Vietnam – Page 2 – Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

Even the Powerless Have a Voice

Recently in Hanoi, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam met to prepare for next year’s party conference. On the internet, one can become aware of a deep chasm between the party and the Vietnamese people. I was sent a link to a short essay by an anonymous writer on the voice of the “powerless.” The essay is attached here.

This emotionally compelling comment on power puts in high relief the Caux Round Table Principles for Government. These principles, in part, affirm:

Just as the Principles for Business, these Principles for Government derive from two ethical ideals: “kyosei” and “human dignity.” The Japanese concept of “kyosei” looks to living and working together for the common good, while the moral vision of “human dignity” refers to the sacredness or value of each person as an end, not simply as a means to the fulfillment of others’ purposes or even of majority demands.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends. It is subordinate to society. Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others. Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

My correspondent made three points in his cover letter:

First, the most consequential task of the forthcoming Party Congress is to pick Vietnam’s leaders. Which individuals will rise to the top of the country’s power structure and who will be passed over? From personalities will come policy. From policy will come weal or woe for the people.

More and more in Vietnam, the thought is to decentralize control of the economy, politics, education, culture and the press.

Secondly, the references by Party General Secretary To Lam to a “new era” or to “newness” for Vietnam and the Vietnamese are not supported by specific ideas or recommendations.

Thirdly, is there a deadlock within the party leadership between those who see the value in and the wisdom of “newness” leading to reform of the system of concentrated power and control of people’s lives and those who prefer the status-quo, which privileges them as the “powerful?”

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.

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 15^th or 18^th 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 14^th 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.

Living in the Gray Zone: Navigating Vietnam’s Path to Strategic Autonomy in an Uncertain World

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.

A Second Case Study from Vietnam

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

An Interesting Case Study from Vietnam

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!

A Defining Choice: Will Vietnam Build A Bright Future—Or Return To The Past?

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:

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 Strategic Choice for Vietnam: A Caux Round Table Fellow Perspective

We recently appointed H. E. Dinh Hoang Thang to serve as a fellow. Ambassador Thang is a former Vietnamese ambassador to The Netherlands, former head of the Leadership Advisory Group of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is an associate of the Angkor Royal Foundation in Budapest, Hungary. He currently resides in Paris and contributes commentaries on international relations and Vietnamese developments, with a particular focus on Vietnam’s future prospects.

His first commentary for the Caux Round Table can be found here.

Amb. Thang addresses optimistically the new possibilities for Vietnam now being advanced by a new secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party, To Lam. The strategic choice facing the Vietnamese Communist Party has significance for Vietnam’s prosperity, regional and global economies and the geopolitics of Asia, China and the U.S.