ASEAN's Assignment

1)Questions on Brunei

a) Why it declares the state of emergency?

In 1962, the first election in Brunei were held. The opposition party by the name Party Rakyat Brunei entered and won the election. This party, an opposition party opposed the idea to emerge Brunei with Malaysia as a one nation (During that time, Malaysia wanted to formed one federal state which consist Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore). The reason why the opposition against this idea is because they are nationalists whom loved and cared so much not only to their beloved country but they also wanted to implement a full democratic rights for the masses.

Later on, the Monarchy banned them from entering the office although the opposition party has already won the election and as a result, the opposition party launch a full scale attack to the Monarchy by making a revolt and demonstration. But the Monarhcy with the help of the British gurkha crush the revolt and the Party Rakyat Brunei demands were totally rejected.

The Sultan declared state of emergency, suspended the constitution and banned the opposition party from entering the election or politics. This is the first and only election that Brunei had until now.


b) Before becoming a sovereign state in 1984, what was the status of Brunei?

Post Second World War, we witnessed that Brunei still continued its relationship with the British. Brunei continued to be British protectorate, in which the Sultan will have a British Resident as his advisor on how to take a good care of the country. The British also set up a Gurkha military force to protect Brunei state from internal and external enemies.

Although the protectorate arrangements were changed during 1971, the British still maintains its power by controlling and influencing the foreign policy/affairs and defence of Brunei and all the costs have to be bear by the Sultan.

After that, on 1984, Brunei gained its independence.



2)Questions on Cambodia

a) Name the Treaty that Cambodia sign in France in 1863.

The Protectorate Treaty.


b) Write 1 page report on Khmer Rouge.

Khmer Rouge, name given to native Cambodian Communists. Khmer Rouge soldiers, aided by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops, began a large-scale insurgency against government forces in 1970, quickly gaining control over more than two thirds of the country. The strength of the Khmer Rouge rose dramatically from around 3,000 in 1970 to more than 30,000 in 1973, enabling most of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops to withdraw. In 1975 the movement, led by Pol Pot, overthrew the Cambodian government, establishing “Democratic Kampuchea.” The new government carried out a radical program of evacuating cities, closing schools and factories, and herding the population into collective farms. Intellectuals and skilled workers were assassinated, and a total of perhaps as many as 1.5 million died, inclusive of starvation and forced marches. In 1979, after increasing tensions with Vietnam, Vietnamese troops invaded, aiding a rival Communist faction to depose the Khmer Rouge government. The Khmer Rouge, however, continued to field an army of 30,000 near the Thai border and retained UN recognition as the official Cambodian government. In 1982 it formed a coalition with former premier Norodom Sihanouk and non-Communist leader Son Sann. Khieu Samphan officially succeeded Pol Pot as head of the Khmer Rouge in 1985, but Pol Pot was believed to remain the real leader. All Cambodian factions signed (1991) a treaty calling for UN-supervised elections and disarming 70% of all forces. In 1992 the United Nations assumed the government's administrative functions, while the Khmer Rouge withdrew from the peace process and resumed fighting. The following year the Khmer Rouge rejected the results of the UN-run elections that brought a coalition government to Cambodia. The guerrilla force lost about half to three quarters of its strength (3,000–4,000 soldiers) in a mass defection in 1996. Factional fighting within the Khmer Rouge in 1997 led to Pol Pot's ouster, trial, and imprisonment by the Khmer Rouge. The group continued to disintegrate, and factional fighting resumed in 1998. Pol Pot died in April, Khieu Samphan surrendered in Dec., 1998, and by 1999 most members had defected, surrendered, or been captured. A tribunal consisting of both Cambodian and international judges was established in 2006 to try former Khmer Rouge leaders, but the question of trial procedures and other issues delayed the filing of any charges.



3)Questions on Indonesia

a) Explain the policies of guided democracy and Orde Baru.

i) Guided Democracy.

Against this background, Sukarno, resentful of his circumscribed position as figurehead president, began to move toward a greater interference with constitutional processes. In February 1957 he announced his own “Concept” for Indonesia. Criticizing Western liberal democracy as unsuited to Indonesian circumstances, he called for a political system of “democracy with guidance” based on indigenous procedures. The Indonesian way of deciding important questions, he argued, was by way of prolonged deliberation (musyawarah) designed to achieve a consensus (mufakat); this was the procedure at the village level, and it should be the model for the nation. He proposed a government based on the four main parties plus a national council representing not merely political parties but functional groups—workers, peasants, intelligentsia, national entrepreneurs, religious organizations, armed services, youth organizations, women's organizations, etc.—in which, under presidential guidance, a national consensus could express itself.

ii) Orde Baru or New Order.

Like Sukarno's Guided Democracy, the New Order under Suharto was authoritarian. There was no return to the relatively unfettered party politics of the 1950-57 period. In the decades after 1966, Suharto's regime evolved into a steeply hierarchical affair, characterized by tight centralized control and long-term personal rule. At the top of the hierarchy was Suharto himself, making important policy decisions and carefully balancing competing interests in a society that was, despite strong centralized rule, still extremely diverse. Arrayed below him was a bureaucratic state in which ABRI played the central role. Formally, the armed forces' place in society was defined in terms of the concept of dwifungsi. Unlike other regimes in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand or Burma, where military regimes promised an eventual (if long-postponed) transition to civilian rule, the military's dual political-social function was considered to be a permanent feature of Indonesian nationhood. Its personnel played a pivotal role not only in the highest ranks of the government and civil service but also on the regional and local levels, where they limited the power of civilian officials. The armed forces also played a disproportionate role in the national economy through militarymanaged enterprises or those with substantial military interests.



b) What does VOC stands for?

VOC can be defined as Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (Dutch Hindian Company)



4)Question on Laos

a) Explain in 1/2 page report on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and Pathet Laos.

i) Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) to the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia. The system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel, to the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong) and the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) during the Vietnam War (1960-1975).

The trail was not a single route, but rather a complex maze of truck routes, paths for foot and bicycle traffic, and river transportation systems. The name, taken from North Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh, is of American origin. Within North Vietnam, it was called the Truong Son Road, after the mountain range in central Vietnam through which it passed.

ii) Pathet Laos.

The Pathet Lao ("Land of Laos") was a communist, nationalist political movement and organization in Laos, formed in the mid 20th century. The group was ultimately successful in assumung political power after a civil war, or insurgent revolution, lasting from the 1950s to 1975. The Pathet Lao were always closely associated with Vietnamese communists. During the civil war, it was effectively organized, equipped and even led by the army of North Vietnam.

The Pathet Lao were the Laotian equivalent of the Viet Minh and the Viet Cong of Vietnam. Eventually, the term was the generic name for Laotian communists. The political movement of the Pathet Lao was called first the Lao People's Party (1955-1972) and later the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (1972-present). After the Pathet Lao militarily won power, they were the government, rather than a nationalist insurgency, and the term was dropped. Unlike the Khmer Rouge, they were an extension of the Vietnamese Communist movement. Key Pathet Lao include Prince Souphanouvong, Kaysone Phomvihane, Phoumi Vongvichit, Nouhak Phoumsavanh and Khamtay Siphandone.



5) Questions on Malaysia

a) Explain what happend in 1969 and 1971 on the leadership of Malaysia.

Immediately after the riot, the government assumed emergency powers and suspended Parliament, which would only reconvene again in 1971. It also suspended the press and established a National Operations Council. The NOC's report on the riots stated, "The Malays who already felt excluded in the country's economic life, now began to feel a threat to their place in the public services," and implied this was a cause of the violence.

Western observers such as Time attributed the racial enmities to a political and economic system which primarily benefited the upper classes:

The Chinese and Indians resented Malay-backed plans favoring the majority, including one to make Malay the official school and government language. The poorer, more rural Malays became jealous of Chinese and Indian prosperity. Perhaps the Alliance's greatest failing was that it served to benefit primarily those at the top. ... For a Chinese or Indian who was not well-off, or for a Malay who was not well-connected, there was little largesse in the system. Even for those who were favored, hard feelings persisted. One towkay recently told a Malay official: "If it weren't for the Chinese, you Malays would be sitting on the floor without tables and chairs." Replied the official: "If I knew I could get every damned Chinaman out of the country, I would willingly go back to sitting on the floor.

The riot led to the expulsion of Malay nationalist Mahathir Mohamad from UMNO and propelled him to write his seminal work The Malay Dilemma, in which he posited a solution to Malaysia's racial tensions based on aiding the Malays economically through an affirmative action programme.

Tunku Abdul Rahman resigned as Prime Minister in the ensuing UMNO power struggle, the new perceived 'Malay-ultra' dominated government swiftly moved to placate Malays with the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP), enshrining affirmative action policies for the bumiputra (Malays and other indigenous Malaysians). Many of Malaysia's draconian press laws, originally targeting racial incitement, also date from this period. The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971 named Articles 152, 153, and 181, and also Part III of the Constitution as specially protected, permitting Parliament to pass legislation that would limit dissent with regard to these provisions pertaining to the social contract. (The social contract is essentially a quid pro quo agreement between the Malay and non-Malay citizens of Malaysia; in return for granting the non-Malays citizenship at independence, symbols of Malay authority such as the Malay monarchy became national symbols, and the Malays were granted special economic privileges.) With this new power, Parliament then amended the Sedition Act accordingly. The new restrictions also applied to Members of Parliament, overruling Parliamentary immunity; at the same time, Article 159, which governs Constitutional amendments, was amended to entrench the "sensitive" Constitutional provisions; in addition to the consent of Parliament, any changes to the "sensitive" portions of the Constitution would now have to pass the Conference of Rulers, a body comprising the monarchs of the Malay states. At the same time, the Internal Security Act, which permits detention without trial, was also amended to stress "intercommunal harmony".

Despite the opposition of the DAP and PPP, the Alliance government passed the amendments, having maintained the necessary two-thirds Parliamentary majority. In Britain, the laws were condemned, with The Times of London stating they would "preserve as immutable the feudal system dominating Malay society" by "giving this archaic body of petty constitutional monarchs incredible blocking power"; the move was cast as hypocritical, given that Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak had spoken of "the full realisation that important matters must no longer be swept under the carpet..."

The Rukunegara, the de facto Malaysian pledge of allegiance, was another reaction to the riot. The pledge was introduced on August 31, 1970 as a way to foster unity among Malaysians.



b) Elaborate on the emergency period in 1948.

The Malayan Emergency was a state of emergency declared by the British colonial government of Malaya in 1948 and lifted in 1960, as well as an insurrection and guerrilla war fought between government forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army around the same period. The state of emergency entailed the revocation of many civil rights, the granting of special powers to the police, and other measures aimed at the suppression of left wing political movements, especially the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The guerrilla war, which is also known as the Malayan War, was part of the ongoing conflict between the MCP and other leftists, and the colonial establishment, starting shortly after the Japanese withdrawal in 1945 and extending at least to the signing of the peace treaty between the communists and the government of Malaya in 1989. The Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) was the military arm of the MCP; it was formed shortly after the Emergency was declared in 1948.



6)Questions on Myanmar

a) Write a page report on Aung San Su Kyi.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of one of Burma's most cherished heroes, the martyred General Aung San, who led his country's fight for independence from Great Britain in the 1940s and was killed for his beliefs in 1947. Suu Kyi has equaled her father's heroics with her calm but passionate advocacy of freedom and democracy in the country now called Myanmar, a name chosen by one of the most insensitive and brutal military dictatorships in the world.

Suu Kyi (pronounced Soo Chee) was two years old when her father, the de facto prime minister of newly independent Burma was assassinated. Though a Buddhist, the predominant religion of Burma, she was educated at Catholic schools and left for India in her mid-teens with her mother, who became the Burmese ambassador to India. Suu Kyi went to England where she studied at Oxford University. There she met Michael Aris, the Tibetan scholar whom she married. They had two sons, Alexander and Kim.

A watershed in her life was 1988, when Suu Kyi received a call from Burma that her mother had suffered a stroke and did not have long to live. Suu Kyi returned to Burma, leaving her husband and two children behind in England, having cautioned them years earlier that duty may one day call her back to her homeland.

She arrived back in Burma to nurse her mother at a time of a burgeoning pro-democracy movement, fueled by the energy and idealism among the country's young people. There were demonstrations against the repressive, one-party socialist government. Suu Kyi was drawn into the pro-democracy movement, which was snuffed out by SLORC, which seized power on September 18, 1988. Thousands of pro-democracy advocates were killed.

Next came a general election in 1990, which political parties were allowed to contest. Suu Kyi headed the National League for Democracy (NLD), which won a landslide victory, with 80 per cent support. This was not be tolerated by the SLORC leaders, who refused to recognize the election results. Worse, SLORC put the elected pro-democracy leaders under house arrest, including Suu Kyi.

Despite the restrictions of house arrest, Suu Kyi continued to campaign for democracy, and for this she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

In 1999, Michael Aris, was dying of prostate cancer in England, where he lived with their two sons. He had repeatedly requested permission to visit his wife one last time before he died, but the SLORC authorities denied him entry, arguing that there are no proper facilities in the country to tend to a dying man. They suggested instead that Suu Kyi visit him in England. She refused, fearing if she ever left the country she would never be allowed to return.

The day Aris died, on his 53rd birthday on March 27, 1999, Suu Kyi honoured the occasion at her home in Rangoon, with 1,000 friends and supporters, including high-ranking diplomats from Europe and the United States. As part of a ceremony, she offered food and saffron robes to 53 Buddhist monks, one for each year of her husband's life. The monks recited prayers and chanted sutras. Instead of wearing her usual bright flowers and wreathes of jasmine, Suu Kyi chose instead a traditional black lungi with a white jacket. She cried only when one of the monks reminded the audience that the essence of Buddhism is to treat suffering with equanimity.

The police did not stop the supporters from visiting Suu Kyi in her time of grief. But they took the names and addresses of all those who attended at the service to honour the husband from whom she had been separated since she left England to tend to her dying mother.



b) Elaborate on Burmese way to Socialism.

The Burmese Way to Socialism is the name of the ideology of Burmese ruler, Ne Win, who ruled the country from 1962 to 1988. It included mainstream socialist ideals like the nationalisation of industries. However, it also encouraged more unorthodox views. These included a severe isolationism, expulsion of foreigners, discouragement of tourists, closing off of the economy, repression of minorities, and a police state. Ne Win's ideology also encouraged "bona fide" religion to make the people more selfless. In practice this meant encouraging or forcing a state-sanctioned form of Buddhism, although initially it claimed to favour religion generally rather than any specific religion. In practice Ne Win also relied on numerology in his system, but this was not officially part of it.

Opinions are mixed to the resulting effects of the implementation of this ideology. The positives cited include increased domestic stability and keeping Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations. However critics indicate it greatly increased poverty, isolation, and that it was even "disastrous." Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency base 9 proved purely negative and led the military to revolt. This caused the authoritarian "Burmese Way to Socialism" to be replaced by a new authoritarian system.



7)Questions on Philippines

a.)Name the agreement that have been made between Philippines and USA declaring colonial rule?

In 1901 when the United States effectively bought off the ilustrado elite, promising to maintain their wealth and power in return for collaboration with American colonial rule, most hostilities ended. The agreement of 1901 consolidated the power of the landed Chinese mestizo elite enabling them to dominate the political and economic structures of the Philippines in the 20th century. It also created Filipino elite that looked to the United States not only for economic and political patronage but also as its intellectual and cultural model. The ilustrado elite in the Philippines was a powerful landed elite with no parallel elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Its members’ social and political power stemmed from an economic base independent of the colonial state.

b.)Who was Benigno Aquino?

Benigno Aquino was President Marcos most prominent and popular political opponent, returned to the Philippines from his exile in the United States in August 1983. He failed to set foot on Philippine soil. As he descended the steps from his aircraft at Manila airport one of the accompanying soldiers assassinated him. The military leadership denied involvement, as did Marcos. The death of Aquino began a process of open resistance to Marcos, a resistance led by the Manila middle class.
Under pressure from the United States and still supremely confident of his ability to fix elections, Marcos called a snap Presidential election for early 1986. Despite the vote rigging he lost. In a few chaotic months in Manila, Cory Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino, claimed victory and prepared for an inauguration organised by her supporters. Marcos continued to claim victory, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and moved towards his own inauguration. The imminent danger of serious bloodshed, if not outright civil war, was averted when a number of significant army leaders deserted Marcos and moved over to support Aquino. Marcos fled the Philippines. Cory Aquino became President. ‘People power’ had won.




8)Questions on SINGAPORE

a.)State two reasons on why Singapore left the formation of Malaysia.

Singapore was separated from Malaysia in September 1965, becoming the independent Republic of Singapore. Formally, the exit of Singapore from Malaysia was a mutual decision between the Malaysian Federal Government and the Singapore State Government. In reality Singapore was forced to leave. The two years of marriage were unhappy ones.
The reasons are Malays increasingly feared that Singapore wanted to dominate Malaysia, and that the PAP was trying to join forces with the major ethnic Chinese opposition party in peninsular Malaya in order to gain a majority of the seats in the federal parliament. They feared changes to the constitution, which entrenched major privileges for the Malays. It was a highly emotional two years, with inter-ethnic typecasting abounding and with Malays fearing that ‘their’ country was about to be taken over by ‘foreigners’.
Lee Kuan Yew was personally shattered by the exit of Singapore from Malaysia. The accepted wisdom in Singapore was that its economy was so closely linked to that of peninsular Malaya that economic prosperity depended on these links continuing. Singapore feared that its economy was too small and too vulnerable to anti-Chinese feelings among neighbouring Indonesians and Malays to stand alone. Thirty years later Singapore is a major economic success story. Since independence in 1965 its economy has grown at an average of nine per cent per annum. In 1988 per capita income was almost ten times that of 1965. This economic growth is the cornerstone of the generally high standing of the PAP government among Singaporeans, despite western complaints about its style and frequent disregard for ‘western style’ civil liberties.

9)Questions on THAILAND

a.)Briefly explain the Bowring treaty.

The Bowring treaty was signed by King Mongkut (Rama IV, 1851–68) with Britain in 1855. Under this treaty import and export duties were sharply reduced and fixed, ruling class trading and commodity monopolies were abolished, and British subjects were granted extra-territorial legal rights. In subsequent years Mongkut signed similar treaties with many other Western powers. The signing away of legal power over foreign subjects in the kingdom was a bitter blow – these rights would not be fully recovered until the 1930s. More crucially, the other provisions of the treaties deprived the throne and many powerful subjects of much income. The shortfall would be reversed in time by the expansion of trade and by heavy taxes on opium, alcohol and gambling, but it is testimony to Mongkut’s domestic diplomatic skills, and to the cohesion of his court, that the major fiscal rearrangements passed without revolt.

b.)Explain the Strong Man era.

The Strong Man era took place during 1948 to 1973 and could be described as the resumption of military dominance over government initiated a succession of authoritarian leaders unchallenged by forces outside the military until 1973. Their power was enhanced by United States patronage and aid. Washington wanted strong anti-communist leaders who would both repress domestic communism (never more than a fringe phenomenon in Thailand in fact) and join in American-led strategies for the containment of Asian communism. From the 1950s United States aid to Thailand was substantial. It enabled much social and economic development, notably in communications, infrastructure and social welfare projects, but it also bolstered military and police power.
Even so the goal of stable government was not necessarily secured. American aid created new opportunities for corruption in Thai government and administration, and stimulated competition for the prizes of power between rival political networks anchored in the military but reaching into business and the bureaucracy. American appeals for some evidence of democracy in Thailand produced, in the short term, only cynical political manipulation, rigged elections and rubber-stamp parliaments from time to time.
After 1948 Phibun resumed many of his former repressive policies. He mounted another anti-Chinese campaign, and also attempted to impose cultural uniformity forcefully on the Malay-Muslims of the far south. The latter resisted the arrival of Thai officials, the introduction of Thai-language education and the substitution of Thai law for customary law. A separatist movement grew which, despite conciliation by later Thai governments, would persist to the present.
Despite the tough image which Phibun once more projected, his power was not in fact secure. He faced several attempted coups from within the military between 1948 and 1951. All were defeated, but at the price of the emergence of two further ‘strong men’ – army commander, subsequently Field Marshal, Sarit Thanarat (whose later spectacular wealth would be grounded in his control of the government lottery) and police chief Phao Siyanon (who would make his fortune from opium trafficking). In 1955 Phibun eased the controls on political activity and promised elections. Possibly he was under American pressure, possibly he hoped to outmanoeuvre his rivals by winning popular endorsement. However his party was accused of massive fraud during the 1957 election. Sarit won popularity by resigning, supposedly in disgust, from Phibun’s government. In September 1957 Sarit staged a coup, driving Phibun and Phao into exile.
In October 1958 Sarit declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics since 1955. Sarit justified his authoritarianism in two ways – he argued for a return to Thai traditions of social order, and he accelerated economic development and social modernisation. Under the former banner the monarchy was given renewed prominence.
King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX, 1946–present) attended public ceremonies, toured the provinces and patronised development projects, becoming a personally revered figure. Under the banner of development, Sarit introduced to government a new generation of economically liberal technocrats, encouraged private and foreign investment, launched major rural development programs and rapidly expanded educational facilities.
When Sarit died in December 1963 power transferred peacefully to his close associates Generals Thanom Kittikachorn (who became Prime Minister) and Praphas Charusathian (Deputy Prime Minister). Thanom and Praphas basically maintained Sarit’s style of government and economic policies, which produced GNP growth rates of over 8 per cent per year during the 1960s. At the same time the military’s place in the Thai political landscape seemed to loom larger than ever. United States aid increased sharply because of the Indochina conflicts. From 1964 Thailand provided bases for the United States airforce and committed its own troops to action in Vietnam and Laos. United States aid was also forthcoming to combat a communist insurgency which had taken root amongst alienated tribal groups in the country’s north and northeast.
The era of unquestioned ‘strong man’ rule was drawing to a close, however. Economic development, wider education and better communications were rapidly increasing the numbers of the politically aware. In 1968 Thanom proclaimed a new constitution, and in 1969 an election established a new parliament. The political public was shocked when he reversed direction in 1971, dissolving the parliament and banning political parties once more. By the early 70s several other issues were raising concern. The leaders’ presumed successor, Narong Kittikachorn (Thanom’s son and Praphas’ son-in-law), was not regarded highly inside or outside the military. Thailand’s close involvement with the United States obviously required rethinking as the United States moved to disengage from Vietnam and the region. The OPEC ‘oil shock’ and rising prices sent tremors through the economy.
It was the educated young who precipitated the downfall of the Thanom-Praphas regime. In October 1973 student protests against political repression (inspired to some extent by the Western student radicalism of the era) escalated into massive confrontation with the police on the streets of Bangkok. Popular sympathy for the students increased when police killed or wounded several students. In the first subtle indication of royal political opinion in many years, the King permitted student first-aid stations on royal ground. The demonstrators triumphed when the army withheld its support from Thanom, Praphas and Narong, who fled into exile.

c.)Detail out the many different military coup de tat Thai had experience.

There are series of military coup de tat that Thailand had experienced because the government itself had regulated in the constitution that if the current ruling party are cruel and suppress its own citizens in many ways either in social, politic, or economic, so they can be brought down by the military. Military are the watchdogs of the government actions and very concern with the needs of the people. However, they are also very strict in abusing power and common to use violence in order to achieve their objectives. The current situation was military coup against former Thai Prime Minister’s, Thaksin Sinawatra who was now exile in London for accusation of misused of power and corruption during his time of administration.

10)Questions on VIETNAM

a.)What was the Paris Peace Agreement?

In January 1973 the ‘Paris Peace Agreements’ were signed by the United States, the Saigon government (reluctantly, under intense United States pressure), the DRV and the PRG (the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the NLF). Crucially for the DRV/NLF, the first article of the agreements recognised the ‘independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity’ of Vietnam. Other articles called for a ceasefire, at which point the contending Vietnamese forces could claim whatever territory they held in the South, pending elections to determine the South’s future government. The agreements also called for the total withdrawal of United States troops and military personnel within 60 days. This article proved in fact to be the only one of the Paris agreements which was fully carried out. The American boys went home, but in South Vietnam war continued unabated.
The morale of the Southern forces began to slide, particularly after Nixon’s resignation in August 1974 over the Watergate scandal. His successor as President, Gerald Ford, had little influence over a Congress now disillusioned with the war and reluctant to sustain United States aid to the Saigon regime. In contrast, the DRV/NLF forces, legitimately ensconced in the South under the Paris agreements, were increasingly confident that victory was in sight. Guerrilla war had long since given way to conventional military tactics. By now the amount and sophisticated nature of their weaponry, supplied by their allies, matched that of the Southern forces.
Even so, the speed with which the war ended stunned both sides. DRV/NLF forces launched a limited offensive in the South’s central highlands in mid-March 1975. RVN forces panicked when ordered to retreat, creating a country-wide rout which was slowed by Southern detachments in only a handful of places. The Southern government collapsed, and DRV/NLF forces entered Saigon on 30th April. The last Americans remaining in South Vietnam had been evacuated just hours before, along with some leading Southerners closely identified with the American presence.


b.)Provide an illustration of French-Indochina.

An illustration of French-Indochina can be described when French forces moves in to acquire Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam and later made it one big state called Indo-China. In 1859 a French naval expedition seized Saigon, following an unsuccessful attempt on the then more significant port of Da Nang, which was close to Hué. Emperor Tu Duc faced rebellion in the north and in 1862 conceded to the French, who gained by treaty, Saigon and its three surrounding provinces. In 1869 the French seized three further adjoining provinces, thus completing the territory of the colony they would call Cochin China.
The French conquered the remainder of Vietnam between 1883 and 1885, in the course of a complicated conflict in the country’s north. The north had collapsed in chaos fomented by both Vietnamese and expatriate Chinese rebels. The Vietnamese imperial government had lost all capacity to control events. Both China and France regarded Vietnam as their ‘sphere of influence’ and sent forces; the French eventually repelling the Chinese.