The Vietnam war, remains one of the largest global conflicts in the 20 th century, since the First and

Second World Wars.

Vietnam’s strategic location drew in the Cold War superpowers—Russia, United States, China—which saw global interests at
stake and placed massive resources towards their North or South Vietnamese allies. Full-scale American intervention led to large
destruction in Vietnam and a lasting defeat for the United States. This paper will argue that the Vietnam war was caused by the
American backed Ngo Dinh Diem government. Furthermore, Vietnam’s struggle for economic autonomy and state building was
a product of disagreement between the North and South.

The 19th century saw a new era of European empire building, throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
Subsequently, French colonial rulers invaded Vietnam and asserted French influence over the country. Vietnam’s foreign
relations and civil administration were controlled by Paris. Vietnamese military forces were disbanded and replaced by the
French Legionnaire Army. Under the French colonial rule, the scholars were greatly affected and felt humiliated after losing their
country. Thus, resistance movements against France were led by the educated elites. Ho Chi Minh Set up the Vietminh to resist
the French in 1941. After the Vichy French fell out of power after World War II. The French used Vietnam as a slave state and
kept the people underdeveloped to benefit France, by exploiting Vietnam through feudalism and colonialism, however in 1945,
Vietnamese people led riots against the French. In turn, the British expeditionary force murdered their way through the city to
free the French Legionnaires. The conflict became internationalized in 1948. The Soviet Union and China opened a direct
pipeline for Guriella fighters in Northern Vietnam. Consequently, the United States got involved in Southern Vietnam (Tang, 25).
After France left Vietnam, the United States replaced them by backing the Ngo Dinh Diem government. America was deeply
committed to a worldwide struggle against communism, therefore, USA opposed Vietnamese nationalism. America aimed to
divide the country and support the non-communist side, similar to the Korean War. The Diem government—backed by the
United States—crushed any rival powers, by labelling the communists. Diem hunted down anyone deemed a freedom fighter and
resurrected old feudal methods from the advice of his American supporters (38). “Diem’s brutality alienated large segments of
the south Vietnamese, creating a swell of animosity throughout the country …. Most damning of all, he had murdered many
patriots who had fought in the against France” (Tang, 65). Diem’s repressive regime eventually caused mass protests in South
Vietnam, which led to a full-blown war to push out the American imperialists.

The French and United States never tried to implement a political structure in Vietnam. France exploited the country’s resources;
whereas, the US viewed Vietnam as a pawn to assert themselves against the Russians. Thus, Vietnam was faced with immense
challenges pertaining to state-building. The Americans tried the “Vietnamization” policy which would blur the image of America
in the war and place the blame on the Thieu government. The National Liberation Front faced challenges from the US’ Phoenix
program which neutralized Front operatives and eliminated their infrastructure (201). In turn, the NLF were forced to formulate a
state structure, by hiding in the jungles. In the jungles the NLF faced the challenges of disease and malnutrition among ministry
officials. Furthermore, the US’ B-52 bombardments halted state formation by destroying ministry complex’s, supplies, food, and
documents (168). During the South’s meeting with Northern Vietnamese officials the two parties would disagree heavily on
ideologies. The north preferred Marxism-Lennism, Espoused democratic freedoms and national independence; whereas, the
Southern nationalists desired, a democratic country based on neo-Confucian principles (194). Henry Kissinger additionally
opposed any advancements the NLF made towards state-building, and believed that a coalition government was a “communist
trap” (217). Another challenge with state-building in Vietnam was how to acquire support among the city bourgeoise, who were
not supportive of the revolutionary government and military establishment in Saigon. Ultimately the problems with state-building
in Vietnam derived from their Northern compatriots. Northern Vietnam betrayed the South and took full control over the country.
“They made it understood that the Vietnam of the future would be a single monolithic bloc, collectivist and totalitarian …. After
the 1975 victory the PRG became an obstacle to the rapid consolidation of power” (268). With no strong central government in
the South local authorities and police arrested innocent locals and in the first year after liberation three hundred thousand people
were arrested (282).

The exploitation of Vietnam in colonization and the war presented a plethora of challenges pertaining to economic autonomy.
After America’s withdrawal from the war, Vietnam faced deflation which brought unemployment and price rises. Soldiers’
families had barely enough to live on (203). The regimes economic situation effected businesses heavily. Northern Vietnam was
destroyed by the war; bomb craters and poverty marked the city. Vietnam sought material aid from the Soviet bloc, Syria, Algeria
and Libya, as they provided direct finiancial subsidies (254). The cold war between global super-powers also effected
Vietnamese aid. China treated Southern Vietnam far better than the Soviet supported North. Under the new regime Vietnam’s
industrial plants, agricultural plans, and work were all failing. Furthermore, food rations were far worse in the city than they were
in the jungle during the war. Vietnam’s struggle towards economic autonomy relied heavily on foreign aid. However, the two
five-year plans in the country greatly increased the GDP of Vietnam (IMF).

In summary, the Vietnam war remains one of the largest conflicts of the 20th century. The United States dropped more than three
times of tonnage in Vietnam than World War II, most coming from high-altitude B-52 bombers (167). Ultimately, the war is the
product of colonialism and the cold war. The French exploited the country which caused massive nationalist movements, and
America’s backing of Ngo Dinh Diem only escalated the conflict. The conflict in state-building and economic autonomy,
however, was due to disagreements between the North and South. The cold-war superpowers and their obsession of asserting
influence in world conflicts saw the US backed South and Soviet backed North, as pawns to a greater global agenda.
The contemporary world has been riddled with poverty, crime, and warfare. Though the world has developed, technologically,
scientifically, politically, etc. under-developed nations still bear the lasting mark of European imperialism. Weapons of mass
destruction additionally threaten our existence. This problem of warfare remains prevalent in Syria, India, and Nigeria. This
paper will argue that warfare in these countries is a direct result of a religious conflict.

The British ruled in India from, 1858 to 1947. British rule of India resulted in exploitation of resources and the use of Indian
troops during World War I and II. Britain formed the “Princely states” within India, as part of Great Britain's attempt to divide
and rule British India to reduce the amount of influence and power of administrative units in the region. During the independence
movements, the Muslim minority advocated for a sovereign nation. The increasing tensions between the Hindu’s and Muslims;
led to the “two-nation theory” coined by the educated Muslim elites in the 1930s, to justify the creation of a sovereign Muslim
nation. The Muslim’s opposed that a majority Muslim community be governed under a ruler of another religion. This was seen in
Kashmir, as Maharajaha Hari Singh—a Hindi-ruler in charge of a Muslim-majority region—insensitivity and massive taxation
against the Muslim community saw the rise of the Poonch rebellion. After the partition of India, Kashmir wanted independence,
but got invaded by Pakistan and India instead. The Hindu and Muslim conflict in the region led to the First Indo-Pakistani War.
The religious conflict resulted in the subsequent Second-and Third Indo-Pakistani War. Kashmir has become common-ground for
Muslim fundamentalist groups from Pakistan but supported by Muslim fundamentalists from Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya
and other parts of the world. The Pandit Hindu massacre in 1990 and then, the rise of Hindu fundamentalists fighting against the
Muslim fundamentalist groups in the region, signifies a massive religious conflict. The border continues to one of the most hotly
contested regions in the world, presenting the problem of a nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan. The Border conflict
mainly derives from a religious conflict between the Hindu’s and Muslim’s

The causal factor of the Syrian civil war can be attributed to a sectarian divide, at the hands of the Assad family. Jomama
Qaddour states that the sectarian issue derives from: “The Alawite community (roughly 12 percent of Syria’s 22 million people”
(67). Syria is a predominantly Sunni and Shi'a nation; therefore, the minority Alawites cause conflict between the sects. The
Alawite community heavily supported Hafez Al-Assad through the plethora of Islamic uprisings in Syria and continued to
support the Assad family after his death. After the Ba’ath socialist party was overthrown, Hafiz Al-Assad replaced Sunni officers
with the minority Alawites. Jomama Qaddour states: “Between 1966 and 1970, over 65 percent of the entire military command
became comprised of Alawites from the rural areas” (69). In contemporary Syria, the Alawites continue to comprise high-level
positions; whereas, the Sunni are subjected to low-level government jobs (Qaddour 70). In turn, The Assad family’s tyrannical
rule led to the rise of extremist groups in Syria, mainly, The Islamic State. The Islamic State conquered vast territory in 2014 and
implemented fundamentalist laws in Aleppo. The Islamic state split from Al-Qaeda during the Iraq war to fight Al-Assad in
Syria. Moreover, ISIS—mainly Sunni—persecute minority groups (e.g., Alawites, Christians, and Druze). Furthermore, ISIS
targets infidel Alawite’s, as they are directly linked with the Assad family. The rise of ISIS derives from the Alwite rule in Syria,
as the Assad regime uses the Alawites, to intimidate the population, loot businesses, and carry out large massacres all over the
country (Qaddour 75). The Syrian civil war can be the catalyst for World War III as a proxy war is already afoot in Syria.

The Somali civil war has been a major conflict in Africa since the ousting of Siad Barre. Despite the upheaval of the oppressive
regime, the clans involved were unable to agree on a replacement for Barre and, as a result, the country descended into a civil war
that has now gripped the country for 20 years (PBS). The conflict has caused widespread displacement of civilians, with the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimating that “1.5 million Somalis are displaced within the
country [and]… More than 650,000 are living as refugees in neighbouring countries” (UNHCR). The war in recent time,
however, can be a product of a religious conflict between the Sufi Muslim’s and the Shabab extremist group. “Clan wars,
political wars, we were always careful to stay out of those,” said Sheik Omar Mohamed Farah, a Sufi leader. “But this time, it
was religious” (The New York Times). The extremist groups destroyed the Sufi Muslim’ shrines and murdered their Imams. The
Sufi militia, whose organization is called Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama drove the Shabab out of Dusa Marreb. Since then, the Sufis
have defended their territory several times against Shabab incursions (The New York Times).

In summary the contemporary world is plagued with a myriad of problems, mainly in under-developed countries that were
subjected to European imperialism. The problem of warfare in the world presents a threat to all of humanity. The threat of
nuclear war derives from religious conflict found within these regions. India and Pakistan’s conflict in Pakistan between Muslim
fundamentalists and Hindu nationalists poses a threat of global war between a plethora of superpowers, as Kashmir is a very
strategic location and garners many valuable resources. In Syria, the conflict is a proxy-war, as the western countries support the
rebels, whereas Russia and Iran back the Assad regime. The causal factor of the war could be linked the authoritative Alawite
minority in Syria. Nigeria’s conflict between Sufi’s and Muslim extremist groups poses the problem of too many refugees for
countries to take in. Ultimately, the problem of warfare in the contemporary world derives from a religious conflict between
certain groups.