“NOT CHOOSING SIDES BUT CHOOSING JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS” – CHANGING A FLAWED AND DANGEROUS FOREIGN POLICY PHILOSOPHY

Refusing to make a choice is putting a big boulder blocking Vietnam’s road to prosperity and happiness!

Dr. Dinh Hoang Thang, former ambassador of Vietnam, Fellow of Caux Round Table

Since the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam, one of the most frequently cited foreign policy principles has been the vacuous phrase:

“Vietnam does not choose sides, but chooses justice and righteousness.”

On the surface, this appears to be a noble and balanced position — one that affirms both independence and moral vision. But upon closer examination, this philosophy reveals fundamental contradictions and serious risks. In today’s deeply fractured world order, such an approach is no longer neutral — it is strategically dangerous, ethically inconsistent, and diplomatically self-defeating.

I. Justice and righteousness — defined by whom?

The key question is: Who defines “justice” and “righteousness”? Without a clear, objective, and internationally accepted standard, these terms become vague slogans — easily manipulated to serve narrow national or ideological interests.

For Vietnamese – who will decide what is “justice” and what is “righteousness”? Will Vietnam’s leaders. right now, remember Vietnam’s age-old traditions of virtue, morality, and righteousness?

In modern international relations, the only legitimate foundation for justice and righteousness is international law — especially the UN Charter, principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of aggressive war.

Yet in the face of Russia’s blatant invasion of Ukraine, Vietnam has remained silent, or worse, expressing implicit sympathy toward the aggressor. This undermines any credible claim to moral consistency. A policy that refuses to name wrongdoing is not choosing righteousness — it is choosing ambiguity at the expense of principle.

II. From victim to bystander: A historical contradiction

Vietnam’s 20th century was shaped by its struggle against colonialism, imperialism, and foreign invasion. From French and Japanese occupation, to American intervention, to border conflicts with China — Vietnam has long positioned itself as a victim of aggression, fighting for justice and sovereignty.

So why now, in the 21st century, when Russia uses force to annex territory and violate the sovereignty of another nation, does Vietnam choose silence?

How can Vietnam demand international support to defend its maritime sovereignty in the South China Sea, while refusing to condemn similar violations elsewhere? This is not principled neutrality — this is strategic contradiction.

III. The peril of not speaking with truth, of just using euphemisms: When aggressors are called “unknown vessels”

A troubling symptom of this flawed philosophy is the persistent use of ambiguous language to describe acts of aggression. Vietnamese media frequently refer to hostile incursions as the work of “strange ships” or “unknown countries.”

When Vietnamese fishermen are rammed by Chinese vessels in disputed waters, the reports speak only of “unidentified foreign ships.” When China’s Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig entered Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, official statements avoided naming the violator.

This pattern reflects a deep fear of confrontation and a culture of self-censorship. By refusing to call an aggressor by name, the state abdicates its responsibility to protect its citizens and uphold national dignity.

Worse, it sends a dangerous message to both domestic and international audiences: that Vietnam is willing to tolerate violations of its sovereignty if the violator is powerful enough.

IV. Signs of internal reconsideration: Is strategic ambiguity losing favor?

Encouragingly, recent developments suggest there may be internal rethinking of this outdated foreign policy stance.

At a recent joint conference of Vietnam’s public security, defense, and foreign affairs sectors, newly appointed General Secretary To Lam notably did not repeat the “not choosing sides” mantra. Similarly, during the 80th anniversary of the diplomatic service, Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son also omitted this phrase from his official remarks.

In a political system where every word is scrutinized, such omissions are not accidental — they may indicate a shift in internal consensus away from hollow neutrality toward more principled engagement.

V. The consequences of staying silent and vague

If Vietnam continues to cling to this foreign policy practice of being vague and evasive, it will face mounting risks:

Diplomatic isolation: Both democratic and authoritarian powers may view Vietnam as untrustworthy or opportunistic.

Loss of moral and legal credibility: Without consistency, Vietnam cannot expect the world to support its very legitimate claims in the South China Sea.

Erosion of international reputation: Strategic partners may question Vietnam’s commitment to international norms.

Loss of public trust: Citizens will rightly ask: Why does the government remain silent when our sovereignty is violated?

VI. Conclusion: Neutrality without principles is not diplomacy — it is denial

Vietnam urgently needs a clear, values-based foreign policy grounded in the rule of law and moral clarity. Countries like Finland, Lithuania, and Singapore have shown that small states can maintain independence while upholding principles — and earn global respect for doing so.

Vietnam cannot demand justice for itself while turning a blind eye to injustice elsewhere.

“Justice and righteousness,” without the framework of international law, are meaningless abstractions. And diplomacy without courage is nothing more than a shadow — a form without substance.

“Not choosing sides, but choosing justice and righteousness” — this euphemism, if left undefined — becomes little more than putting a big boulder blocking Vietnam’s road to prosperity and happiness!