Author: CRT Admin

Đinh Hoàng Thắng

Fellow of the Caux Round Table 

Summary: The article outlines a new strategic orientation for an era advancing a “Red River Renaissance”, a strategy based on five pillars: repositioning national identity, mastering complexity through analysis and forecasting, creating value rooted in the ideology of cultural continuity, reforming the Communist Party of Vietnam into a constructive, service-oriented organization, and steering soft diplomacy to proactively exert influence. The paper concludes: in today’s gray-zone environment, the capacity for Vietnam’s survival and development does not stem from hard power alone, but grows out of wisdom, observational acuity, and the ability to build consensus.

“What secret charm leads me toward the God I adore,

Who frees me from the world and casts off all my chains,

What bliss is there for love so fair,

If not to fashion dreams amid the madness,

With a mortal heart and secular love!”

(Adapted from Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte, 1642) [1]

Introduction

In the contemporary world of deep uncertainty, the lines between war and peace, ally and adversary, order and chaos are increasingly blurred. There is no longer a single straight road to the future — only bends, detours, and gray zones — where strategic nerve and political wisdom become existential assets.

The U.S.–Russia summit in Alaska (August 16, 2025) offered a warning sign: if Moscow can legitimize territory it occupies in Ukraine through an agreement brokered by two major powers, might Beijing be tempted to apply the same “precedent” to Taiwan or the South China Sea? [2] If an international order grounded in the rule of law, human rights, and sovereign equality gives way to a new order where strength decides everything, then is the message not clear: middle and small powers will have their fate imposed on them unless they can determine it for themselves?

Standing in that vulnerable gray swath of history, it would be catastrophic for Vietnam to remain a bystander. To avoid that fate, we must shed doctrinaire thinking and have the courage to build a new cognitive paradigm — one based on rooted wisdom, analytical judgment, an acceptance that flux is the norm, urgent institutional reform, and a timely, forward-looking diplomacy.

1.⁠ ⁠Repositioning National Identity to Shape National Strategy

What identity should serve as the foundation for strategy? [3] Vietnam must answer this core question: who are we in an era when the international legal order is weakening and coercive power is reasserting itself as the author of history?

Traditionally, the Vietnamese have not treated chaos as meaningless. I Ching teaches that disorder is a kind of dynamic order, governed by changeable laws that can be discovered by the wise among us. From that insight, wisdom becomes a precondition for survival: recognize trends, and preserve the immutable amidst the mutable. It is precisely thanks to such insight that our predecessors were able to assert their identity amidst the whirl of global power.

Today’s national strategy therefore cannot be mere reactive improvisation. It must begin with repositioning identity: Vietnam is a country that loves peace but will not accept subjugation — a middle power that refuses to let its future be determined by others.

2.⁠ ⁠Mastering Disorder — Building Analytical and Predictive Capacity

The current turning point of the post-modern world tempts people to abandon both reason and faith, strips order of higher purpose, and glorifies unbounded chaos as freedom. In such disorder, any people without analytical and predictive capacity is easily swept away.

Vietnamese tradition includes a habit of “reading” chaos to find a way forward. Systems of knowledge and observational methods — emerging from different philosophical schools —  helped our ancestors find levers of support when times are uncertain. Phan Bội Châu studied the I Ching (Dịch) to reflect on the path of struggle. [4] That is evidence that even if the international legal framework collapses, a people can rely on powers of observation, analysis, and foresight to survive.

Today, that analytical skill must be modernized into a suitable methodology for strategic-analysis: reading the trends of coercive power, forecasting global risks, and proactively “moving one step ahead” of predictable events. This is not occultism; it is a form of systemic, modern knowledge built from Vietnamese intellect and global analytic and forecasting science. We cannot change the global chessboard, but we can understand it and so more effectively engage with the pieces as placed and as they might move. 

3.⁠ ⁠From Reaction to Creation — A New Doctrine of Enduring Vietnameseness

For too long Vietnam has tended to react to events. But perpetual reaction only trails history. An uncertain world forces us to shift from reaction to creative initiative — from defensive postures to building enduring strengths.

Vietnam needs a new commitment to an enduring Vietnameseness, which precisely would be the moral courage to not fear flux but rather to treat it as a constant. In the interplay of yin and yang, order and disorder, opportunities for creative construction are always present.

This requires a change of mentality: instead of an inward, short-term calculus for preservation, Vietnam must commit to creation — create standards, create value, create influence. This is not merely survival; it is the living expression in today’s world of a many generational commitment to Vietnameseness. [5]

4.⁠ ⁠Institutional Reform — From Revolutionary Party to Party of Service

The Communist Party of Vietnam [CPV] can continue to lead if it transforms from a revolutionary party into a party of service. The 14th National Congress is not merely a milestone; it should be the starting point. To retain a central role, the Party needs to move beyond a “centralized leadership” model and become the “architect of sub-systems.”

Institutional reform can follow the “The Principle of Accumulation and Dispersion” (Tích – Tản) [6]. Pooling resources: from knowledge and trust to social innovation. Decentralizing administration: delegating authority to localities, civil society, businesses, and the press; making state governance transparent. Moving from totalizing control to constructive design, the Party must learn to delegate and to adjust its policies taking accurate data into consideration. The Party should first “accumulate” resources (talent, knowledge, trust), then design the operating architecture (laws, norms, feedback), and, third, “disperse” —empowering  all sectors of society.

The governing party of a modern state must be accountable through performance, operate on data, and engage in dialogue rather than impose. The center of institutional reform is not enlarging central power but redesigning systems to aggregate and then apply strength from below — from individuals, firms, and localities. Only when the people are treated as the primary actors to be served — not merely objects to be controlled — can the Party become a force for the creation of solutions and prosperity.

To sustain leadership, the CPV cannot rely on political-economic formulas frozen in the previous century. To be a creative, service-oriented Party, it must lead in forecasting, adapt to open dialogue with citizens and the world, and show flexibility. It must be willing to change when circumstances so require, while remaining steadfast on the immutable core goals— national interest and sovereignty. This is not a renunciation of revolutionary heritage but a transformation from revolution toward constructive governance. [7]

An urgent further demand of institutional reform is national reconciliation and social healing. Reform is not merely an administrative technique; it must be an act of mending and opening. If we have been able to establish “comprehensive strategic partnerships” with former adversaries, why have we not achieved full reconciliation at home and between the homeland and the overseas Vietnamese community? Only by removing the scars of the past can social energy be fully deployed so that, through togetherness, the future can be well built.

5.⁠ ⁠Timely Diplomacy — From Defense to Building Soft Influence

Vietnamese diplomacy in the new era must go beyond mere defense. The tradition of “keeping the immutable in order to respond to the mutable” should be upgraded: do not merely respond — transform to shape influence. [8]

The spirit of the new cognitive paradigm asserts that yin and yang are always in motion, transforming within a complementary, oppositional relationship. Vietnamese diplomacy must mirror that: flexible in detail, firm in principle; willing to cooperate when needed, restrained when necessary. Whether “pausing” or “winning hearts strategy,” every posture is a means to protect the national self-determination and sovereignty.

To achieve this, Vietnam must develop diplomacy on three levels: national, regional, and global. In rule-making — at tactical or technical levels — compromises may be possible, but at the strategic level we must not “straddle two sides” and so cling to the dangerous rationale of “neither side, but choose what is right…” [9]

Done well, diplomacy will not only keep the country secure, but also turn Vietnam into a voice of influence—a player, not a passive actor.

6.⁠ ⁠“Red River Renaissance”: Leveraging East Asian Wisdom

Based on the five pillars of the new cognitive paradigm, why shouldn’t Hanoi aspire to launch a “Red River Renaissance” to help build durable security and long-term prosperity for East Asia in this era of cascading instability?

Uncertainty also opens doors to achievement when we act with virtue and wisdom. The 42nd hexagram in the I Ching suggests that if a leader dares to “cross the great river,” fill what is empty, and guide events with foresight, great results will follow.

At the core of East Asian wisdom is balance. China has Taoism and the Doctrine of the Mean. In Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, Buddhism teaches the Middle Way that leads to prosperity and wellbeing; Buddhism has left a profound imprint on this region for centuries. In Japan, Shinto seeks harmony between humans and nature. In Malaysia and Indonesia, the Qur’an instructs respect for balance. 

Conclusion

Vietnam can certainly host an annual gathering of government leaders, thinkers, scholars, and philosophers — an “East Asian DAVOS,” for example — to seek wise responses to the transformations facing the global community.

Concretely, Vietnam can act as a trusted friend and broker, promoting consensus between Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN. This would help form a reassuring balance of power to the benefit of middle and small powers in a peaceful, culturally rich, East Asia.

Vietnam has already made contributions beyond its borders. Professor Võ Tòng Xuân achieved notable success in Sierra Leone and several African countries by introducing high-yield rice varieties that helped build irrigated rice agriculture. [10] In the United States, France, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, Vietnamese diasporas have also achieved remarkable success in economics, culture, and politics. These examples confirm that even in distant lands, Vietnam is not forgotten.

The world has entered a gray zone of history. But grayness is not a dead end — it is open space where any choice can become a turning point. To be strategically autonomous amid uncertainty, Vietnam must reposition identity, master disorder, create value, reform institutions, and expand soft influence. Above all, it must nurture a new cognitive paradigm — deeply Vietnamese in character but connected to humanity’s intellect: a paradigm capable of forging an “East Asian consensus.”

Interpretation of “order” and “uncertainty” goes beyond Dr. Kissinger’s conclusions. [11] More important in standing at the threshold of a new order is to validate the five pillars implementing the above proposed cognitive paradigm. [12] And as East Asian wisdom has long taught: change is eternal. Yet amidst change, people who possess wisdom are the people who survive intact.

 

Author’s note: Dr. Đinh Hoàng Thắng is a former Ambassador of Vietnam to the The Royal Netherlands, former Head of the Leadership Advisory Group at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, and a current Fellow of CRT. 

References:

[1] https://suckhoedoisong.vn/cao-thom-lan-gio-cormeille-nghi-gi-169124712.htm

Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte (1606–1684) is a foundational figure of classical French tragedy. Polyeucte centers on a martyr figure and the force of Christian faith. The stanza above is an adapted translation from the French: “Quel charme me conduit vers le Dieu que j’adore? / Je triomphe du monde, et je sors de ses fers / Heureux qui peut aimer d’une amour toute pure, / Mais malheureux celui qui fonde son bonheur.” — Adapted from Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte (1642)

[2] https://www.facebook.com/… [Beijing will observe the Trump–Putin summit] (access link as provided)

[3] https://nhandan.vn/khang-dinh-vi-the-van-hoa-viet-nam-trong-ky-nguyen-moi-thuong-hieu-van-hoa-gia-tang-uy-tin-quoc-gia-post889560.html

[4] https://www.chungta.com/nd/tu-lieu-tra-cuu/phan_boi_chau-nha_van_hoa.html

[5] https://www.voatiengviet.com/a/co-mot-chu-nghia-truong-ton-viet-nam/7961206.html

[6] TS. Nguyễn Thế Hùng: Tích Tản – Một nguyên lý, một tầm nhìn, một con đường (Information Publishing House, 2025)

[7] https://tuoitrethudo.vn/chuyen-doi-trang-thai-sang-kien-tao-chu-dong-phuc-vu-nhan-dan-280478.html

[8] https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/articles/cdx5v0448wyo — “Vietnam and ‘timely diplomacy’: from the bamboo metaphor to national strategy”

[9] https://boxitvn.online/?p=94713 — “’Not choosing sides, choosing righteousness…’ — a dangerous diplomatic philosophy!”

[10] https://siwrp.org.vn/tin-tuc/giao-su-vo-tong-xuan-va-tam-nhin-cay-lua-xuyen-bien-gioi_4333.html

[11] https://www.academia.edu/118015198/Kissinger_Henry_World_Order_New_York_Penguin_Press_2014 — Henry Kissinger, World Order (Penguin Books, 2015) synthesizes centuries of diplomatic thought and geopolitical structure through historical case studies. Foundational, but only a starting point for strategic reflection.

[12] https://tapchithoidai.diendan.org/ThoiDai36/201736_DinhHoangThang.pdf — Đinh Hoàng Thắng (2017), “Vietnam and the Pre-Threshold of a New World Order,” Thời Đại No. 36. The author highlights the fluidity of both Vietnam and the evolving global order and proposes a conceptual framework (the “P&DOWN” paradigm) for navigating transformation.

Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director

The following commentary presents a second case study on the prevalence of crony capitalism in a developing country – Vietnam – a nation that could quickly catch up with the economic achievements of Singapore and South Korea if it adopted a more “moral” form of capitalism.

Similar to last week’s case of “Vietnamese cars, Vietnamese goods…”, this time we examine how crony capitalism is being used to exploit government allocations of land use.

The commentary below highlights “crony capitalism,” where, as the analysis suggests, government officials secretly colluded to share a business opportunity. Those with political power in a one-party regime need money to build influence and attract “clients,” but they cannot openly engage in private business. As a result, those in authority favor one project over another, granting licenses and permits – essentially “green-lighting” plans.

Businesses that receive such “favors” reap large profits, then divide the spoils – one way or another – with the decision-making officials.

I have heard Vietnamese joke that in Vietnam, “the first administrative document you submit to an official is an envelope of cash.”

From this commentary, we can infer that in Vietnam today, not just a few individuals but the entire ruling apparatus has turned into a political-economic structure of rent-seeking by those with political authority and influence. In reality, Vietnam’s constitutional structure has become one “of interest groups, by interest groups, and for interest groups.”

“Strategic planning” in an economy subordinated both to Party power and to unaccountable administrative fiat creates countless opportunities to extract personal gain from public assets.

The commentary makes clear that under such a regime, the practice of politics is not about serving the nation with fidelity and integrity, but rather about leveraging whatever power one holds to gain private ownership of financial assets – monetizing one’s position.

In Vietnam there is a cynical saying: “If you can’t take care of Brother Three, you’d better take care of Brother Four.”

As has been demonstrated again and again – especially in the outstanding book Failed States by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson – corruption and authoritarianism are like two peas in a pod, or like a shadow that always follows power: whoever holds power inevitably has a dark side shadowing them.

The author makes a strong case that building a new international airport at Long Thanh, far from Ho Chi Minh City, makes no sense under any calculation of market rationality. He then offers five alternative solutions that would better respond to supply and demand realities.

In my view, his warning is highly credible: if the Long Thanh airport project goes forward without consultation or input from those directly affected by such an enormous expenditure, then a perfectly viable solution will be ignored. The current Tan Son Nhat airport will become obsolete, while a redundant new airport will be built at Long Thanh.

In that case, Vietnam will continue to sink deeper into the gray zone of crony capitalism, unable to become truly wealthy or strong, always misallocating resources by diverting funds away from the public good in order to serve private interests – the very sort Karl Marx castigated in Das Kapital as “Mr. Moneybags.”

To rephrase another famous line of Karl Marx, we might say that crony capitalism “takes from those with ability and gives to others according to their wishes.”

Rent-seeking by the well-connected and by government privilege-holders is nothing less than social theft, not social righteousness.

You can find the second case study of crony capitalism in Vietnam on Vietnamese social media here:
👉 https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3065/

And you may read the English version of the commentary below:

Turning Long Thanh into an International Airport to Strangle Tan Son Nhat: A Classic Case of “Crony Capitalism”

If today the people and conscientious managers remain silent, then tomorrow it won’t just be one airport being strangled, but the entire nation dragged into the abyss.

By: Tran Quoc Sach

1. Introduction: Airports and the Truth Behind the Glitter

A metropolis like Ho Chi Minh City—with more than 10 million residents plus surrounding satellite towns—having two airports is completely normal. Around the world, there are countless examples: Tokyo has Narita and Haneda; London has Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted; Paris has Charles de Gaulle and Orly. The question is not whether “two airports are necessary,” but why there is such a deliberate attempt now to make Long Thanh the main international hub for Ho Chi Minh City, effectively strangling the current airport Tan Son Nhat—the nation’s most important gateway.

The truth behind the so-called “mega project of the century” Long Thanh is this: (1) It is not merely a technical or planning issue, but a living example of crony capitalism, where political power and vested interests collude, turning public infrastructure into a tool for private enrichment. If this model is not stopped, it will drag the entire nation into a bottomless pit—rather than lifting it up, as the empty socialist slogans claim.

 2. Tan Son Nhat’s Golden Land: National Assets Turned into a Feast for Interest Groups

Colonel Phan Tuong—the officer who took over Tan Son Nhat on April 30, 1975—once revealed the following (2):

• Under the French, the airport was planned at 1,800 hectares.

• Under the Republic of Vietnam, operations expanded to 1,850 hectares.

• After 1975, “under our management,” the area shrank to just 1,100 hectares.

So where did the missing 750 hectares go? The answer is obvious: golf courses and residential areas. Prime land in the heart of Saigon, instead of serving aviation and national defense, was converted into lucrative commercial projects. This is not only absurd from a planning perspective but has direct consequences: drainage canals and reservoirs that once lay under that land were filled in. Runway flooding today is not caused by “tidal surges” or “climate change”—fancy phrases state media throws around—but simply because the drainage system has been strangled.

Now, instead of reclaiming those 750 hectares to expand Tan Son Nhat,  officials concocted the narrative: “Tan Son Nhat is overloaded, so we must build Long Thanh.” In other words, those in charge created a problem only to sell their own “solutions”—solutions that are costly, irrational, yet hugely profitable for their cronies.

 3. Crony Capitalism: When the State Becomes a Tool of Cliques

To understand why Tan Son Nhat is being strangled, we must revisit the concept of crony capitalism (3).

In a healthy society with democratic institutions, politics serves the people, while businesses operate according to market rules. But under crony capitalism, these two spheres secretly collude to carve up benefits, through shady deals between corrupt politicians and unscrupulous businessmen:

• Politicians need money but cannot directly do business.

• They use their power to channel projects, allocate budgets, and greenlight planning for their “backyard” companies.

• Those companies reap profits, then kick back “slices of the pie” to the policymakers.

Gradually, not just individuals but the entire ruling apparatus morphs into a political–economic mafia network. The state ceases to be “of the people, by the people, for the people,” and becomes a state “of the interest groups, by the interest groups, for the interest groups.” In such a system, every so-called “strategic plan” is nothing but a cover for looting public assets.

In this case, Long Thanh is the shiny “cover,” while the 750 hectares of golden land at Tan Son Nhat are the first juicy prize. Once Tan Son Nhat is stripped of its role and Long Thanh crowned the new hub, the entire 1,800 hectares of prime Saigon land will gradually fall into the hands of these cronies—“Anh Ba, Anh Tu,” and their cliques.

In a democracy, politicians serve the nation according to the will of the people. They dare not abuse power for personal gain, because once they lose the voters’ trust, they must resign and return to being ordinary citizens. By contrast, in a dictatorship—an authoritarian system—politics is not about serving the country but about exploiting power for illicit enrichment. Those in power cling to their seats solely to plunder, and corruption can never be eradicated. It simply mutates from one face to another, from the faction of “Anh Ba” to the faction of “Anh Tu.” That is why dictatorship and corruption are inseparable—two sides of the same coin.

The Long Thanh project is not an unsolvable issue. The original rationale was to “ease the load” on Tan Son Nhat (despite strong opposition from experts). Yet the most rational solution is simple: return the land seized for golf courses, and Tan Son Nhat could easily expand to handle 80 million passengers annually, while continuing to operate normally. Only when Tan Son Nhat truly reaches capacity should traffic gradually shift to Long Thanh. In reality, Tan Son Nhat handled 40 million passengers in 2023, and only 38 million in 2024. At this fluctuating rate, even a decade from now it may still not be overloaded.

But to “rescue their cronies,” the public is told that there is no option left but to immediately divert international routes to Long Thanh, while rushing to build connections between the two airports. Connections may be necessary—but are they urgent, when Tan Son Nhat still functions normally? If you, as a journalist, so much as “poke your nose” into this subject, the authoritarian machine will come crashing down on you—just like how Pol Pot’s gang, once fostered by China, unleashed terror. In such a regime, at any time, anywhere, the government sees you as the enemy. Why? Because by exposing the truth, you threaten to take away their share of the pie.

 4. A Hundred-Year Vision Built with Patchwork, Fixing Mistakes as They Go

A major infrastructure project should be based on a hundred-year vision. But let’s look at reality:

• Metro Line 1 in Ho Chi Minh City: approved in 2007, started in 2008, scheduled to finish in 2018. After endless delays, only in 2024 did trial runs begin—17 years for 19 kilometers of track.

• Metro Line 2: approved in 2010, groundbreaking in 2025, projected completion by 2030. But who dares believe that projection?

• The HCMC–Long Thanh–Dau Giay expressway, just 55 km long, took 16 years to finish—yet was already congested the moment it opened.

In this context, Long Thanh is painted as a “project of the century.” But once the die is cast, people will suddenly realize: no metro connection, no high-speed rail, no proper transfer infrastructure. Traveling from Tan Son Nhat to Long Thanh takes 3–5 hours. Who would want to book a connecting flight under such conditions? This is not long-term vision—this is patchwork, fixing mistakes as they go (4).

The truth: Long Thanh looks beautiful on paper, but in reality it’s just a black hole for taxpayer money—bloated costs, endless overruns—while essential infrastructure for the people is neglected.

 5. Solutions & Recommendations: Reclaim Public Infrastructure for the People

Facing this disaster, to protect national interests and stop the rampant crony-capitalist model, concrete and decisive actions are needed:

1. Return the 750 hectares to Tan Son Nhat. The golf course must be reclaimed immediately, restoring its original aviation function. This is the optimal solution: expand capacity while also fixing flooding caused by blocked drainage.

2. Stop the hidden scheme to “strangle Tan Son Nhat” by designating Long Thanh the central hub. The two airports must complement each other, not be forced into competition.

3. Make transparent all interests tied to Long Thanh. Publicly disclose contractors, investors, and financial terms so citizens can monitor.

4. Establish independent oversight for strategic infrastructure projects. We cannot allow the same apparatus to design, approve, implement, and supervise. That’s like players both kicking the ball and blowing the whistle! Oversight must include civil society, independent experts, and a free press.

5. Reform land policy at its root. As long as land remains “collectively owned, managed by the state,” it will remain fertile ground for corruption and cronyism. Legal mechanisms must prevent arbitrary conversion of public land, especially strategic assets like airports, seaports, and rail stations.

6. Conclusion: Crony Capitalism—the Road to Ruin

Under the slogan of building Long Thanh to advance toward “socialism,” the reality is the opposite: a political–economic mafia in action. Public assets are being carved up, infrastructure strangled, while citizens are left to shoulder public debt, traffic jams, and flooding (5).

This is not “progress toward socialism.” This is a plunge into ruin. The vultures of crony capitalism are tearing apart the flesh of this nation—its land, its infrastructure, its resources, and even its trust.

A nation can only rise when public infrastructure is protected as sacred assets, when the state truly belongs to the people, and when planning is based on long-term vision—not the short-sighted greed of interest groups.

Tan Son Nhat today is the test. If the people and conscientious managers remain silent, then tomorrow it won’t just be one airport being strangled—it will be the entire nation dragged into the abyss.

 

References:

(1) https://phapluatplus.baophapluat.vn/ro-dan-hinh-hai-sieu-du-an-san-bay-long-thanh-86628.html

(2) https://vietnamfinance.vn/dai-ta-phan-tuong–nguoi-tiep-quan-tan-son-nhat-sau-ngay-thong-nhat-d49765.html

(3) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism

(4) https://tienphong.vn/mat-5-tieng-di-chuyen-giua-san-bay-long-thanh-tan-son-nhat-thi-khong-ai-muon-dat-ve-post1755356.tpo

(5) https://tuoitre.vn/thiet-hai-hang-ti-usd-vi-ha-tang-qua-tai-nhung-giai-phap-tp-hcm-can-lam-ngay-20250807095909853.htm

Yesterday, World War II ended effectively 80 years ago, when the Empire of Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers.

The War had begun with aggressions – by Germany on Poland and by Japan on Great Britain’s colony in Singapore and then on the U.S.  The Japanese had previously invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China itself in 1937.

Such aggression had been outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.  Frank Kellogg, then the U.S. Secretary of State, was a lawyer from St. Paul, Minnesota (his office was right down the street from where ours is now).  Later and also from Minnesota, Charles Denny of ADC Telecommunications and Robert MacGregor of Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target) took the lead in proposing the Caux Round Table Principles for Business, which have since been internationally recognized.

Today, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations, has been violated by Russia in Ukraine and by Hamas in Gaza.  Though Hamas is not a sovereign government, its obligations are nevertheless defined by a duty not to cross borders and kill the citizens of another country.

Aggressions, small or large, trigger wars which can be cruel and very destructive.  Japan’s aggression led to the deaths 80 years ago this month of tens of thousands of non-combatants from the dropping of two atomic bombs.

The moral obligation not to act as an aggressor applies to all terrorists, no matter how righteous they believe themselves to be.

Some terrorists, in our time, have invoked their God as legitimating their aggressions.  But if that God is the Allah whose will is revealed to us in the Qur’an, to no avail.  Qur’an teaches, to me, that its God is one of mercy and compassion, that only its God – not you or me, not even his Prophet Muhammad – has authority to judge the fates of people, for better or worse.  Qur’an affirms that the Prophet Muhammad was sent “only to warn.”

So, if we presume to usurp God’s privilege of judging others harshly without our having regard for his willingness to be merciful (which we cannot know), we elevate ourselves to be his equal in decision-making, which, according to Qur’an, is a heinous sin.

Today, President Donald Trump meets with President Vladimir Putin to discuss Russia’s aggression against the Ukrainian people.  Will President Trump stand firm in upholding the moral ideal of no aggression, no time, no where?  It would be the civilized thing to do.

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!

Introduction:

Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director, the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

The following commentary presents a case study of the tension between a Moral Capitalism and a Crony Capitalism in a developing country, Vietnam.  The defining characteristic of Crony Capitalism in the insertion of political power as a kind of “grey” property into business decision-making.  The asset purchased by a business from the “Crony” is not land, labor, capital, or raw materials. It is permission to operate. Sometimes the permission is formal license from a public authority which is paid for, either legally, or corruptly.  But sometimes the permission is private, unseen by the public or the market, a personal commitment either to manipulate political authority to favor the business or to prevent political authority from interfering in the business.

Economists refer to the mechanism of Crony Capitalism as “rent-extraction”. Those who use power on one kind or another, legally or illegally, to make money though rent-extraction are called rent-seekers.

Rent-seekers and rent-extraction violate the rules and practices of Moral Capitalism and Moral Government where public office is held as a trust to enhance the common good of the community.

The commentary argues that in Vietnam today what is produced in Vietnam – “Made in Vietnam” – should not finance rent-seeking by anyone. Chinese entrepreneurs should not be able to buy permission to make Chinese goods in Vietnam and pass them off as Vietnamese goods reflecting the skills and efforts of Vietnamese.

The Commentary asks Why are powerful people pushing sales of certain products and not others? Who will compensate them for this effort? If their favored companies gain a monopoly or a disproportionate share of the market, such companies can force the Vietnamese people to pay monopoly prices – to pay “rents” to those who  hold power.

The Commentary is available at: https://chantroimoimedia.com/2025/08/05/hang-viet-xe-viet-va-cau-chuyen-ep-dan-yeu-vuong-vin/amp/

VIETNAMESE PRODUCTS, VIETNAMESE EVs, AND THE FORCED “LOVE” FOR VINFAST

Loving your country doesn’t mean loving a product made with 70% Chinese parts!

Author: Trần Trung Thực

What does “Made in Vietnam” truly mean? Ideally, it should refer to products created by Vietnamese people, infused with Vietnamese intellect and labor, serving the Vietnamese community, and contributing to the nation’s goal of sustainable, self-reliant development.

Unfortunately, today, the concept of “Vietnamese goods” is being narrowed, even distorted. Instead of supporting locally made, accessible products, all attention and resources—from media to policies and even subtle forms of coercion—are being funneled into promoting a single model: the Vietnamese electric vehicle.

The pressing question is: Why, at this point in time, has the conversation shifted from broadly supporting “Vietnamese products” to solely pushing for one very specific, very expensive item that’s out of reach for most working-class citizens: VinGroup’s electric scooters?

From the 3-million-dong bike to the 40-million-dong e-scooter – blatant imposition

Let’s face reality: Most workers, students, laborers, and street vendors in Vietnam still rely on traditional motorbikes—used ones can cost as little as 3–5 million VND. They’re easy to fix, simple to use, and well-suited to both the terrain and the modest income of the average Vietnamese.

Yet in recent years, a massive media campaign has been in full swing to glorify “Vietnamese” electric vehicles—sleek, clean, high-tech machines, priced at 30–40 million VND apiece, not including battery replacements, charging, and maintenance.

Alongside this PR push are policy proposals to ban gasoline vehicles, recall older models, raise environmental taxes, and most recently, Resolution 68. Yes, promoting green transport and reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But why is only one type of vehicle—produced by one major corporation—being touted as the national symbol, the “Vietnamese dream,” and the only acceptable path forward?

Policy lobbying—or aggressive market interference?

This is no longer a matter of free market dynamics. When policies are tailored to pave the way for one specific product, we must speak up. Lobbying is not new—but when it escalates into indirect coercion of consumers, via policy pressure, inflated propaganda, and limited alternatives, then we’re no longer talking about fair competition but engineered monopoly.

Who’s behind voices like Trần Đình Thiên?

Recently, Trần Đình Thiên—a figure once sarcastically nicknamed “Trần Huyên Thuyên” (Trần the Rambler) for his often lofty, ungrounded public statements—has again stirred controversy. He openly and enthusiastically advocates for Vietnamese EVs, declaring them the inevitable future.

But it’s his most recent comment that truly raises eyebrows:

> “Joining hands to support Vietnamese EVs is how each of us can show our patriotism.”

This statement eerily echoes a dangerous old slogan:

> “To love your country is to love socialism.”

History has shown us that when patriotism is hijacked to serve specific political, economic, or ideological agendas, the result is often division, coercion, and public disillusionment. Patriotism should never be reduced to favoring one brand—nor should it ever become a mandatory sentiment.

Let’s define Vietnamese goods—clearly and honestly

It’s important that readers understand what qualifies as a “Vietnamese product.” Yes, it may be labeled “Made in Vietnam,” but more importantly, it must have substantial local value-added content—meaning the parts, labor, intellectual property, and supply chain are predominantly Vietnamese.

Take Trung Nguyên coffee, for instance: grown, processed, and packaged entirely in Vietnam, exported to over 200 countries and territories. Or the Vietnamese catfish industry, which, though using feed from CP (a Thai-owned firm in Vietnam), still produces fundamentally local products.

In contrast, VinFast electric scooters reportedly consist of over 70% imported components. The remaining 30% “Vietnamese” portion includes things like food service, driver wages, utility bills, and land use—not core manufacturing.

Governments should encourage investment in local supply chains and supporting industries—that’s good policy. But once a product hits the market, it is the consumer who decides. No government, ministry, or academic has the right to promote one product while disparaging others. That violates the basic principles of fair competition.

Don’t forget: major brands like Honda, Suzuki, Hyundai, and Kymco all operate manufacturing facilities in Vietnam. Their products also count as Vietnamese-made.

Patriotism is not about endorsing a product made of 70% Chinese parts—especially if it’s inferior in both price and quality compared to its competitors.

—

Final thoughts

Dear Mr. Trần Đình Thiên,

Dear economic advisors,

Dear those holding the reins of media and policy:

Please, let the people choose what fits their lives. If electric vehicles are truly good, the market will choose them. But if they don’t suit the income, infrastructure, or reality of most Vietnamese citizens, then don’t force this love on us.

> “Loving someone, when forced, can hurt them tenfold.”

And that’s exactly what’s happening!

It’s quite frustrating that in 2025, well-intentioned people can still believe in socialism.  It’s as if they can’t learn from history or reason properly from who we are as human persons capable of ideals, but also enamored of self-promoting conceits and power trips.

Last Thursday, the Star Tribune published a commentary of mine on moral capitalism as the much better alternative to Omar Fateh’s democratic socialism.

My essay is here.

For those who hit a paywall, here it is:

How about Moral Capitalism, Instead of Democratic Socialism, for Minneapolis?

The much better alternative to Omar Fateh’s straight-jacketed capitalism is a moral capitalism – one born and raised in Minnesota.

Fateh can’t get rid of capitalism.  If he were to do that, who would then create the wealth needed to pay for everybody’s wants?

No, wealth creation is fundamental to human well-being and happiness.

To experience a moral capitalism is a piece of cake.  All you have to do is find a moral code that works for people and guides their economic behaviors.

Actually, there is one on the shelf.  It is Adam Smith’s first book, Theory of Moral Sentiments.  In that book, Smith observed that people have the capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others through empathy or what he called “sympathy.”  Today, we would call that conscience.  It is like having an observer inside you somewhere between your amygdala and your pre-frontal cortex, an impartial evaluator of your actions from the perspective of a good greater than your unenlightened self-interest.

Once you put your conscience directed self-interest to work in capitalism, you discover how dependent you are on stakeholders – no customers, you are bankrupt; incompetent or malingering employees and you are also bankrupt; no investors, no lenders, you are bankrupt as well; putrid raw materials or worthless supplies – same result.  And live in a dysfunctional, violent, corrupt, society with filthy streets, you will have few customers, few investors, unproductive employees and no law and order – a proven formula for poverty and failure.  Your community is another stakeholder to nourish with due care.

Thus, a moral capitalism puts care of stakeholders first.

If you combine into one system Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, you will have brought forth a moral capitalism

We might think of markets and money as the tangible parts of a moral capitalism and the caring management of stakeholders as the intangible part.

To manage both as one system, you just need to add intangibles to accounting.

First, put employees on the balance sheet as an asset.  Good employees are noted with a high number; unproductive employees with a low number.  The higher your asset number is, the more you are providing a moral capital.

For sales, add an intangible asset of reputation.

For access to investors, calculate the net present value of expected future income, discounted by risk of failure to care for stakeholders.  High risk of failure means low present value; low risk of future failure justifies a high present value.  Having a high present value will attract the enlightened self-interest of equity investors and lenders.

You can measure the quality of your employees with an assessment questionnaire.  You can measure the probability of customer purchases with such an assessment.  And the same for all other stakeholders.

If you do this, what will Omar Fateh and other “holier-than-thou” Democratic socialists have to complain about?

If he replies with griping about lack of access to wealth and cavils that there is no ethic of care to provide subsidies and entitlements to those who want them, you can ask: “What have those who want their wants attended to ever done to turn themselves into a social asset housing beneficial human capital, with skills to be a worthy contributor to our common destiny and so not be just a free rider?”

The Qur’an instructs us that each human person was born to be a khalifa – a faithful steward of God in his creation.  As persons, then, we have duties to others and to ourselves to work and contribute.  Jewish tradition speaks of this as tikkun olam – repairing the world.  In Catholic social teachings, we are “co-creators” with God of this world and our lives in it.  For Protestants, we seek vocations so that we might serve dutifully as ministers of the Almighty.  For Buddhists, we should seek the Noble Eightfold Way of right living, which is finding a middle way between self and other.

All these wisdom traditions point to a moral capitalism as our best calling.

I saw recently in the Wall Street Journal that a lot of cash is being invested in start-up companies, which will use the money to buy bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

This is a market bet on rising prices – i.e. future demand from as yet unknown consumers for crypto as an asset they want to own.

Here is the chart:

I found with a Google inquiry that:

• There are 17,134 total cryptocurrencies.
• The total market cap of all cryptocurrencies is $1.32 trillion.
• The trading volume of all cryptocurrencies, per 24 hours, is currently $172 billion.
• Bitcoin has the highest current market cap at approximately $650 billion – around 3x its closest rival, Ethereum.

The crypto market cap has been rising impressively:

But there was once a market mania for tulip bulbs in Holland:

And then there was the South Sea Bubble in the London Stock market in which Sir Isaac Newton lost his fortune:

And there was once an enthusiastic buying of stocks on Wall Street:

And within living memory, sub-prime mortgages soaked up a lot of money to be sold to willing buyers:

So, perhaps the best lesson to learn from history is to have caution about the quality of judgment which buyers have when money markets look most appetizing.

When something looks too good to be true, most likely it will not be worth the money in the long run.  But is that capitalism systemically creating wealth or just imperfect human nature at work when dazzled by the prospect of making easy money?