The linked article mentions the Vatican and Hanoi still don't
have formal relations and that this is a legacy of communism. The statement is
interesting because someone might read it and think something along these
lines: The communists were atheistic and thus they would have no interest in
establishing diplomatic ties with a theocratic state like the Vatican.
It's an interesting suggestion but it falls flat. For
example, the Soviet Union was the first state to recognise the Islamic Republic
of Iran in 1979. Why would the USSR rush to recognise the government formed by
the Ayatollah Khomeini? It's simple, it's a case of Realpolitik. Even though
the largely secular Shah was overthrown, he was a close ally of the United
States and thus his ouster was a boon to Moscow and they were quick to
recognise any government that would turn Iran away from the Western sphere.
Despite fundamental ideological differences the two states had common interests
and common enemies. The relationship would wax and wane throughout the 1980's
but there was always a desire to maintain relations. Communism was a barrier
but it wasn't insurmountable. Its removal in 1991 allowed the relationship to
flourish.
Now, does this explain the Hanoi-Vatican relationship? No it
doesn't, but it's a similar example in that pure ideology has little to do with
the nature of relationships between states. I contend Hanoi's rejection of
diplomatic relations with the papacy is not due to ideology but to history.
Hanoi abandoned ideological communism long ago, and to be honest few in the
country were ever that zealous about it. Communism in Vietnam as in much of the
Third World was used as a nationalist rallying point to combat Western
Imperialism. Nationalism mixed with communism is an ideological contradiction,
nevertheless the phenomenon occurred on a fairly regular basis. Whether of the
Stalinist or Maoist variety, the various forms of nationalist 'communism'
easily and quickly mutated into class-communism ruled by a new Establishment, a
bureaucratic class or Nomenklatura and by the latter phase of the Cold War,
these regimes embraced Capitalist reform and in many cases turned to the very
class exploitation they were supposedly empowered to eradicate. Turning their
lower classes into cheap labour for global capitalism the Nomenklatura grew
fabulously wealthy. The idea that states like China and Vietnam are still
communist is to render Marxism meaningless, a form without any content
whatsoever.
So why would Hanoi continue harbouring a certain wariness or
animosity with regard to the Vatican? As I said the answer is found in history.
When the United States facilitated the division of Vietnam in
1954-55 it was through the auspices of Ngo Dinh Diem who ruled the country
until he was assassinated in November 1963, just weeks before John F. Kennedy
was assassinated in Dallas. Many have drawn connections between these two
events. More on that in a moment.
The North always resented the division of the country which occurred
in 1954. The elections that were to be the final arbiter of partition were
scheduled for 1955 but Diem cancelled them, thus making the North-South
division permanent. Of course the unification turned out to be less than
permanent. It did take place, but at gunpoint in 1975 as the Saigon regime fell
and the Americans fled.
By the time the war heated up for the Americans in
mid-1960's, Diem was long gone and in the grave. And yet it was during his
tenure that the groundwork was laid for the American phase of the war. Diem's
administration probably more than anything else created the animosity that led
to massive resistance in the South and filled the ranks of the Viet Cong. The
North Vietnamese Army (NVA) would not have been able to operate as it did
without the massive grass roots support in the South. This support came in part
due to resentment over partition but Diem had outraged many South Vietnamese.
His government was viewed as a proxy for Western Imperialism. First it was the French
and then it was the Americans. Diem and his zealous promotion of Roman
Catholicism became the face and spear-point of the oppressor.
Diem was a devotee of Rome and his government showed great
preference for Catholicism. There were large numbers of Roman Catholics in
Vietnam and many had fled south to escape the Hanoi regime of Ho Chi Minh. Diem
gave preferential treatment to Catholics and publically honoured its prelates.
These policies coupled with the suppression of traditional native Buddhism
generated hostility and resistance. From self-immolating monks to armed
uprising, the people of the South united in opposing this Roman Catholic puppet
dictator.
Catholicism had come to Indochina during colonialisation and
as often was the case, converts had more doors open to them. It was part of 'embracing
the West' and of course those that resisted the colonial powers held such
converts in utter contempt. The French had left in defeat in 1954 but for the
people of South Vietnam, daily life under the Diem government was as if the
French had never left and was in some ways much worse.
To this day there are still debates and suggestions of
conspiracy with regard to Diem. Was he taking orders from the Vatican? We know
Washington was heavily involved with the Vatican during the post-war period.
Rome was laundering money and involved in anti-Communist movements throughout
Europe. The United States worked closely with various elements of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy within Latin America and together they supported the various
pro-Roman Catholic fascist governments that came to power.
There are also very plausible suggestions (as well as
evidence) of Mafia connections and links to the Indochina opium trade. Though
the French had left there were still expatriate and commercial connections
utilised by the US-Vatican alliance. The Kuomintang (KMT) of the defeated
Chiang Kai-Shek also played a part, operating out of the Golden Triangle where
the opium originated. Networks were set up funneling the raw narcotic to
Vietnamese ports. From there it made its way to Corsica and Marseilles. The
final phase of The French Connection was on American shores where it made its
way into the ghettos. It was but the first chapter of the CIA's long dalliance
with the drug trade. The money was used to fund the many wars and operations
around the globe. This project continued unabated until the collapse of Vietnam
in 1975. Within a few years, Langley had turned to other sources for black
revenue... Afghanistan and Central America. They would become the hubs of the
1980's proxy war against communism, facilitated in no small part by CIA-run paramilitary
leaders wed to and funded by the drug trade.
Rome laundered the money through the IOR/Vatican Bank and
played its part in facilitating the dark and secret side of the war on
communism. Diem plays into this narrative and many believe he was an agent of
the Vatican-CIA alliance. Even the circumstances surrounding Diem's death
remain somewhat mysterious. There are questions and connections to John
Kennedy's position on these matters and what many perceive as his betrayal of
both the US Deep State and the Vatican. Some believe his reticence to fight the
Cold War, indeed his intention to end it; his plan to abandon Vietnam and his
administration's part in the death of Diem got him killed.
While I don't for a moment subscribe to the fantasy-fiction
of the Warren Commission I don't think Kennedy was killed on orders from the
Vatican. Additionally there are disputes over his Vietnam policy and what role
his administration had in the death of Diem. Some argue Kennedy ordered it,
others insist the CIA acted independently and Kennedy was very grieved and
shocked by his death. Of course the official state line insists the CIA did not
have a hand in his (Diem's) death and yet their slippery arguments are
unconvincing. They admit, as is the case with Patrice Lumumba that orders had
been given, proxies were urged on, networks were set up and agents hovered in
the wings. But, don't you know, they didn't have a hand in the actual killings.
It's called plausible deniability, but sometimes it's so implausible as to be
ridiculous and laughable.
There are those that believe the Vatican was and remains in
control of this larger Deep State conspiracy. They argue the Vatican is the
orchestrator and the source of authority and the US Deep State is in fact under
its control. They would point to the many members of the Knights of Malta, Opus
Dei and other orders which have occupied very senior and influential Deep State
positions within the US government. Some have jokingly referred to the CIA as
the Catholic Intelligence Agency. It's quite misleading and ignores the Old
Money Brahmin-Ivy League networks that so long dominated the US Establishment
and in particular the intelligence agencies. I will admit that this began to
change in earnest throughout the course of the Cold War but it was not the case
in the early days of the OSS, CIG and the CIA.
These theories usually emanate from Fundamentalist circles in
the United States or from Protestant Northern Ireland. There are also some
elements I label as pro-Masonic who promote these ideas in a sort of Classical
Liberalism vs. Throne-and-Altar framework. Finally there are a handful of
semi-cultish groups that use the Anti-Vatican narrative to provide a
metanarrative for Church history.
Of course there are also Libertarian sectors that are very
pro-Roman Catholic... even though I would argue these impulses are like oil and
water. And today, more than ever, the majority of Protestants and Evangelicals
have to varying degrees embraced Rome. They may not love every aspect of its
theology (though this is also changing) but they crave its philosophic and
sociological traditions.
I have often dismissed these 'Rome as the puppetmaster and centre
of all evil' theories and yet they contain aspects that keep drawing me back.
This Vatican narrative connects at various points to other areas of interest
and so it often hovers at the back of my mind. My numerous trips to Rome in the
1990's still loom large in my memory and greatly affected me. I have read various
books, listened to tapes (obviously a long time ago) and have watched old
videotapes. In recent years I've dug up podcasts and utilised other resources.
The frustrating thing about all these narratives is that
they're wrong and sometimes glaringly so. And yet, they also usually contain
some elements of truth.
I do not believe the Vatican is 'calling the shots' though I
do think it wields influence at certain times and in certain places. Even for
those of us who grew up with the Cold War I don't think we can appreciate the
fear of communism that gripped the Old Order in the 1920s through the 1950s.
Also I am positive that few really understand just how powerful the United
States was post-1945. The former generation's support of fascism seems
perplexing today but I think the context has been lost and this is exacerbated
by misunderstandings of fascism and a host of other historical myths. There
were many in the Western Establishment and certainly in the Vatican that looked
to fascism as a corrective to Bolshevism. The embrace varied of course as
fascism itself was varied. Hitler certainly became an object of scorn and while
Nazism was gone in 1945, fascism was not and communism if anything was on the
rise. Many believed fascism was the most effective tool to fight the various
manifestations and hybrids of Marxist thought and the Western Establishment (which
includes the Vatican) launched a secret war using extreme Right-wing elements
and tactics. Some did so with reluctance and distaste and others did so with
the zeal of the true believer.
Washington and the Vatican have used each other and yet for
the most part I would say Washington has pulled the strings. There's evidence
to suggest Washington has manipulated papal conclaves and not a few believe (and
with reason) that John Paul I was murdered and the more favourable candidate
John Paul II was installed. There have been key figures within Washington that
are deeply and religiously connected to the Vatican and they have flourished in
such an environment. I do not accept as some would suggest that Cardinal
Francis Spellman was effectively running the United States in the 1950s and
pushed the United States into the Vietnam War.
These narratives are generated by a great deal of confusion about
how the world works and what the United States is and stands for. There are
some, usually Dispensational Fundamentalists of one variety or another that
believe the US is the 'holy nation' that has been swindled and clandestinely
taken over by the Pope's henchmen. Any evil in the American system or nefarious
actions conducted by the US can be traced back to Vatican and Jesuitical
influence. They also somewhat absurdly tie the Jesuits to world communism and
even Islam. A believer in conspiracy I nevertheless reject the notion that one
group or faction governs everything and all the conflicts, wars, scandals and
economic travails are all orchestrated events. There is no news, no history in
this view. It's all theatre.
While the Vatican is indeed a seat of Satan and the Jesuits,
Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta are verily agents of evil... the same can be
said about many of the people these Vatican critics would champion. America
itself is (I believe) Satan's masterpiece, a concoction of Masonic
Enlightenment ideals and Christian heresy that has become the nexus of
spiritual evil in the modern world. American Christianity is for the most part
a dangerous and utterly toxic counterfeit that gets worse by the day.
Secularism and Islam present little real threat to the Christian Church. The
heresy of Christo-Americanism is deceiving people, turning Christ-professing
Christians, members of the New Covenant, into liars, thieves and murderers.
They do these things even while thinking they do God service.
Rome but plays a part. Washington is the puppetmaster, the
Vatican is a player and contender, but all too often an agent operating at the
behest of others. More could be said about the long conflict between Geneva and
Rome. Reference is not being made to Calvinist Geneva but to the Enlightenment
Geneva of Voltaire and Rousseau and its conflict with Western Christendom
(idealised by Rome). But that is beyond the scope of this piece and I digress.
I will say this... the current paradigm could and likely will
change in the future.
Now how is all this pertinent to the discussion regarding
Vietnam? Why do I take issue with rendering the diplomatic schism a mere result
of Vietnamese communism?
It's just not that simple. Vietnam still has a Roman Catholic
population, over six million people or about 7% of the population. Pope Francis
has definitely been trying to reach out to Vietnam and bolster the standing of
Asia's Roman Catholics.
Vietnam clearly wants to move toward the West in light of its
struggle with China and yet they almost necessarily must pause as they consider
their own history vis-à-vis Rome and what these past relationships meant in
light of Western involvement in their affairs. Merely referring to these
episodes as 'involvement' is probably euphemistic. I think the Hanoi leadership
probably thinks more in terms of 'schemes' and 'plots' to undermine and
manipulate their country.
They're caught in a tight spot. Relations with the West will
mean a great spotlight is shone on their internal culture. There's one type of
spotlight that is used to malign an enemy. Recent coverage of Russian politics,
dissidents and the election is such an example. But there's another type of
coverage that applies to allies. The spotlight is used to manipulate in order
for the ally to receive arms and access to international finance. If the
situation is serious enough or the ally is part of the 'top tier' these things
are overlooked. Vietnam is I'm sure trying to figure out what their placement
will be.
Human rights issues can be used to twist arms and the Vatican
can generate a lot of press and it has many allies and voices within Western
capitals. In this respect Hanoi's concerns are (ironically) similar to
Beijing's. Rome is a powerful entity within certain spheres and though it has
no army it maintains ties with those who do.
Sacralist Protestants used to understand Rome was not merely
a religious organisation but it represented a rival political order. Thus
throughout the 16th-19th centuries anti-Catholicism took
on an almost fanatical quality.
Rome was at its nadir by the second half of the 19th
century, losing not only the Papal States but indeed much of its influence
across Europe. It faced political difficulties in places like Britain, Germany
and America and risked being over-run by Liberalism in both its political and
theological forms. The Enlightenment and its Masonic agents had all but
conquered.
Rome weathered the storm and re-cast itself. It re-wrote its
history and took on a new form for the 20th century. In some
respects it's more dangerous than ever. Though the power once wielded by
figures like Hildebrand and Innocent III is long gone Rome still wields a great
deal of influence even in this seemingly secular age. Rome no longer sits as
master of a feudal order or as the crowning authority of a Holy Roman Empire.
Rather, Rome wields power through finance, real estate and business holdings.
Rome's wealth is not in crowns or fiefdoms but in massive wealth, information
and influence. It often wields this power quietly and in ways that are subtle
but can suddenly become overwhelming. The dynamics of this story, this history
continue to fascinate. It's a shame that mainstream historians have downplayed
it and the extreme conspiracists have all but discredited it.