindle location 6168.
[ix] CIA work with Nhu 1951, connections, brothers and Diem no mass following 1954. Miller, Misalliance, pp. 41–51, 80–81, Kindle location 807–1011, 1588–1592.
[x] Post-1991 US actions E. Europe. Mearsheimer. UChicago (Sep 26, 2015). “Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer.”
[xj] Post-1991 US actions E. Europe. Mearsheimer. UChicago (Sep 26, 2015). “Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer.”
[xii] US walk out of INF treaty. Democracy Now! (15 April, 2022). Vijay Prashad on the War in Ukraine & the West’s “Open Rank Hypocrisy” in Condemning War Crimes. https://www.democracyn ow.org/2022/4/15/vijay_prashad_russia_ukraine_global_south
[xiii] Russia view on missiles. Democracy Now! (15 April, 2022). Vijay Prashad on the War in Ukraine & the West’s “Open Rank Hypocrisy” in Condemning War Crimes. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/15/vijay_prashad_russia_ukraine_global_south
[xiv] Bacevich, Andrew (April 14, 2022). “American Militarism: A Persistent Malady.” LAProgressive. https://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/our-persistent-malady?utm_source=LA+Progressive+NEW&utm_campaign=fdc7fc09e2-LAP+News+-+20+April+17+PC_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_61288e16ef-fdc7fc09e2-286931609&mc_cid=fdc7fc09e2&mc_eid=1af56936a2
[xv] Bacevich, Andrew (April 14, 2022). “American Militarism: A Persistent Malady.” LAProgressive. https://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/our-persistent-malady?utm_source=LA+Progressive+NEW&utm_campaign=fdc7fc09e2-LAP+News+-+20+April+17+PC_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_61288e16ef-fdc7fc09e2-286931609&mc_cid=fdc7fc09e2&mc_eid=1af56936a2
Democracy Now! (April 15, 2022). “Vijay Prashad on the War in Ukraine & the West’s “Open, Rank Hypocrisy” in Condemning War Crimes” https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/15/vijay_prashad_russia_ukraine_global_south