Realism, liberalism, and constructivism in the Vietnam War

Vietnam War

Explained Through the Lens of International Relations Theories

The territory of Vietnam has undergone many political changes through the years. The most notable of these was the French-Japanese-French-Independence period from the 1940's and 1950's. Initially, French Indochina was lost to the Japanese occupiers in World War Two, and recovered by the French after the War. After this, however, the Vietnamese sought independence from the French in the 1950's. After this independence occurred, Vietnam was controlled by an American leader, and later, North and South fought against one another in the name of another political philosophy: communism. This paper will aim to explain the history of the Vietnam conflict, albeit from a United States perspective, but will also analyze three political lenses, liberalism, constructivism, and realism, and will attempt to see which best explains the above-mentioned situation of the Vietnam conflict. For this reason, the paper is separated into five parts: history of the conflict, liberalism analysis, constructivism analysis, realism analysis (including why realism is the best explanation), and a conclusion.

Liberalism Analysis

Liberalism refers to two equally important aspects of American international relations in the 20th century, liberty, and enterprise. Liberty, which encompasses freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, is a founding philosophy of America, and is a permanent belief in American thinking. Enterprise, on the other hand, refers to freedom of trade, the removal of tariffs, and the freedom of the market economy. This was a relatively new post-World War II philosophy, which had worked to stop Western Europe from the subjugation by Communist movements from the Soviet Union. The United States, seeing the threat of a powerful and Communist North Vietnam, was opposed to the ideology of the North Vietnamese on both aspects of its interests, liberty and enterprise. This is the way that President John F. Kennedy thought about Vietnam, when he increased the forces of CIA spies in Vietnam in the early 1960s.

The problem with the theory of Liberalism being the primary international relations theory at work in Washington D.C. is that Liberalism is more concerned with passive interaction between states, diplomacy, and negotiation.

The troop levels in Vietnam rose sharply after the events of the Gulf of Tonkin, and no "liberal" theory was being pursued by U.S. Presidents Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. Therefore liberalism cannot be the most important U.S. international relations theory at work in the matter of the Vietnam War.

Constructivism Analysis

Constructivism is the theory that analyzes historical phenomenon and social behavior within states, looking for clues among society which indicate a societies preference in a given situation.

Rather than events existing alone in the outlook of international relations, Constructivism prefers to observe the reasons why a society may react the way it does when confronted with emergent situations. This theory works well in the analysis of Vietnam's commitment to independence after the occupation of Japan in the 1940s, and the retaking of French Indochina by the French after World War II ended.

The war for independence from France in the 1950s greatly assisted the North Vietnamese leaders in their victorious defeat of South Vietnam in the 1960s and concluding in the sacking of Saigon in 1975. There is little evidence in the history of the United States to explain its role in Vietnam as a result of the Constructivist theory. There was little contact between the states, and the U.S. was not a big supporter of France's colonial conquests in the first place. This is why I believe this theory to be lacking to explain the entrance of the United States so forcefully into the affairs of Vietnam.

Realism Analysis

Realism is the traditional state vs. state international relations theory, as first described by the city-states of Athens and Sparta in antiquity. It is a crucial theory to understand all actions of modern states, as Realism is still today a relevant theory to nearly every state, which cannot be said about Liberalism or Constructivism about states such as Somalia or North Korea. The United States was a hegemonic state in a time of bipolarity in the world, and therefore held an extraordinary responsibility to upholding the status quo of the established international order. This was the thinking behind the controversial Domino Theory, which stated that if one state falls to Communism, then all of its neighbors will fall, and therefore any influence was required to be controlled in order to win the Cold War.

This way of thinking is different than Liberalism, which is concerned with the quality of life within states, as well as the freedom of business between nations. Realism, in contrast, is only concerned with the relative power of one state over another, and among all states, the relative order of each by a measure of strength. Constructivism would look at Vietnam's history in the region, and would see its fiery rebuke to the reemergence of France as a colonial power in the 1950s as a predictor as to the commitment of the North Vietnamese to wage war for the reunification of the North and the South in the 1960s. This view, however, does not work very well for the United States, because there was very little history of U.S. involvement in French Indochina, and there was little belief in the adequate leadership of South Vietnam to resist the appeal of the enigmatic Ho Chi Minh.

Realism is the best international relations theory to explain the Vietnam War for both sides of the conflict. The United States had its interests in maintaining its extended allies around the world, which included South Vietnam. If the United Stated backed away without a fight, then the Soviet Union would be more comfortable taking risks in invading Europe. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, required a great enemy in order to energize its population to go to war again after the removal of France in 1954. Being able to gain supplies from China and the Soviet Union to the north were essential to the success of the North Vietnamese. This ability to use the bipolar system to its advantage helped North Vietnam to win its war for independence and to take over South Vietnam in 1975. Realism not only fully explains the actions of each state in this conflict, but it also predicted the outbreak of war as soon as ideology became the focus of the debate on Vietnam.

In Conclusion, the Vietnam War was an excellent example of the interconnected nature of international relations theories, and each of the three theories applied explained at least a portion of the war's significance to its main actors. Realism, however, is a universally applied theory during state on state conflict, and the importance of maintaining stature in international affairs ultimately reigns supreme in the minds of policy makers and world leaders in all states.

"Vietnam." (2011). InfoPlease Website. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108144.html .

"Vietnam." (2011). InfoPlease Website. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108144.html .

"Learn about the Vietnam War." (2011). Digital History Website. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm .

Brigham, R. (2011). "Battlefield Vietnam: A Brief History." PBS Website. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history / .

Moravcsik, A. (2011). "Liberalism and International Relations." Harvard University and University of Chicago. Paper No. 92-6. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/liberalism_working.pdf .

"IR Theory Base." (2011). Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm .

"Brief History of Vietnam." (2011). VietVentures. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.vietventures.com/Vietnam/history_vietnam.asp .