Saturday, May 23, 2020

THE COMMUNIST BLOC AFTER THE COLD WAR


      THE COMMUNIST BLOC AFTER THE COLD WAR

      By Van Nguyen




  The Helsinki Agreement

In 1975, an international conference 25 countries including the United States and the Soviet Union attempted to reach agreement on cooperation ‘in security, economics, science, technology, and human rights. The title is the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation, which is regarded as a turning point for the beginning of détente and of the Cold War. Successive dialogues between the United States and the Soviet Union opened up to treaties on missile and arms limitations in spite of specific quarrels.  There were, it was believed, many violations of the provisions of the accord. There was an awareness of contrasts between Western Europe and Eastern Europe in the Eastern Bloc, diverse groups emerged, survived, and even strengthened their positions, in spite of severe repression. Certain officials or economic specialists, and even some party members began to show signs of skeptics about the effects of centralized planning. There was then increasing discussion of the advantages of utilizing market mechanisms.

   Eastern Europe

The first clear sign came in Poland in the early years of the 1980’s.Polish workers protested against economic policy condemning ill-treatment. A series of strikes came in a rights struggle in the Gdank shipyard. An organized federation of trade unions, “Solidarity” with Lech Walesa at its head emerged.  Political demands added weight to the economic interests of the workers. This was the crucial step towards a labor solidarity movement of an independent, self-governing trade union. Poland proved itself an independent and free country. Alongside, clandestine organization and publication, strikes and demonstrations, and continuing ecclesiastical condemnation of the regime sustained responsibilities and braved consequences.

Poland led Eastern Europe to freedom. Events there were quickly been perceived in other Communist countries whose leaders were much alarmed. In varying degree, the Eastern Europe was exposed to increasing flow of information about new events through television, especially marked in the Democratic Republic of Germany. More freedom of government, more access to foreign books and newspapers advanced the process of criticism there as in Poland.  A change in consciousness was under way The Hungarians had moved almost as rapidly in economic liberalization as the Poles, even before overt political change. But their actual contribution to the collapse of Eastern Europe came in August 1989. Germans from the Democratic Republic of Germany were then allowed to enter Hungary freely as tourists, though their purpose was known to be to present themselves to the embassy and consulates of the Federal Republic for asylum.

     Successive incidents unfolded, aggravating the situation. A complete opening of Hungary’s frontiers came in September 1989 when Czechoslovakia followed suit, and a flow became a flood. In three days, 12,000 East Germans crossed from these countries to the West. The Soviet authorities admitted that this was “unusual.” For the Democratic Republic of Germany, it was the beginning of the end. On the eve of the carefully-planned and much-wanted celebration of forty years’ “success” as a socialist country during a visit by Gorbachev. Riot police had to battle with anti-government demonstrators on the streets of East Berlin. The government and party threw out their leader, but this was not enough. November opened with huge demonstrations in many countries against a regime whose corruption was becoming evident. On November 9 came the greatest symbolic act of all, the breaking of the Berlin Wall. The East German Politburo caved in and the demolition of the rest of the Wall followed.

     After four decades of Communist rule, the six countries of Eastern Europe still within the Soviet sphere of influence--those that, collectively, and often been referred to as the ‘Soviet external empire’--underwent what can only be described as revolutionary transformation. By the end of 1989, the Communists were no longer dominant in the governments of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and --arguably--Hungary, while their hold on power in the Germany Democratic Republic and Bulgaria was tenuous. They looked set to --and did--loose powering those countries in 1990. Symbolically, at least, the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989. Even in the most authoritarian and seemingly immutable of the entire Soviet -bloc countries of the region, Romania, the quarter-century dictatorship of Nicolae and Elem Ceausescu had collapsed--unfortunately, at considerable human cost. There, as in other European countries, the constitutional guarantee of the ‘leading role’ of the Communist party had by the year’s end been abolished, and the country was no longer officially described as a ‘Socialist Republic.’ Moving beyond the Soviet Bloc, Yugoslavia was clearly in crisis, not only was the ideology of Marxism-Leninism apparently about to be officially abandoned, but the country itself was in great danger of disintegration (Leslie Homes, 1993:301-2).

At the end of 1990, the condition of what had once seemed the almost monolithic East European bloc already defied generalization or brief description. As former Communist countries (Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary) applied to join the European Community or got ready to do so (Bulgaria), some observers speculated about potentially wider degree of European unity than ever before. More cautious judgments were made by those who noted the virulent emergence of new-- or emergence of the old--national and communal division to plague the new East. Above all, over the whole area there generated the storm-clouds of economic failure and the turbulence they might bring. Liberation might have come, but it had come to peoples and societies of very different levels of sophistication and development and with very different historical origins.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

     Mikhail Gorbachev became President of the Supreme Court, Head of State in 1989 and was elected to a five-year term as executive president in March 1990. Drastic political, economic, and defense developments increasingly shattered the Union, In  In June 1Successive989, the USSR, for the first time conducted open general elections for a popular congress amid the movement for democracy in Peking was at its climax and Eastern Europe sought for greater real freedom. In August, 1989 the Solidarity Union of Poland won popular general elections and came to power. The Communist Eastern Bloc was in chaos. Ceausescu was overthrown after a bloody demonstration. Tudor Zhukov was eliminating. Honaker was called to resign from office. Vaclav Havel led the Velvet Revolution, won the general elections and became President.

 Incidents of disintegration ever mounted, Chaos surged. Nationalists challenged in Kazakhstan, Baltic republics, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Lithuanian parliament declared the annexation of 1939 invalid. Lithuania asserted independence. Latvia and Estonia also claimed their independence, though in slightly different terms. Parliaments in the nine of the Soviet republics had either declared they were sovereign or asserted a substantial degree of independence from the central government. Some republic made local languages official; some others even put Soviet ministries and economic agencies to local control. The Russia Republic, in particular, sought to operate its own economy independently from that of the central administration while the Ukrainian Republic sought to set up its own army. In March 1990, elections led President Gorbachev once more back to the path of reform and a search for a new Union treaty which  could preserve some central role for the State.

 The true state of the Soviet Union and its people’s attitudes was revealed to the rest of the world. “Glasnost” (openness) had brought the first surveys of public opinion through polls discrediting of the party and nomenclature. Economic failure was also a factor. Accelerations for domestic, economic and political programs of “perestroika” (restructuring) from 1987 proved to be futile. After seventy years of socialist construction under the aegis of Marxism-+Leninism, the USSR was revealed to be unreal. The three Baltic republics Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania manifested dissatisfaction with their lot and, in the end, left the way to political change. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union agreed to end one-party rule. The Supreme Soviet passed the law allowed freedom of religion. In August 1991, hard-line communist staged a coup to remove Gorbachev from power, but the president was still in power owing to strong opposition from Yeltsin, who then led the way in dissolution of communist rule. In November and December 1991, the republic seceded from the Union. Total disintegration of the Soviet Union was clearly in sight, and the collapse of the Communist Bloc was certain.

Monday, May 11, 2020

THE SUPPRESSION



THE SUPPRESSION

By Van Nguyen



 Efforts were made to remedy deteriorations in the administration of the country. In the congress of June 11, 1989 in Ho Chi Minh City, members of association, having discussed the “rights to freedom and democracy of the citizen and other important issues of the society,” sent a petition to the National Assembly, requesting it to “verify and have attitude towards a number of constitutional violations of certain government organs.” The Ministry of Information, as a case in evidence, infringed on Article 67 of the Constitution on freedom of the press, closed down in series the newspapers that daringly revealed the truth, particularly setbacks in the fighting against conservatism, bureaucracy, and authoritarianism. 

Facing sharp requests from the association and being apprehensive of a movement of dissent inspired from it, during the Sixth Plenum taking place, June 15–August 4,1989, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam discussed important issues among which  was  the conduct of ideological tasks vis-à-vis the political developments in the country and abroad. The discussion was focussed on the conspiracy of the American imperialism and the activities of anti-revolutionary forces that were outlining vile schemes to destroy socialism.  Party Secretary-general Nguyen Van Linh stressed the goal of democratic centralism and the unshakable will of the Party to eradicate every artful plot of the enemy. The debate concluded with firm resolution “to determinedly exterminate political pluralism and persistently carry out proletariat dictatorship”

   On August 22, 1989, leading members of the association held a conference in Ho Chi Minh City. Among them were Nguyen Ho, Ha Huy Giap, To Ky, Huynh Van Tieng, and Tran Van Tra. After deliberate discussion, the group sent a petition to the Central Party Committee requesting it to define the main objective of the economy for the South, invigorating the national economy and enforcing a comprehensive renovation. More importantly, the Party should not place itself above the Constitution and the law; it should serve itself as an example, showing high respect for the laws.
     
    The petition pointed out: “There is no dialogue, no discussion whatsoever. [The Party and the State] do not listen to opinions from cadres, party members, and the masses. The leadership, orientation, and management of the Party and State, in some respects, are inclined to dependent on orders, severe administrative measures, violence, and weapons (guns, electric rods, and hunting dogs) to face the masses. Such incidents had taken place in Cong Hoa Village (Thanh Hoa Province), Tu Trinh Village (Thai Binh Province), and Ky Hoa (Ho Chi Minh City). Those hard measures indicated that the Party and the State had used the Steel Fist approach to restore social order. There is no doubt that the peasantry was the main force of the Revolution in the rural areas and that the students were the main forces for the Revolution in the cities. They are now "enjoying" a taste of our weapons, the atrocity of hunting dogs, the proletarian dictatorship, and socialism. That is sad! (Do Trung Hieu. Cau Lac Bo Nhung Nguoi Khang Chien Cu. 1995: 27)

On January 7, 1990, more than 200 members of the association and representatives from various organizations held a seminar at the National Museum, Ho Chi Minh City under the co-chairmanship of General Tran Van Tra, Pham Van Khai, former Party Secretary of the South Thanh Son, and Tran Bach Dang, discussed “an approach to renovation,” establishing a more democratic and freer political regime for a modern Vietnam. On the same day, a debate on the situation of the country was taking place at the House of Culture of the city on Xo Viet Nghe Tinh Avenue with the participation of prestigious long-standing Communist party members among who were Tran Van Giau, Nguyen Van Tran, and La Van Lam. The main theme was focused on “the reforms in East Europe and the actual renovation in Vietnam.”  Tran Van Giau pointed out the setbacks of renovation in the Soviet Union, specifically he deteriorating economy and the ailing leadership that led to the disintegration of the communist bloc, not only in this country but also in other countries in Eastern Europe. Comprehensive reforms were sufficient and necessary condition to save Vietnam from backwardness and authoritarianism.

To suppress opposition, the Party Committee executed strict measure; convoking 24 members in the association liaison committee were convoked to the Fatherland Front Headquarter of Ho Chi Minh City to be explained on true patriotism and the path to socialism and vile schemes of “peaceful evolution.” The Club of Veteran Resistance War Fighters became a thorn in the side of the Communist Party of Vietnam Party and was fast developing into an ant-communist movement just like the Nhan Van Giai Pham (Humanity Literary Movement) in the North in the late 1950”s. Repression ensued. The Politburo executed harsh measure, forbidding all assemblies by the Club, suspending the review “Truyen Thong Khang Chien”, instructing the executive board to exclude from it extremist elements, particularly, Nguyen Ho and Ta Ba Tong and disbanding auxiliary activities sections such as the  Actives Committee, for example. 

On March 4, 1990, Nguyen Van Hanh representing the Party Committee of Ho Chi Minh City openly criticized Nguyen Ho’ on charges of deviations from the objectives of the association. Nguyen Ho was excluded from the executive committee and was replaced by Pham Khai, who was nominated acting chairman of the association. A session of work of senior party members under the chairmanship of the Party Secretary of Ho Chi Minh City Vo Tran Tri accused Nguyen Ho of wrongdoings. General Tran Van Tra, specifically, pointed out the serious mistakes Nguyen Ho had committed, notably, the dissemination of the petition to the Communist Party and State of Vietnam calling for adoption of political plurality and multiparty. The rhetorician Tran Bach Dang analyzed in depth these deviations in terms of ideology, mainly the principles of democratic centralism and concluded that Nguyen Ho was obviously a traitor. On March 21, 1990, Nguyen Ho left Saigon to live in seclusion in Song Be Province and denned membership to the Communist Party of Vietnam. Key members of the Club were arrested one by one. Among them were Do Trung Hieu, Ta Ba Tong, and Ho Hieu. Disheartened, Pham Khai resigned from his position as Caiman of the Executive Board of the association. On May 5, 1990, Pham Van Dang, the newly-nominated Chairman of the Executive Board of the Association of Veteran Resistance War Fighters, in a circular letter, informed members of the club of the subversive activities activated by enemy forces currently operating in the country and advised everyone to heighten vigilance against any vile scheme of reactionary and ant-revolutionary elements.  On July 30, 1990, the Party Committee of Song Be met Nguyen Ho and charged him with crimes of espionage. On July 9, 1990, Nguyen Ho was arrested and placed under house supervisor at Cu Chi District, southwest of Saigon.

 The Association of Veteran Resistance War Fighters of Ho Chi Minh City was disbanded in mid-1990, but it was not until April 1994 that the Communist Party and State of Vietnam informed party cadres and the population of the “Veteran Resistance War Fighters Affair” and the Party’s political judgments. There was no mention of the motif as regards the disbandment, however.

Friday, April 24, 2020

THE CLUB FOR VETERAN RESISTANCE WAR FIGHTERS


THE CLUB FOR
VETERAN  RESISTANCE  WAR FIGHTERS

By Van Nguyen



       In July 1983, having been accredited with the confidence and support from old and experienced communist leaders in the South, Nguyen Ho  applied for the foundation or the “Cau Lac Bo Truyen Thong Khang Chien Thanh Pho Ho Chi Minh” (literally, Club for the Resistance War Fighters by Tradition of Ho Chi Minh City). The creation of an organization as such is obviously an anomaly in a one-party rule like Vietnam. Even more, it is in blatant violation of the Party leadership mechanism, an immutable principle ever 0bserved by the Communist Party. No other organ than the Party leadership itself is entitled to this supreme authority. Any creation of a mass organization or group is governed by this principle and is bound to operate within the orbit of the Party-affiliated Patriotic Front. Ever since the “August Revolution of 1945,” the two “independent” political parties, the Democratic Party led by Duong Duc Hien and the Social Party headed by Nguyen Xien, have been virtually non-existent; they exist in name only. The application procedures for an “voluntary organization as is the case of the “Cau Lac Bo  Tuyen Thong Khang Chien,” as a matter of principal, posed a serious problem to the Communist Party leadership.    

On July 21, 1983, Party Secretary Committee of Ho Chi Minh Ciy Nguyen Van Linh approved of the proposal for the formation of the organization. It was not until three years later that, by the Decision 60 of May 15, 1986, Politburo member Le Duc Tho, the Chairman of Party Central Committee for Organization, instructed the People’s Council of Ho Minh City to grant permission to form the “association” for the veteran Resistance Fighters of Ho Chi Minh City conditional on the goal and regulations as specified by the organization.

      The by-laws of the club specify that the Club is a voluntary organization composed of the citizens who had participated in the two wars against the French and the Americans. It has its seat at Ho Chi Minh City. It has its own seal and a current account. It operates under the direct patronage of the Patriotic Front Committee of Ho Chi Minh City.  Included in the club are masses organizations, revolutionary bases, the citizens in other regions who are on service or in retirement and those who are on service in the city or are living abroad,

   The goal and obligations of the club were agreed on by the Party Secretary of Ho Chi Minh City Nguyen Van Linh and the Fatherland Front Committee of the city. Efforts were to mobilize one another to expand the will and intelligence of the cadres and the masses ‘to take part in the building and protection of the Socialist Republic Fatherland. They are defined in two articles: “(i). To make every effort to  assemble and unite the veteran fighters in the resistance wars against the French and the Americans, to stimulate the tradition of  national resistance against foreign invaders, to bear up the steadfast and unbending will of struggle in face of the enemy of every kind, to heighten the sense of discipline, the revolutionary virtues, the  character of patriotism, the love for socialism, the brotherhood of the fighters in the same line, to mobilize and  promote mutual assistance, to develop the intelligence and the capacity of the cadres to devote themselves to participation in  revolutionary movements and actions to fulfill every duty, every line of principle and policy of the Party and State, in general, and the City, in particular.”




         Members in the executive board were all veteran long standing Communist cadres: Nguyen Ho, President, and 11 others. Recognized among key members of the club were veteran long-standing Communist party members, Huynh Van Tieng, Nguyen Van Binh, Ta Ba Tong, Nguyen Duc Hung, Thai Doan Lan, Nguyen Thi Tan, Nguyen Thi Hoa, Le Quynh Van, Nguyen Dang Viet, and Nguyen Dinh Loc. Honorary members included Party Secretary of Ho Chi Minh City Nguyen Van Linh, Vice-chairman of the Council of Minister Vo Van Kiet, President of National Assembly Nguyen Huu Tho, and Vice-chairman of Council of Minister Huynh Tan Phat.

 F0llowing the Sixth Party Congress, the Communist Party and State entered the period of renovation. The club gradually transformed itself into a social, political organization, voluntarily committed itself to performing the function of  a self-governed association to gather and unite together veteran resistance fighters, to enhance the intelligence and capacity of its members to actively contribute to fulfilling revolutionary tasks, and carrying out the policies of the Party and State as stated in its by-laws.  Programs of actions stressed on launching attacks on corrupt elements in the bureaucracy and village bullies of the new type.

    Thereupon, the Club Central Permanent Office stepped up its fight for renovation, stimulating cadres and the masses to devote to the reconstruction of the country. On March 4, 1988, the Club’s Central Permanent Office decided to form a Political Advisory Council to carry out these objectives. Going ahead with its program, the council requested the State to regularize the new machinery of the club, officially transforming it into the Association of Veteran Resistance Fighters so that it could operate in agreement with its true role and social and political standing. While waiting, the executive board itself reviewed the backgrounds of all members in the advisory council, implementing activities and holding back prestigious members. To execute its urgent tasks, the council sent petitions to the Party and State to amend the 1980 Constitution and organize a congress to discuss openly the nomination of a new chairman to the Ministers Council in replacement of Chairman Pham Hung who just passed away.

    On April 3, Nguyen Ho was elected Chairman of the Politics Committee. Operations for conferences and meetings were the primary activities of the association. The organization was fast growing, activating solidarity among veteran fighters in the wars for intendance and against imperialism and engaging in friendship relations and social activities of various associations As many as 20,000 experienced long-standing resistance fighters had joined in it. It became well known as an organization of prestige, attracting more than 300 war heroes.  A rapid increase of affiliated clubs of veteran resistance fighters in the provinces in South Vietnam marked a  solid growth of the association..

    The association’s multi-purpose activities multiplied, varying according to specific objectives following two subsequent periods. In the first period (986-1988), they were focused on establishing and developing the organization, and in second period (1988-1990), on fighting for renovation and against innate conservatism and corruption. On March 6, 1988, under the chairmanship of Nguyen Ho, Pham Khai, and General Tran Van Tra, more than 200 members of the association including veteran high-ranking rank and file officials discussed and protested against the imposition of prevalence of power of the Politburo over the National Assembly. In its petition of March 6, 1088, following a general congress of more than a hundred members, the club earnestly asked the Central Party Committee and National Assembly to set shining examples in accomplishing democracy openness and transparency in the election of a chairman to the Council of Ministers, creating a popular movement for democracy and a revival the spirit of revolution of the Party and the People.  On June11, 1988, another petition was sent to the Central Party Committee requesting it to review the Politburo’s and the Central Party Secretariat’s conduct of affairs in face of development setbacks in many areas, the devastating hunger, serious social ills, and contagious corruption. The petition pointed out serious errors in the conduct of national affairs of the Politburo and Party Secretariat, issuing important decisions that contradicted the resolution, both content and form, adopted by the Sixth Party Congress. The signatories to the petition specifically requested the Politburo and Party Secretariat to take strict measures against the misconduct of affairs infringing on the leadership principles of the Party, disregarding the separation of powers, and thus violating the rule of law and constitutional law.

 By the beginning of 1989, the association published without permission the review “Truyen Thong Khang Chien” (Tradition of Struggle against Foreign Invaders). The paper apparently serves as a catalyst for acceleration the policy-making process towards renovation, to vitalize, by tradition, the sense of obligation and patriotic error of the Vietnamese people to engage in the struggle for national reconstruction. To the distress of the association, all copies of the issue were forbidden to circulate and were confiscated momentarily. This act of suppression created a great shock to the members of the association. In its letter to the Director of the Information and Culture Department of Ho Chi Minh City on February 20, 1989, Nguyen Ho flatly discussed the matter in defense of the cause and his views. 

The chairman stressed the facts that “ the prohibition of the publication and circulation of the review “Truyen Thong Khang Chien “ is a breach of the law; it is in contradiction with the Resolution of the Sixth Party Congress (Resolution on Renovation), namely, ‘the conclusions on short term issues following the current thought tasks,’ ‘the urgency to expand  more broadly the character of democracy, the transparency in the conduct of activities in all areas of the Party, the organizations, the legislative organs, the State organs, the society and un the press, and  politics.. It is in contradiction with the law prescribed by the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as well.

 Article 67 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam clearly stipulates that ‘the citizen has the rights to the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, formation of association, and organization of demonstration in accordance with the interests of socialism and the people.’

Saying that the citizen is entitled to the right to the press, why do we have to apply for permission?  Is there still the right to freedom of the press? Being bound to having permission, the citizen is no longer entitled to the right to the freedom of the press. The Council of the Patriotic Front of Ho Chi Minh City, ever since1986, has applied for the permission for the publication of a newspaper.  Until the present day (February 1989), the application still comes to no response. In the capacity as a citizen of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, how should we behave, to protect and materialize the Article 67, honoring the right to the freedom of the press as provided by the Constitution or to abide by the Decision by the Minister for Information and Culture, which forbids the publication and circulation of the review “Truyen Thong Khang Chien”?

Wednesday, April 8, 2020

A NEW RESISTACE WAR


A NEW RESISTACE WAR   

By Van Nguyen




       The political and economic failures following the takeover of South Vietnam brought the communist regime to a standstill. Having entered the new era of “glasnost and perestroika,” the Socialist Republic of Vietnam still preserved the beau principles of Marxism-Leninism, however. It persistently applied methods of repression of the class struggle of the proletariat against elements it regarded as hostile to it, holding grips of the monopoly of power to destroy at the roots the petty-bourgeoisie and remnants of the old Republic of Vietnam and coercing people of all walks of life into serving an increasingly despotic regime. All people, regardless of their classes are continually deprived off their rights, politically, economically, and culturally. The Communist Party and State of Vietnam nevertheless failed to achieve their objectives Seth forth by the party congresses of 1976, 1981, and 1986.

     Monopoly of power persists. Democracy and freedom under socialism proved to be mere rhetoric and slogans. Independence, Liberty, and Happiness only exist on paper. Failures in the economy, the expansion of inequalities and social ills, and the uncontrollable corruption of the bureaucracy all bring about disastrous consequences in the society and engender open dissent among all walks of life. The population suffers intermittent hardships. The peasantry in the Mekong Delta destroys crops in protest of unpopular agrarian reforms. Inhabitants in new economic zones leave for the cities due to penury. Laboring on land without having means of production, city residents are left destitute after repeated issuance of new banknotes.  A trend towards “revisionism” within the members of the Communist Party is apparent. Those party members who have solid belief in communism and who have persevered firm loyalty to the Communist Party of Vietnam such as veteran resistance fighters in the South fall in sheer desperation. Worse still, they are not spared from discrimination.

    In effect, after 30 years of sacrifices beyond all doubts and loyal services rendered to Hanoi (1945-75), a number of leaders of the former National Front of Liberation of South Vietnam were laid off to retirement. In addition, they were deceived by socialism: despotism, social inequalities. Injustice and corruption were increasingly pervasive. The sacrifices for the Revolution cause were fruitless. Instead of implementing the conditions of life of the people, the “Revolution” they were immersed inpoverty. Quite a few ranking cadres, born in the South, were from the middle class. Although their services to the Party were enormous, their parents, their brothers, and their sisters were among the victims of merciless repression during the economic reforms in the cities and the collectivization of land in the South during the years 1978 and 1983-85. Since they were dispossessed from their properties, they were exiled in the new economic zones.  Hence, they could not hide their bitterness before a deceptive reality. A number of "historic" leaders of the former Front then wanted to unite to defend their interests and the rights of veteran fighters of the Resistance. They had nothing to lose.

 The group of the Trans, the appellation was given according to the family name of the three leaders: General Tran Van Tra, ex-chairman of the Military Committee of Administration of Saigon-Cho Lon-Gia Dinh in 1975, Professor Tran Van Giau, and Tran Bach Dang. The group created a private society Hoi Cuu Khang Chien (Association of Veteran Resistance Fighters), having its club section operating in small groups in Ho Chi Minh City and the provinces where they could express themselves freely. The organization had its own magazine Truyen Thong Khang Chien (Traditions of Resistance), which was not accorded recognizance by the State, with Nguyen Ho, the chairman of the Patriotic Front in Ho Chi Minh City, as editor-in-chief and Ta Ba Tong, ex-official of the Patriotic Front in charge of propaganda among the intellectuals in the South during the Vietnam War, as assistant editor (Lam Thanh Liem..EDA. 1994: 2-3).

    In 1993 when the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam, following the steps of China, determinedly changed the approach to administration of the country: build it into a socialist State according the ideological premise: “a market economy with socialist orientation. In June 1993,  Nguyen Khac Vien, from Paris, , sent a letter, to his colleague comrades in the country, expressed deep concerns about the new situation and called on vigilance against an uncertain future of the regime.  The veteran communist disclosed his heart, saying:

  “What are we doing?
    The imperative answer to this burning question is reserved for the youths. At the age of 80, I ask myself: What am I going to say? How should I say in a way that would not make it a reproach to someone and an ironical mocking to others?   
    No, absolutely not. I would not stick to the fanatic style of anti-imperialism. I would not call for revolt or wish to return to the ways that have driven us to the abyss.  Neither would I share the optimism to be appointed (to some position) by this side or (lured) by sheer bitter nihilism of the other.
    I only say: “Capitalism, no objection.”
    To open the way to develop capitalism in the country; to open door to capitalism outside. “No objection.”
    I only call on you: “Caution”.
      The nature of capitalism is savage.
      The capitalist locomotive will pull up our country to move forward, it would not allow anyone to doze off; it disposes a drastic shake-up of roles and ranks. That’s good, anyway! But, be cautious. `
    Out of his nature, the capitalist will exploit anyone who bows his head to his exploitation, represses and kills anyone who obstructs his business, bribes the corrupt officials, and deceives the foolish  
     It is fortunate enough for us, however: the capitalist is always practical.  He is never a fanatic or a martyr. He exploits, represses, and kills, bribes the corrupt officials, and deceives the foolish only whenever possible.    
    Encounter an enemy that is stronger than he, he concedes and resorts to cunning --better back next time. Touch it, if is soft, leave it if it is tough, he deals with the situation.
    It is necessary for us to create a force that will be the counterforce to the mighty force of capitalism.
     In the past, we established a large Internal People’s Front to fight against an imperialist invasion. We have preceded all-purpose resistance. To fight against the salvage imperialists this time, not allowing them to behave outrageously, we have to proceed a new resistance which is more long-lasting and more polyhedral in order to successfully restrain the spread of corruption, protect the environment, lessen social injustices and division between the rich and the poor, preserve good morals and good customs, develop the nature of human beings, respect the rights of women, the rights of children ,and the rights of ethnic  minority groups. It is a resistance war in many aspects, propagation on the television, in the press, in the arts with films, and literature with books, to provide the laws to form associations, to conduct labor strikes, to organize free elections, and to develop the studies in the domain of the humanities sciences. No areas of the political and social and life is left out.        
      The difference is this resistance war is not an armed war. And, this time, Marx is still the master and leader with his saying: “An idea incorporated in the masses is transformed into a material force.”
     We will incorporate ideas of democracy, social justice, international cause, and human love into the masses. Modern technology creates for us all means to achieve this endeavor, transforming savage capitalism into civilized capitalism.
      Let’s go together into the new resistance war!”

       This address was an urgent call for change under “renovation.” The Association of Veteran Fighters of the Resistance War (1945-1955) against the French invaders would be the vanguard force in the new resistance war (Nguyen Van Tran. Viet Cho Me va Quoc Hoi Van Nghe. 1995).