Author: CRT Admin

Standing on the Rubicon’s Bank Looking Across

The beginning of the end for the Roman Republic, in common memory, occurred when Julius Caesar led his legions from their colonization of Gaul back to Rome and on January 10, 49 BCE, crossed the small Rubicon River, a legal boundary beyond which a general could not lead his military followers.

Legend has it that as Caesar urged his horse into the river he said alea iacta est! – “The Die is Cast!”  The result of his crossing the river was civil war, then his assassination, then another civil war and then the replacement of the Republic with an empire.

So, the phrase “to cross the Rubicon” has come to mean to trigger a tipping point of lawlessness from which the society cannot recover.

Yesterday, another American thought leader, a young Charlie Kirk, was assassinated for speaking his beliefs, for his politics, for acting on his rights.  He was censored – silenced – for saying the wrong things in the mind of his assassin.

In my state of Minnesota, the other month, a civic minded politician elected to our state House of Representatives, a Democrat and her husband, were assassinated in their home by a man, whom we can only consider deranged.  His beliefs and motivations, the nature of his psychosis most likely, we don’t know and may never know, as he has a right under our constitution not to speak at his forthcoming trial.

We also more recently here in Minnesota were existentially victimized by what should be considered an assassination – in this case, the intentional murder of children during a worship service as an expression of self-serving rage and hatred by their dysphoric murderer.

Donald Trump was shot by one would-be assassin and was targeted by another.

Luigi Mangione assassinated the CEO of United Healthcare, most likely out of political opposition to the company’s practices, lawful practices, generating a hatred and a self-righteousness that murder is justified when the life taken is evil incarnate.

Has the U.S. crossed a Rubicon protecting its republican virtue from violence? A crossing that has opened for us an historic new era of factional fratricide, where citizenship is replaced by a vindictive tribalism?

Is American civilization at risk?

Where there is no social contract or accepted constitution, providing for a social capital of peace, mutual assistance, goodwill, preservation and comity, then there is no common standard of right and justice, no common rule of what must not be attempted.  Then, too, there is no authority to judge among people who is right and who is wrong and have that judgment accepted by the community as lawful.  Then, rule by personal diktat – “my” truth – enforced by repression replaces social justice with the law of the jungle – eat or be eaten; kill or be killed.  Or as Thomas Hobbes wisely predicted: “The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Is that what Americans subconsciously want for their grandchildren?  Taking revenge on those who offend us with their thoughts and words?

As John Locke wrote, when there is a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction and when there is the design or use of force upon the person of another, there is no common judge to adjudicate between aggressor and victim.  There is only “an appeal to the God of Heaven” and war.

Locke affirmed: “Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in Heaven.”  And we   might add, an appeal to force and violence – to war – here on earth.

May the Lord – and all his saints – deliver America from such evil.

Why Assassinations of Public Servants and Murder of Children?

Something has gone very wrong.  The assassination of Melissa Hortman and her husband and the murder of children in a church during worship are “signs of the times” – bad signs.

We have brought ourselves as Americans to a degrading and disgraceful existential cul-de-sac as we approach the 250th anniversary of our country – the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Several of my colleagues have joined with me to draft this statement.

We hope it will encourage you to join hands and save our republic from decadence or worse.

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025: The Promise and the Gap

Stephen B. Young,

Former Dean and Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law

Executive Summary

Eighty years after the 1945 Declaration of Independence, the ideals of freedom and democracy remain unfulfilled. In his September 2, 2025 speech at Ba Đình Square, General Secretary Tô Lâm projected both nationalist rhetoric and ideological loyalty. This duality underscores the enduring disconnect between promises and realities in Vietnam’s governance. The address reflected Vietnam’s structural crises: political mistrust, social disintegration, and geopolitical dependence. Absent genuine reform, Vietnam risks further entrenchment within authoritarian blocs and the erosion of its long-claimed independence.

1. A Tô Lâm “Walking Two Roads” or “standing at a crossroads”?

At the outset, Tô Lâm surprised observers by employing language rarely used by senior Communist leaders: “the sacred spirit of the nation,” “the nation’s eternity,” “my people,” “my fatherland.” His repeated use of the pronoun “I” rather than “we” or “our Party” lent his speech a veneer of intimacy. It created the impression of a leader speaking as part of the national community rather than as the faceless embodiment of Party machinery. 

Later in his National Day speech, To Lam also spoke of “Vietnameseness” – “dân tộc ta trường tồn”; “Đất nước Việt Nam trường tồn”

This intentional use of “Vietnameseness” established a moral foundation for elevating the Vietnamese people as the heart and soul of Vietnam.  Most auspiciously, To Lam spoke of “đặt lợi ích … của Nhân dân lên trên hết, trước hết” (put benefiting the people first and above all else); “sức mạnh lòng dân” strength from the hearts of the people; and “Vinh quang mãi mãi thuộc về Nhân dân.” (forever and ever honor belongs to the people).

By elevating the importance of the Vietnamese people, General Secretary To Lam implies that the duty of the Party and the Government is to serve the people by delivering prosperity, peace, democracy, and equality.

For many listeners, this rhetorical shift offers a meaningful signal of potential change—a glimmer of hope that leadership thinking might evolve.

Yet the more significant feature was his indecision – which road should he take – the old, familiar one, or the new progressive one. The General Secretary recognized public exhaustion with lifeless slogans, and thus may have turned to populist phrasing to capture goodwill. But populism at the top, absent concrete policy, is hollow. If limited to pronouns and decorative words, it is merely a fresh coat of paint on a wall already crumbling from within.

2. Repeating the Old Formulas

After this novel opening, the address quickly defaulted to familiar ideological templates: “National independence must be tied to socialism” and “steadfast adherence to Marxism–Leninism and Hồ Chí Minh Thought.” The backbone of the speech was therefore the same outdated ideology—despite eight decades of evidence that such a model has not delivered liberty, democracy, or prosperity for the Vietnamese nation as revered Ho Chi Minh had promised 80 years ago.

Here the contradiction is most evident: invoking “my fatherland” and “my people” while simultaneously clinging to the mantra “the Party above all, ideology above all.”

This invites an unavoidable question: which socialism is still being defended? Beijing’s authoritarian centralism, Pyongyang’s stagnation, or the democratic socialism of Scandinavia? Vietnam’s reality—one-party dominance, a pervasive security apparatus, an economy dependent on external powers, and systemic corruption—suggests an uncomfortable hybrid: the ambition to govern in Beijing’s mold, mixed with cheap populist appeals.  Or is this socialism – even in China – not much more than a crony capitalism?

3. Why This Dual Messaging?

The answer lies in Vietnam’s present crises. In an open letter to Tô Lâm, a civil society representative identified three interconnected breakdowns :

  • Political trust crisis: Public confidence in leadership has eroded. Corruption trials, factional struggles, and opaque personnel decisions have alienated citizens.
  • Moral and social crisis: The wealth gap continues to widen. Officials live in extravagance while workers endure hardship. Moral values erode, faith falters, and social cohesion weakens.
  • Foreign policy crisis: Vietnam is squeezed between the U.S. and its Western allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other. It lacks both the independence to stand alone and the clarity to select a reliable strategic partner.

In such circumstances, Tô Lâm must “walk two roads”: appealing to domestic audiences with nationalist terms like “Vietnameseness” and “people,” while reassuring Party cadres with slogans of Marxism–Leninism. 

But such dual messaging will not end the crises of political trust or moral and social discontent.

Yet a strategy of dual messaging, if prolonged, risks self-deception and inaction, leaving the country more vulnerable to missteps and deeper crises.

4. Diplomatic Personnel as a Strategic Signal  Unresolved: the Diplomatic Crisis

On the eve of National Day, Vietnam quietly changed its foreign minister. At first glance, this appeared a technical adjustment. In reality, it was a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for Tô Lâm’s tenure. Diplomacy has become Vietnam’s principal tool for survival in an increasingly polarized international environment, and the individual at its helm often shapes life-saving foreign policy trajectories.

Both outgoing minister Bùi Thanh Sơn and his successor Lê Hoài Trung were educated in the United States. But their political orientations differ. Trung, a more enigmatic figure, has long been rumored to enjoy favor from Beijing. If such assessments are correct, this personnel shift was not merely an exchange of officials but a signpost of Vietnam’s potential drift toward the China–Russia orbit—despite rhetorical commitments to “diversification and multilateralism.”

Placed alongside the tepid welcome Tô Lâm has received from Washington, and Beijing’s open embrace—underscored by the nearly simultaneous appearances of President Lương Cường and Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính in China—this adjustment reads as sends a warning signal. Vietnam’s balancing act increasingly tilts toward one pole, one not  very eager to promote Vietnameseness.

5. Pressure from China–Russia and the BRICS Dilemma

One day before National Day, Beijing accorded Prime Minister Chính an elaborate reception, sending an unmistakable message: China seeks Vietnam’s alignment within its anti-Western bloc. Russia, increasingly isolated after the Ukraine war, is likewise pressing Vietnam toward BRICS.

The central question follows: if Vietnam were to join BRICS, what would remain of “multilateralism”? Such a step would close off paths of integration with the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Economic dependence on China and Russia would soon translate into diminished political independence.

This is the “headband of control” Beijing seeks to tighten around Vietnam’s leadership. Even if Tô Lâm wishes to innovate, the pressure from abroad is immense and the room for maneuver extremely limited.

6. An Imaginary Dialogue: Party Rhetoric and Civil Society

Viewed together, Tô Lâm’s speech and the civil society open letter put two sides of an historic national dialogue before the Vietnamese people:

  • The official speech offered phrases such as “I—my people—my fatherland—the eternal nation,” but which, despite their novel tone, were coupled with familiar ideological formulae.
  • The open letter reminded us all: “Power endures only when it builds trust. Legitimacy cannot be imposed; it must be conferred by the people.”
  • While Tô Lâm struggles to balance Party factions and foreign pressures, civil society underscores a different measure: legitimacy derives solely from the citizenry. That truth has yet to be realized—whether in 1945 or in 2025.

7. Conclusion: The Persistent Gap

The 80th anniversary of National Day should have been a moment to celebrate national achievements and, more importantly, to realize the unfinished promise of the 1945 Declaration: “Vietnam has the right to be free and independent, and in fact has become a free and independent country.”

Instead of freedom and democracy, citizens witnessed a tightening power structure. Instead of independence, the country faces mounting dependence on Beijing. Instead of reconciliation, society is increasingly divided.

Tô Lâm’s September 2, 2025, speech simultaneously revealed a desire for renewal and the inability to escape the constraints of ideology and foreign pressure. He sought to “say something different,” but remained too tethered to tired and ineffective old formulas.

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025, the gap between ideal and reality has remained unchanged: promises on one side, hard facts on the other. Unless Vietnam breaks free from authoritarian alliances and undertakes democratic reform, history will not remember Tô Lâm as the leader who opened a new era, but rather as one who squandered a unique opportunity to lead the nation out of darkness.

Non Sub Homine Sed Sub Deo et Lege (“Not under human authority but under God and the Law,” Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, 1235)

What is law and what is lawlessness?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has just ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal, that he had no authority under the U.S. Constitution to impose those taxes on the American people.

Let’s start thinking about his lawlessness with a famous narrative of injustice from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:

A large rose‑tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red.  Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them…

Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two.  Two began, in a low voice, “Why, the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose tree, and we put a white one by mistake; and, if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know.  So, you see, Miss, we’re doing our best, afore she comes, to — ” At this moment, Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out, “The Queen!  The Queen!, and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces. …

“And who are these?” said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rose-tree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children.

“How should I know?” said Alice, surprised at her own courage. “It’s no business of mine.”

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed “Off with her head! Off—”

“Nonsense!” said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.

The King laid his hand upon her arm, and timidly said, “Consider, my dear: she is only a child!”

The Queen turned angrily away from him, and said to the Knave, “Turn them over!”

The Knave did so, very carefully, with one foot.

“Get up!” said the Queen, in a shrill, loud voice, and the three gardeners instantly jumped up, and began bowing to the King, the Queen, the royal children, and everybody else.

“Leave off that!” screamed the Queen. “You make me giddy.” And then, turning to the rose-tree, she went on, “What have you been doing here?”

“May it please your Majesty,” said Two, in a very humble tone, going down on one knee as he spoke, “we were trying—”

“I see!” said the Queen, who had meanwhile been examining the roses. “Off with their heads!” and the procession moved on, three of the soldiers remaining behind to execute the unfortunate gardeners, who ran to Alice for protection.

“You shan’t be beheaded!” said Alice, and she put them into a large flower-pot that stood near. The three soldiers wandered about for a minute or two, looking for them, and then quietly marched off after the others.

“Are their heads off?” shouted the Queen.

“Their heads are gone, if it please your Majesty!” the soldiers shouted in reply.

But in the question of Tariffs, unlike the Queen of Hearts, what Donald Trump says in not law.

The opinion of the court on whether or not President Trump had authority to impose tariffs turned on the definition of words.  Laws consist of words, nearly always written words.  To know the law, we must know the meaning of words.

A very early example of written law is the Code of King Hammurabi, 1750 BCE, with words carved in stone and placed in public so that his subjects would know what laws they had to obey.  You can see one surviving example of such public law in the Louvre Museum:

In ancient China, the Zuo Zhuan history records a telling incident about the introduction of written law.  The prime minister of Zheng, Zichan, had criminal punishments written on the surface of cast bronze tripods placed in public for the people to read.  A moralistic scholar chastised him, saying: “When people know what the exact laws are, they do not stand in awe of their superiors.  They will come to have a contentious spirit and make their appeal to the express words.  They can no longer be managed. … When once the people know the grounds for contention, they will cast propriety away and make their appeal to your descriptions.  They will all be contending about a matter as small as the point of an awl or a knife.  Disorderly litigations will multiply and bribes will walk abroad.”

Zichan replied: “As to what you say, I have not the talents nor the ability to act for posterity.  My object is to save the present age.”

But how can any court know what the words of the law mean?

Again, we can turn to Lewis Carroll to illuminate the question more pointedly, this time from his fable, Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

So, the question of whether or not Donald Trump has personal power – arbitrary discretion – to impose taxes on the American people when they buy goods from foreign countries depends on whether he is or is not master of defining the word “regulate,” as used in a statute adopted by the Congress.

If he is master, he is lawless, for one – like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland or Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass – who can define, at whim, the laws which he or she will obey is “out-side” the law, an “out-law.”

But statutes are interpreted by courts, not by presidents who, under the Constitution, have no judicial authority.

So, if the federal courts are master in defining the word regulate, then Trump is not a master, but must follow the law, as others define it to be.  As such a follower, he would then be lawful in his decision-making.

In defining the meaning of “regulate,” as included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrote: “This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate” importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President.”

The court built a rational argument on how to understand the meaning of the word “regulate” as follows:

Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies.  In response to these declared emergencies, the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade.  This appeal concerns Five Executive Orders imposing duties on foreign trading partners to address these emergencies: Executive Orders Nos. 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257 and 14266 … In imposing the … Tariffs, the President again invoked his claimed authority under IEEPA;

Before we reach the merits of this case, we briefly discuss the history and legal authority concerning the imposition of tariffs as relevant to this appeal.  The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”  U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 3. Tariffs are a tax and the Framers of the Constitution expressly contemplated the exclusive grant of taxing power to the legislative branch; …

For much of this early history, Congress set tariffs without authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates by entering into international agreements.  In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Congress began to delegate to the Executive limited authority to “activate or suspend” tariff rates through international agreements. …

In 1976, Congress … enacted the National Emergencies Act (NEA).  The NEA limited presidential power … and placed new restrictions on the declaration and termination of future national emergencies.  [the] IEEPA is the result of this legislative effort and is consistent with Congress’s stated goal “to revise and delimit the President’s authority to regulate international economic transactions during wars or national emergencies.” …

IEEPA provides that, after declaring a national emergency pursuant to the NEA, the President may “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any . . . importation or exportation of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”  … Notably, IEEPA does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” nor any similar terms like “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  IEEPA also does not have a residual clause granting the President powers beyond those which are explicitly listed. …

Notably, every Congressional delegation to the President of the core legislative power to impose tariffs includes well-defined procedural and substantive limitations. …

We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy.  Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all.  Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the … Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA.  We conclude they are not. …

Upon the declaration of such an emergency, IEEPA authorizes the President to: investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. …

The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, … The [Trump Administration] locates that authority within the term “regulate . . . importation,” but it is far from plain that “regulate . . . importation,” in this context, includes the power to impose the tariffs at issue in this case.…

Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, like “duty” or “tax.”  There are numerous statutes that do delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs; in each of these statutes that we have identified, Congress has used clear and precise terms to delegate tariff power, reciting the term “duties” or one of its synonyms.  In contrast, none of these statutes uses the broad term “regulate” without also separately and explicitly granting the President the authority to impose tariffs.  The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power. …

It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.  The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs. …

Taken together, these other statutes indicate that whenever Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs.  This is no surprise, as the core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution; when Congress delegates this power in the first instance, it does so clearly and unambiguously. …

Contrary to the [Trump Administration]’s assertion, the mere authorization to “regulate” does not in and of itself imply the authority to impose tariffs. The power to “regulate” has long been understood to be distinct from the power to “tax.” …

the Government has not pointed to any statute or judicial decision that has construed the power to regulate as including the authority to impose tariffs without the statute also including a specific provision in the statute authorizing tariffs. …

Since IEEPA was promulgated almost fifty years ago, past presidents have invoked IEEPA frequently.  But not once before has a President asserted his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports or adjust the rates thereof.  Rather, presidents have typically invoked IEEPA to restrict financial transactions with specific countries or entities that the President has determined pose an acute threat to the country’s interests. …where IEEPA has been invoked, presidents did so to freeze assets, block financial transfers, place embargoes or impose targeted sanctions on hostile regimes and individuals. …

The Executive’s use of tariffs qualifies as a decision of vast economic and political significance, so the Government must “point to clear congressional authorization” for its interpretation of IEEPA. …

For the reasons discussed above, we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the … Tariffs.  Reading the phrase “regulate . . . importation” to include imposing these tariffs is “a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.” …

We are unpersuaded by the Government’s argument that it is “particularly inappropriate to construe narrowly a delegation of power in the arena of foreign affairs and national security.”  While the President of course has independent constitutional authority in these spheres, the power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress.  It is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. . . . The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.” …

Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term “regulate . . . importation.”

With no cogency did President Trump reply to this reasoned decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

As to who has authority to interpret the Constitution, the impressive jurist, John Marshall, wrote in 1803 in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison:

“It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground.  The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the

people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

An Open Letter to General Secretary Tô Lâm, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam

On the 80th Anniversary of Vietnam’s Independence, September 2, 2025

 Introduction

Stephen B. Young,

Global Executive Director

In a most unusual open letter, Mr. Lê Thân – once an activist who was tried and imprisoned by the former Republic of Vietnam government in Saigon – has, on this National Day, set forth new standards for the leadership role of today’s head of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

These standards reflect the moral foundations of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Responsible Governance. Mr. Lê Thân also points to the essential foundations for living a life of integrity and decency:

“The strength of a nation does not lie only in weapons or wealth, but in honor. And honor is not won through violence, but through fairness; not through power, but through justice; not through command, but through respect for one’s own people…”

“Seize this moment! Seize this opportunity! Let power be transformed into service, and let service become greatness.”

The Caux Round Table Principles for Responsible Governance hold that state power is a trust granted by the people. It is not meant to satisfy personal ambition, accumulate wealth, or secure privileges, but to act on behalf of the community in serving the public good.

Public power always comes with responsibility; to hold power is to bind one’s actions to the welfare of others. Public office is not private property, but a temporary trust to serve the common good.

Those who hold public office must be accountable to the people for their actions. If they act wrongly, neglect responsibility, or abuse their power, they may be removed. And it is upon them to prove their own integrity.

The state exists only as a servant and instrument for higher purposes of society, not as its master. Public power must be exercised within the bounds of moral responsibility, for the well-being of the people. Any government that betrays this trust will lose legitimacy and can be replaced.

I am reminded of the words of Nguyễn Trãi – the great thinker and statesman of the 15th century – who helped establish the Lê dynasty after defeating Chinese invaders. Nguyễn Trãi wrote of nhân nghĩa – humane righteousness – as the foundation of politics. Only on such a basis can a government deserve the people’s support.

You can check out the Vietnamese version here, on one of the most popular social media sites in Vietnam: https://boxitvn.blogspot.com/2025/09/thu-ngo-goi-ong-to-lam-tong-bi-thu-csvn.html

________________________

Dear General Secretary,

On September 2, 1945, at Ba Đình Square, President Hồ Chí Minh declared the birth of a free Vietnam. From that square rose not only a republic, but a promise—a promise of independence, of freedom, of a people governing themselves.

Eighty years have passed. We have endured trial and triumph. We have suffered wounds and built anew. We have achieved much. Yet the Revolution remains unfinished. For as Karl Marx reminded us, no revolution is truly won until the people enjoy abundance, a sound culture, and democratic rule. By this measure, our task is still before us.

The duty of leadership today is not merely to guard the past. It is to raise it higher. To advance does not mean to betray; it means to carry forward, to complete what history began but could not finish. We have progress, yes. But we also have decline in morals, division of wealth, and doubt in the hearts of the people. These are not small matters. They cut to the core. They demand renewal—deep, honest, and whole.

You hold great power. But power endures only when it wins trust. The strong leader is not the one who speaks last, but the one who listens first. Not the one who commands alone, but the one who unites. Not the one who rules over, but the one who awakens the conscience of a nation. Legitimacy cannot be forced. It is given—freely, proudly—by the people when they believe.

This year marks eighty years of independence. But it may also mark your place in history. The August Revolution gave us sovereignty. Your leadership can give us liberty, democracy, and prosperity. Rarely does history open such a door: a chance to bind past to future, to meet the present with courage, and to shape the destiny of generations.

In the world beyond, Vietnam must be steadfast yet supple—holding fast to principle, yet never trapped by rigidity. The strength of a nation is not only in arms or wealth, but in its honor. And honor is won not by force, but by fairness; not by power, but by justice; not by command, but by respect for its own people.

Seize this hour. Take this chance. Let power become service, and service become greatness. Do this, and history will not remember you as one who merely preserved order, but as one who carried Vietnam into a new age—an age of freedom, of democracy, of prosperity.

With solemn respect, I place these words before you, dear General Secretary. May the spirit proclaimed on September 2, 1945—independence, freedom, sovereignty of the people—live not only in memory, but in the daily life of our nation, here and now.

Ho Chi Minh City, August 25, 2025


Lê Thân

Former Political Prisoner, Côn Đảo
Chairman, Lê Hiếu Đằng Club

“When Life Pours Tears, Heaven Pours Rain” – A Dire Warning from Heaven, Earth, and Humanity

By Prof. Nguyễn Đình Công

Introduction

Stephen B. Young,

Global Executive Director

Writing under the pen-name of Prof. Nguyen Dinh Cong, our commentator collapses history and current events into one lived experience.  He  draws from Vietnam’s cultural past, its core values which can be carried forward into our present – in our minds and hearts, to animate thinking today, right now – just as if Vietnamese from the 15th or 18th centuries were to appear among us and speak to us, unmoved by modernity and firmly committed to a Vietnamese moral and intellectual heritage.

The decision-making frame that arises for Vietnamese when their moral heritage is recalled is how to choose – modernity and the West or tradition and Vietnameseness?  Or, what Prof. Cong suggests a blend of the two. Not a rejection of heritage but an appreciation as appropriate. Not a rejection of the West to live in the past, but an appreciation and an appropriation which is fit and becoming for “modern” Vietnamese.

Finding such a point of balance – an alloy with proper temper and resilience and a high melting point – has been a challenge for all non-Western cultures after the era of Western expansion and exportation of its rationality, its science, its economic dynamism, its technologies. For some like an angry and resentful Frantz Fanon, the choice has been zero-sum – one or the other; no compromise; no blend. One is either of the “West”, the colonialists, or one is “native” enclosed by tradition and so subject to their disdain and condescension.

Here Prof. Cong draws on psycho-socially powerful insights from his people’s past into the meaning and purpose of life and nature so that he can with authority and determination advocate for a new order in the Vietnam of 2025.

(The Vietnamese text can be read here:  https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3087/ )

Prof. Cong writes:

In the old days, emperors held sacred “manuals” for the Rites of Sacrifice to Heaven at the Nam Giao Altar — solemn ceremonies to repent before Heaven and Earth. Now, in the midst of catastrophic natural disasters, the communist regime distributes a “pocket manual” for the September 2nd military parade (!?) [6][7]

A Nation Weeping Amid Storms

As August fades into September, the land writhes under violent tempests.

Rain falls like torrents; floods spread without end. Roofs of red tile are torn away, fields vanish under oceans of water. The cries of fathers losing sons, mothers losing husbands, the wailing of peasants stripped of all they owned — all these laments blend with the mournful roar of storm and rain [1].

And yet — amidst this tragic scene, where “life pours tears, and heaven pours rain” — proclamations blare from the capital: parades, processions, fireworks to celebrate the 80th National Day.

One side: blinding fireworks above Ba Đình Square. The other: a flickering oil lamp in a peasant’s flooded shack. That contrast is not merely material. It is a fracture in the sacred triad of Heaven – Earth – Humanity.

Heaven – Earth – Humanity in Ruin: A Nation in Peril

Eastern philosophy has long taught that Heaven, Earth, and Humanity form the three pillars that uphold both the universe and the fate of nations [2].

• Heaven — the will of nature, of fate.

• Earth — the land, the resources, the homeland itself.

• Humanity — the people’s hearts, and the virtue of those who rule.

When the three stand in harmony, peace endures. When one falters, dynasties fall.

These storms are no mere weather. They are warnings. Two years in a row, since Tô Lâm “ascended the throne,” Vietnam has been struck by devastating storms: in 2024 the super-typhoon Yagi, now in 2025 the great storm number 5 [1]. Natural disaster upon natural disaster — is this not Heaven’s rebuke against how men govern the land?

Heaven rages. Earth lies broken. The people seethe with anger. The triad is fractured. It is an omen.

While the People Weep,  the Ba Đình Elite Banquets

Storm number 5 has ravaged the provinces: hundreds of homes unroofed, thousands of hectares of crops destroyed, countless lives lost. In Hanoi, streets drowned in 40cm of water; in Nghệ An and Hà Tĩnh, villages are completely isolated [1].

Yet in the capital, the regime trumpets its parade plans: 30,000 participants, foreign armies invited, high-altitude fireworks in multiple sites, LED screens across the city [3]. The costs — billions upon billions of đồng, drawn from the sweat of farmers, from the meager wages of workers.

What if those billions rebuilt homes, schools, and barns for the poor? What if they bought new buffaloes and cows — a farmer’s only wealth — instead of fleeting fireworks?

Fireworks blaze for minutes, then die. But the tears of the poor last a lifetime. This extravagance is not celebration. It is a wound — a moral wound in the soul of the nation.

Tradition Once Understood: Disasters Are Warnings, Not Occasions for Showing off

In the past, rulers saw disasters as Heaven’s rebuke. They would issue edicts of self-blame, reduce taxes, curb luxury, focus on relief.

The Nguyễn dynasty built the Nam Giao Altar to pray for Heaven’s favor [4]. The Tây Sơn did likewise in Bình Định [5]. These rites were not superstition — they were acts of humility, reminders that rulers must serve Heaven and care for the people.

But now those rites are gone. The communist regime scoffs at them as “superstition,” replacing them with hollow parades [6][7]. By denying the spiritual, they sever the bridge between ruler, people, and Heaven. In its place, only cold fireworks flare — light without warmth, spectacle without soul.

The Treachery of Courtiers: A Greater Peril Than Storms

A storm can drown a village, but treacherous ministers can destroy an entire nation.

If Tô Lâm seeks to be remembered, let him beware. Flatterers will paint illusions, urging parades and fireworks, dressing his power in false glory. But history teaches: dynasties do not collapse from storms alone, but from rulers who hearken to sycophants and abandon Heaven and the people.

If Heaven – Earth – Humanity already teeters towards regime collapse, then letting traitors reign is to dig the grave of the nation.

A Chance to Re-Found the Nation?

Hồ Chí Minh founded the Democratic Republic in 1945, but with his death in 1969, his era ended. Lê Duẩn and his heirs built the Socialist Republic — a model that has clearly failed.

Now, Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm stands at a crossroads. He could, if he has true courage, ignite a second founding of the nation. Not to split the land into “socialist” and “capitalist” Vietnams — but to change the very principle of rule: to abandon repression and indifference, and instead establish a governance that reveres Heaven, honors the People, fears treachery, and truly serves the nation.

The upcoming 14th Party Congress — this is the golden moment. Persist in the old ways, and storms, the people, and history will sweep everything away. But dare to change, and a new destiny may be born.

The Hour of Choice

Disasters will come and go, but how rulers respond reveals their moral worth. A just government halts pageantry to save its people. A wise government honors Heaven with humility, not parades.

Tô Lâm — “Throne without Crown” — you stand at a grand crossroads. Will you choose the sound of drums and fireworks, or the cries of your people drowned in tears and rain? The choice is yours — and with it, the fate of the nation.

Beware! Heaven, Earth, and Humanity have spoken. Fireworks cannot silence the fire of a people’s wrath. If you refuse to change, history itself will render its verdict — and so will Heaven and Earth.

To change, or to perish. There is no other path.

Note & References:

[1] https://nhandan.vn/bao-so-5-gay-thiet-hai-nang-tai-nhieu-dia-phuong-post903648.html

[2] https://www.chungta.com/nd/tu-lieu-tra-cuu/thien-dia-nhan.html

[3] https://xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn/lich-trinh-chi-tiet-le-dieu-binh-dieu-hanh-danh-sach-cac-diem-ban-phao-hoa-ky-niem-80-nam-quoc-khanh-2-9-2025-119250812122817399.htm

[4] https://www.homepaylater.vn/blog/tim-hieu-le-te-troi-o-dan-nam-giao/

[5] https://haloquynhon.com/tin-tuc/dan-te-troi-tay-son–di-tich-lich-su-tai-binh-dinh

[6] https://mia.vn/cam-nang-du-lich/le-te-troi-o-dan-nam-giao-van-hoa-cung-dinh-doc-dao-tu-thoi-nha-nguyen-2341

[7] https://thuvienphapluat.vn/phap-luat/ho-tro-phap-luat/cam-nang-di-xem-dieu-binh-dieu-hanh-292025-concert-quoc-gia-a80-sap-toi-the-nao-le-quoc-khanh-29-du-230246.html

Timely Recommendation on a New Direction for Vietnam

Our distinguished new fellow, former Vietnamese ambassador and advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dinh Hoang Thang, has written for our website in the context of strategic choices now before the Vietnamese government and people an insightful approach to change.  He draws on Asian approaches to change as the rule of life and so as deserving our respect and analysis.  He notes the role of balance, equilibrium, as the most appropriate sustaining and life-enhancing stance for us to manage as we respond to the changes coming our way.  He implies that since change is a rule of life, it behooves us to think about what causes change?  How can we best adjust to and “profit” from change?

You may read Mr. Thang’s commentary here.

Freedom of the Press and the Moral Nobility of a Nation


Foreword by Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism (CRT)

Freedom of the press is not a luxury but the foundation of moral governance and national dignity. As Karl Marx once warned in 1842, when the press is reduced to a mere trade, its “inner freedom” is destroyed — leading inevitably to censorship or the press’s annihilation altogether. Journalism, he insisted, is not a business but the realization of human freedom itself: “wherever there is a press, there must also be freedom of the press.”

The Caux Round Table (CRT) shares this conviction. Its first ethical principle for moral government is that discourse ethics should guide the application of public power. Legitimacy in governance depends on free and open communication among autonomous moral agents who make up the community. Independent journalism is therefore not an enemy of the state but its indispensable ally, ensuring transparency, accountability, and the possibility of just leadership.

Vietnamese voices from the past also affirmed this truth. Phan Đăng Lưu, a founder of the Communist Party’s “revolutionary press,” argued in 1938 that freedom of the press never harms those in power. Newspapers that survive in a free environment reflect authentic social aspirations, which any government wishing to govern responsibly must heed. Suppression of such voices is not a sign of strength but of fragility.

To this, the CRT adds the ethical duties of journalists themselves: to be competent, truthful, and diligent, never distorting facts or concealing adverse information. Journalism, properly practiced, is a noble profession serving the public good. Without these virtues, freedom degenerates into license, and the credibility of the press collapses.

From a Vietnamese philosophical lens, one might even liken a free press to a modern I Ching — a “Book of Changes” for society. Just as the ancient text helped generations discern patterns of transformation and navigate shifting circumstances, today an independent press provides predictive intelligence about social, cultural, and economic dynamics. To read a free press is to read the flows of human ambition, power, and possibility.

With these reflections in mind, readers may turn to the contemporary Vietnamese debate on this very subject. A recent article circulating widely on social media, available here: https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3076/, illustrates the continuing importance of responsible journalism and the urgent relevance of press freedom in Vietnam today.

Thus, whether seen through Marx’s vision of freedom, the CRT’s ethical principles, or Vietnam’s own philosophical traditions, the conclusion is the same: a censored press is a contradiction in terms, “a perfumed abortion” in Marx’s searing phrase. A free press, by contrast, is the watchful eye of the people’s spirit, the living bond between citizen and state, and the nobility of a nation’s soul.

——————–

Journalism under Tô Lâm: Building or Destroying?

By Phạm Hoàng Thuyên

Behind the recent persecutions of journalists — from the manhunt for martial artist and writer Đoàn Bảo Châu, to the imprisonment of prominent KOLs such as Phạm Đoan Trang and Trương Huy San (Huy Đức), to the planned closures of newsrooms under the guise of “streamlining staff” — lies a single, stark message from the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV): all independent voices must be caged within the Party’s institutional framework.

Yet this warning may have unintended consequences. Loyalty to the regime is no guarantee of safety. The only true source of dignity and legitimacy for journalism — as for every individual who takes up the pen — is to live and work for conscience, for the nation, and for the people. Only then will the homeland honor their service.

On June 21, 2025, during the celebration of “Vietnam Revolutionary Press Day,” General Secretary Tô Lâm declared: “The press must become a force for building confidence, inspiring the aspiration for national development.” An inspiring message at first glance. But reality forces us to ask: is Vietnam’s press today being built up — or steadily destroyed?

1. When Truth Is Hunted

The case of independent journalist, martial artist, and writer Đoàn Bảo Châu is telling. On August 14, 2025, Hanoi police issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of “propaganda against the state.” Forced into hiding, Châu released a public statement: he had done nothing wrong, merely written and spoken the thoughts ordinary citizens held but dared not say (Báo Tiếng Dân, Aug 21, 2025).

The evidence against him? Simply his participation in interviews and civil society forums — activities that should be the basic right of any journalist. Châu collaborated with leading global outlets such as AP, Reuters, the New York Times, and Forbes, and had 215,000 Facebook followers.

But in an environment where press freedoms are suffocated, it is precisely the voices embraced by the public that become targets of repression. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reports that Vietnam currently holds at least 27 independent journalists in prison, ranking the country near the very bottom of the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (Người Việt, 2025).

If this is what it means to “build confidence,” then that confidence has been reduced to silence — survival through submission.

2. When Mainstream Journalism Becomes a Megaphone

Even the official press — supposedly “the eyes and ears of the people” — has repeatedly shown it is never truly independent.

Take the case of Lê Hồng Sơn, former director of Ho Chi Minh City’s Department of Education and Training. For years, journalists were stonewalled and dismissed when questioning his office. At one point, the department even proposed disciplining a reporter for daring to investigate procurement scandals. Ultimately, Sơn himself was expelled from the Party for corruption in equipment bidding (Báo Tiếng Dân, Aug 22, 2025).

The haunting question remains: had the press been allowed to do its job back then, could society have avoided paying such a heavy, belated price?

3. Rumors of the Death of Tuổi Trẻ

It is not only individuals who are under siege. Entire institutions face erasure. Reports that Tuổi Trẻ — Vietnam’s most popular daily with more than half a million copies in circulation — may be dissolved and merged into the struggling Sài Gòn Giải Phóng have unsettled the public (Sài Gòn Giải Phóng, 2025).

Tuổi Trẻ is more than a newspaper. It is an heir to the tradition of student and youth activism in Saigon, a financially self-sustaining publication with a broad readership. To strip it of its identity and fold it into a Party organ with little traction is widely seen as the suffocation of a brand once synonymous with hope and trust.

Is this the dawn of a “new era” for Vietnamese journalism, or merely a historic regression — a future with only one voice left, that of the Party committee?

4. A Comprehensive Campaign to Seal All Mouths

Since 2016, more than 70 journalists have been imprisoned, including the high-profile case of Phạm Đoan Trang, sentenced to nine years (BBC Vietnamese, 2022). Since Tô Lâm assumed the post of General Secretary in August 2024, repression has only deepened.

Trương Huy San (Huy Đức) — once lauded for fearless reporting on high-level corruption — was sentenced to 30 months in prison in early 2025 (VOA Tiếng Việt, 2025a). Nor is the crackdown limited to “dissident” voices. Even moderate insiders — retired officials, establishment scholars, cautious commentators — have had accounts frozen, broadcasts cut, and platforms denied.

This is not selective censorship. It is a systematic campaign to extinguish dissent at every level.

Meanwhile, the Party has pushed forward with its policy of “one newspaper per ministry, province, or agency,” under the pretext of reducing costs and streamlining staff. If cost-saving were the true motive, a far simpler solution would be to let newspapers operate independently, self-financed, free from state payrolls. But that option is never permitted.

5. Journalism as a Corrective Mechanism

In every society, journalism is not only a mirror of reality but a corrective mechanism for government. Policies inevitably lag behind social needs. The press is the warning system, the voice of criticism, the channel for timely adjustment.

Journalistic truth may be uncomfortable — but discomfort is essential for progress. History shows that a society without a free press is like a body without an immune system: it may appear stable on the surface, but disease festers within.

6. Building or Destroying?

Under Tô Lâm, the authority of the General Secretary has been consolidated. Yet the paradox remains: the tighter the Party cages journalists and KOLs within its “institutional framework,” the faster public trust erodes.

If Tuổi Trẻ is forced to vanish, if dozens of journalists are imprisoned or hunted down, these are not isolated events. Together they paint a bleak picture: journalism is being transformed from a bridge of the people into the monopolized tool of the Party.

From newsroom closures to the “streamlining” drive, the regime’s implicit message to society may well backfire: loyalty to the Party offers no protection.

The only safeguard for the dignity and legitimacy of journalism — as for every journalist — is to live and work for conscience, for the nation, and for the people. Only then will history record their service with honor (VOA Tiếng Việt, 2025b).