Category: Commentary

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?

Shakespeare’s Henry V spoke thus to rally his English to charge (from his perspective) the rascally French in Harfleur.  He drew a line between fatalistic acceptance and taking action:

In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger; …
The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

I ran across yet another commentary, “ChatGPT’s Mental Health Costs Are Adding Up”, that we need to draw some line with AI in order to protect our heritage and our intelligence.

I have recently used ChatGPT and it went inventive on me: writing up its own conclusion to a chapter I had written on moral capitalism.  A reasonable conclusion, to be sure, but not mine.

I recently sent you two comments on the malign effects of TikTok and other “attention bewitching” short videos – free to viewers, but revenue-generating to companies.

Here is a proposal from Mary Ellen Klas, policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, on how to stop the spread of these de-socializing electronic depressants: “Want Students to Thrive? Lock Up Their Phones”:

There are few things most American politicians seem to agree upon, but banning mobile phones in classrooms seems to be one of them.  Based on the experiences of some schools that have required students to prioritize learning over TikTok scrolling, there’s also a welcome side benefit: less conflict and more “hellos.”

When school starts this fall, students in most U.S. states and D.C. will be required by law to turn over or turn off their smartphones during all or most of the school day, according to an Education Week tally.

Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Utah have statewide bans.  Another 24 states have adopted rules or laws that require restrictions on mobile phones, but leave it up to school districts to decide whether to ban them or not.  Two states offer districts incentives to restrict phones. Another seven recommend local districts enact their own restrictions.

The methods and policy details vary widely between states, but the reasons for silencing phones are pretty universal.  A growing body of research has found that the more time children and their developing brains spend on smartphones, the greater the risk of negative mental health outcomes — from depression, to cyberbullying, to an inability to focus and learn.

Social media is intentionally designed “to expose users to an endless stream of content” which makes it addictive, said Carol Vidal, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.  That’s especially risky for children and teens, she said, “because their brains are still developing and they have less control over their impulses.” …

The idea of severing the phone from the classroom not only has legislators and governors in red and blue states giving it near-unanimous support, a 2024 survey by Pew Research found that 68% of U.S. adults support a ban on smartphone use among middle and high school students during class.

But a ban, in theory, is not the same as putting it into practice, especially for the large numbers of parents worried about being unable to contact their kids during the school day.

That’s something Principal Inge Esping noticed when she barred phones from classrooms at McPherson Middle School in Kansas, an hour north of Wichita.  In 2022, when Esping started as the school’s principal, she noticed that the spike in online bullying among students was happening during the school day.

“Middle schoolers are a little notorious for when they’re trying to make fun of someone,” she told me.  “They’ll take a picture of the person that they’re making fun of and share that via social media — especially during lunchtime.’’

Absences and suspensions were rising, with too many students staying home either because they feared confronting their bullies or because they were bullying others.  She and her staff decided to impose a rule in the 2022–23 school year requiring students to turn off their phones and store them in their lockers from the first bell to the last.

With few exceptions, children who had grown up with mobile phones “simply accepted it,” Esping said.  It was their parents who protested.

“I don’t think we really realized how much parents were reaching out to their students during the school day,” Esping recalled.  Many parents feared being unable to communicate with their children during school hours, particularly in an era of school shootings.  Others didn’t trust the school to notify them when their child needed them, she said.

She and her colleagues then embarked on an ambitious plan to persuade parents of the value of keeping phones out of reach during school hours.  She organized back-to-school events to increase communication, engaged more parents in volunteer and visiting opportunities and refined the school’s alert system that notifies families when there’s an emergency.

As parents grew to accept the new system, the results for their children were dramatic.  In the first year, the school saw a 5% increase in their state assessment scores in both reading and math. School suspensions dropped 70% by Christmas and have remained at half the rate they were before the ban.  And absenteeism went down from 39% to 11% — because taking phones away prevented many of the harmful social media comments that kept bullied kids from coming to school.

Other school districts with mobile phone restrictions reported similar results in student discipline.  A year after the Orange County School District in Florida implemented its phone ban in 2023, fighting went down 31% and “serious misconduct” issues decreased by 21%, Superintendent Maria Vazquez told Florida lawmakers in January. …

But for teachers, the most tangible difference has been the “huge vibe change,” said Esping, who was named Kansas Middle School Principal of the Year in April.  Teachers reported that students were now more engaged — in the classroom and school corridors.

“The year before the phone ban, you’d say ‘hello’ to a student and they would ignore you and move on because they’re so tied to their cell phone,” Esping told me.  But after the ban, “kids were looking up and talking to one another,” especially in the lunchroom and as students transitioned between classes.  “When you’d say, ‘good morning’ to them, they’d say ‘good morning’ back.”

As always, students may be teaching the rest of the nation something here.  Maybe more smartphone bans are exactly what we need.

I recently sent you a comment on TikTok videos.  After composing that depressing email, I read an article from Vox which accelerated my pessimism.  Its title is “Little Videos Are Cooking Our Brains.”

You can read it here.

Stephen B. Young

July 17, 2025

“If we place President Trump’s tariffs on Vietnamese goods in the context of a broader strategic picture, the U.S. and Vietnam can still find a common path through today’s tensions.”
— Stephen B. Young

This summer in Hanoi, the heat is not just from the weather but from mounting strategic pressures—both domestic and international. What is Trump’s America pursuing? Does Washington aim to impose itself on Vietnam, or is it seeking to build a long-term partnership grounded in reciprocity and balanced interests?

I. Tariffs and Strategy Go Hand in Hand

The Trump administration’s unexpected decision to impose a 20% tariff on Vietnamese exports—twice the previously negotiated rate—sent shockwaves through public opinion. Many in Vietnam see it as a trap. But is the tariff really the core issue?

At the same time that tariffs were announced, the United States also offered Vietnam its most flexible geo-strategic space since Đổi Mới:

• Refusing to facilitate transshipment of Chinese goods is not a severance from China, but a step toward strategic diversification. No one expects Vietnam to completely cut ties with China—geography and economics don’t allow it. But diversification is not only feasible—it’s wise.

• Allowing U.S. warships to dock at Cam Ranh Bay does not mean Vietnam is “taking sides.” The Philippines has done the same while maintaining strong trade with China. Singapore has long welcomed U.S. naval visits while being a key member of China-led RCEP.

• Signing a rare earth agreement is not about “selling off resources.” If done right, it can attract G7-level processing technology, reduce dependence on China, and end the outdated model of exporting raw materials and importing refined goods.

• Joining the Indo-Pacific supply chain does not mean abandoning the Chinese market. Rather, it enhances Vietnam’s negotiating power and achieves strategic balance.

II. A Truly Renewed Vietnam, Seen from Washington

History shows that the first strategic commitment between the U.S. and Vietnam came in October 1954, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared American support for the independence and economic development of the Republic of Vietnam (1).

Why did the U.S. make that pledge at such a pivotal moment? Because, as Eisenhower wrote, Americans respected Vietnamese nationalism—a resilient tradition of the people.

In his letter to Prime Minister Ngô Đình Diệm, the U.S. President expressed hope that the Vietnamese government would reflect the will of the people, act with enlightenment, and govern effectively—to earn respect domestically and globally, and to prevent any foreign ideology from being forced upon a free nation.

The word “nation” in that letter was decisive. Eisenhower acknowledged that the Vietnamese had their own traditions, values, religions, and aspirations—deserving of sovereignty, liberty, and independence, just as Americans had once demanded for themselves.

The key difference now is this: Back then, Eisenhower “picked” Saigon as a pawn on the Southeast Asian chessboard. Today, Washington “chooses” Hanoi—not as a pawn, but as a partner with weight and authority on the interregional and global chessboard (Indo-Pacific and beyond).

In that same spirit, American policymakers took close note of General Secretary Tô Lâm’s article on April 27, 2025, in which he emphasized:

“The aspiration for a peaceful, unified, and independent Vietnam is a sacred flame that has forged the national spirit over thousands of years of history…”

What stood out most to Washington was his reference to “the enduring nature of the Vietnamese nation”—a concept the U.S. has seen as the cornerstone of a lasting partnership since the beginning. Also notable was his call for national reconciliation—a sign that Vietnam is ready to enter a new historical era:

“The war is no longer a dividing line for people of the same Lạc Hồng bloodline… There is no reason for Vietnamese—sharing the same origin, all children of Mother Âu Cơ—to carry hatred or division in their hearts.”

The U.S. appreciates the General Secretary’s return to Vietnam’s cultural roots as a foundation for a future that is prosperous, globally integrated, and peacefully aligned with the international community.

Some scholars consider this a sign that Vietnam is gradually forming a new foreign and domestic policy—one deeply rooted in national identity, not merely reacting passively to geopolitical shifts, but proactively shaping its role and position within the global order. 

With this vision, Vietnam can build soft power through engagement with the international community. To achieve this, the country needs to expand space for public discourse and develop a roadmap for political reform that aligns with the new context.

A senior advisor at the U.S. Department of State remarked: “We welcome the commitment of Vietnam’s leadership to pursue a path of harmonious development in connection with the civilized world.” 

Vietnam does not need to choose sides, but it should choose humane and progressive values.

III. A Harder Question: Subordination—or True Partnership?

Some voices in Vietnam are asking: “If we yield to the U.S. now, are we risking subordination?”

But perhaps the more honest question should be: “If we continue on the current path, are we truly independent?”

More critically, how can Vietnam seize this rare opportunity to shift from a nation shaped by historical circumstance to a nation that shapes history?

Beijing has long been clear about its ambition to treat Vietnam as a strategic buffer zone. China dominates supply chains, controls rare earth exports, invests in critical infrastructure—and tightens its grip through a soft-strategic vise. Every time Hanoi leans West, there are warning signals from the North: maritime incidents, stalled negotiations, and unreasonable historical and sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

In this context, recent U.S. proposals offer Vietnam a chance to redefine its national positioning. An economy seen as a mere “proxy hub” for Chinese goods will never become a global manufacturing powerhouse.

But if Hanoi pivots—just as The Economist once suggested—Vietnam can become “the Bavaria of Asia”: a hub for green tech, high-value manufacturing, and strategic neutrality.

Vietnam can:

• Attract high-quality investment from the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Europe;
• Transition from an assembly-line model to innovation and brand ownership;
• Play a key role in restructuring global supply chains.

Now is the time for the Politburo, under General Secretary Tô Lâm’s leadership, to show strategic vision and political resolve. Hesitation at this moment would be a historical setback.

Is the U.S. applying pressure? Perhaps. But with long-term thinking and skillful diplomacy, Vietnam can turn that pressure into leverage—to restructure not only trade and defense but also its institutions and governance model.

After 80 years, could this coming August become the second defining August in Vietnam’s history?

Time is running out. A slow or ambiguous response will not only forfeit trade privileges—it will erode strategic trust from G7, Quad, and ASEAN partners.

What’s at stake is not just a seat at the global table—it’s the chance to finally step out of China’s shadow and build a resilient, independent, and globally competitive economy.

CONCLUSION:

The Vietnamese people once faced colonialism, imperialism, and war with courage. Today, that same courage must take a new form: the courage to choose, to change, and to redefine Vietnam’s place in the world.

General Secretary Tô Lâm and the Politburo now hold a historic opportunity: to lift Vietnam out of China’s assembly-line orbit and into true partnership with the global democratic community.

No nation can choose its geography,

But every nation can choose its future.

Joining the world’s march toward civilization is Vietnam’s opportunity to showcase its leadership—not only in economic reform but in strategic thinking and political confidence.

If Hanoi fails to seize this moment, it may be a very long time before history offers another chance.

NOTES:

1. This historic letter was drafted by Kenneth T. Young, Director of the Southeast Asia Office at the U.S. State Department. Following this family legacy, I—Stephen B. Young—wrote “Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War,” exposing how Kissinger never truly understood Vietnamese nationalism.

Text of President Eisenhower’s October 23, 1954 letter to Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem:

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have been following with great interest the course of developments in Viet-Nam, particularly since the conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The implications of the agreement concerning Viet-Nam have caused grave concern regarding the future of a country temporarily divided by an artificial military grouping, weakened by a long and exhausting war and faced with enemies without and by their subversive collaborators within.

Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.

We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Viet-Nam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the Government of Viet-Nam. I am, accordingly, instructing the American Ambassador to Viet-Nam to examine with you in your capacity as Chief of Government, bow an intelligent program of American aid given directly to your Government can serve to assist Viet-Nam in its present hour of trial, provided that your Government is prepared to give assurances as to the standards of performance it would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.

The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Viet-Nam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means. The Government of the United States expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the Government of Viet-Nam in undertaking needed reforms. It hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Viet-Nam endowed with a strong government. Such a government would, I hope, be so responsive to the nationalist aspirations of its people, so enlightened in purpose and effective in performance, that it will be respected both at home and abroad and discourage any who might wish to impose a foreign ideology on your free people.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(2) According to sources close to U.S.-Vietnam negotiations, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit, Secretary of State Marco delivered a handwritten letter from President Trump to General Secretary Tô Lâm, addressing the four key areas discussed in this article.

Stephen B. Young is the Global Executive Director of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism, former Dean and Professor of Hamline University School of Law, and  a former Assistant Dean, The Harvard Law School. He is the author of Kissinger’s Betrayal: How America Lost the Vietnam War and, with Nguyen Ngoc Huy, Tradition of Human Rights in China and Vietnam, and “The Law of Property in Vietnam’s Le Dynasty”, Journal of Asian History, 1975 

A colleague sent me links to videos on TikTok which were posted by the most popular female and male influencers in the U.S.

I watched a few – some are only seconds long, just right for attention-deficit-disorder consumers – and quickly thought of these lines from Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings. …

Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed
That he is grown so great?  Age, thou art shamed!
Rome, thou hast lost the breed of noble bloods!

Idiocy has risen up on the back of new technologies to transform minds from activating intelligence into passively wallowing in psychic mush.

Do we have a future worth living?

I urge you to take a few minutes, open the two links, and consume what kind of culture, morals, courage, dignity, etc., young Americans are absorbing:

The top female TikTok influencer.

The top male TikTok influencer.