One Take on Vietnam

Whence a prosperous land and people?

The most impressive things about Vietnam that struck me right off during our recent visit were: 1) the heat and humidity (oh my goodness); 2) the motorbikes — one has to learn anew to cross a street;¹ 3) the food — nirvana for the obligatory gluten free; 4) the friendliness of the people, from hotel staff to street food tour guides and vendors to the crew of our Mekong River cruise; and not least 5) the bustling, thriving, up-and-coming society and economy.

You get a sense, when you visit a developing country, of whether it’s on the upswing, vibrant, hopeful — or on the downswing, stagnant, barely staving off ruination. Present day Vietnam is decidedly on the upswing. The energy is palpable. Signs of mid-level industrialization such as a massive rice industry, active construction sites, busy shipping in the delta, are everywhere. Not to mention small scale capitalism, not least amongst those street food vendors and local cafes and restaurants.²

Motorbikes scooting around carry riders of all ages and occupations, from well-dressed professionals, to sporty young people, to elders transporting schoolchildren. The locals motorbike. Vans and buses, like as not, are carrying tourists. Cars, with professional drivers, are presumably for the wealthy. Nevertheless, the thousands of them on the roads indicate mid-level prosperity, mobility, and activity.³

Someone might ask about the Communist government compared with Vietnam’s open economy, the latter a phenomenon launched already in the 1980’s (Đổi Mới). The only indication of living under Communism that I saw the whole time we were there, apart from a few strongly gated government buildings flying very red flags, was when our cruise tour guide, a practicing Buddhist, showed us his official ID indicating he is an “atheist.” He had been showing us around the temple of a local ethnic Chinese neighborhood, and we got to talking about the religious melting pot that is Vietnam. Plenty of Buddhist temples, and the historic central Catholic Church under renovation in Ho Chi Minh city, are evidence for effective freedom of religion, but it seems, technically, that one is supposed to, officially, not claim a religious affiliation.

As to the history of Vietnam, for most Americans it centers on the Vietnam War — or rather the Second Indochina War as the Vietnamese themselves call it. (The First Indochina War was their successful fight for independence waged against the French.) In particular, I wanted to confront the person, life, and legacy of Ho Chi Minh, having read about him at length at

Postcards from Vietnam

(a Substack I highly recommend).⁴ To that end, as good tourists — seeing what Vietnam itself wants to show to us — the War Remnants Museum was one of our first stops. It packs a wallop for any American who visits.⁵

It’s a simple museum made up mostly of compelling photographs (with some military equipment parked outside) and a running narrative telling the heart wrenching story. That story is told from perspective of the victorious (North) Vietnamese (Communists), with all the atrocities committed by Americans presented front and center. And yet, the very first part of the exhibit shows how much protest raged all over the world against the War, including in Europe and America and the west. And the end result is hardly a condemnation of America itself, with whom the Vietnamese people and government want to be friends. How that paradoxical presentation has been accomplished is quite a feat.

Let’s start with Ho Chi Minh, who on his deathbed, admonished his generals.

“[Do] not humiliate the United States, [do not] touch the American people because we only fight against the hawks who rule the United States.”

He also said, in principle, “not to give in, but [as] to the method, be firm yet improvisational.”

Source: Postcards from Vietnam, part 4 on Ho Chi Minh

Along with starting out with global mass protests against the war, the museum portrays members of the American military in two clearly divided camps: those who committed atrocities and those genuine American patriots who defended the Vietnamese people and sought justice for decades after the fact. One walks out of the museum humiliated to be an American (to the extent one is implicated in what one’s nation has done), yet also faced with a clear choice not to support one’s home nation when it engages in unjust war and military crime.

The attitude is born out in practice. As tourists or expats, Americans encounter zero animosity or hatred from any Vietnamese person on the street, including from older citizens who presumably could have some vivid memories of the war.⁶ There is either a profound capacity for forgiveness in these people, or there is an equally capacious gift for discerning the complexities of geopolitical tragedy — that the everyday people of any nation don’t necessarily approve of what their government has done.

The museum’s story is one-sided and — one hesitates to say it, for the sake of cultural sensitivity — propaganda. Photo evidence cannot be denied, of course. We’re not talking deep fakes here. But the selection, order and presentation, and accompanying narrative interprets what you see from a definite point of view. For example, the museum sidesteps any atrocities committed by the invading North forces at the end of the War, or of the embedded Viet Cong in the south. An appreciation for political complexity in the wider world doesn’t apply at home.

Nevertheless, the overall message is one of hope: “Lessons learned, let’s move on.” There’s also a strong message of unification, of Vietnam itself as a single country, and of Vietnam together with the rest of the world. The country looks positively on its role as a future (and present day) leader in Asia and in the world, including with the west. Vietnam would today be one of the chief “non-aligned” countries effectively playing the Great Powers off against each other, and I have to say I applaud that. Rather than be forced, as happened during the Cold War, to align with one pole or the other, no small developing country should be deprived of its right to self-determination and to making its own way.

One can’t help but compare Vietnam with North and South Korea, that other Cold War proxy conflict, which in that case, the US “won.” The Koreas are still hopelessly divided and opposed, with military conflict and even nuclear escalation a haunting specter — not to mention the decades long toll taken on the North Korean people. It makes you wonder at how the Vietnamese people, internally diverse as they are, geographically, ethnically, religiously and — once — politically, have been able to overcome tremendous suffering to emerge in rising prosperity and hope.

---

All of which leads me to wonder how the US (viz. our “hawks” at the time of the War) made such a huge mistake. The Communists won. We lost. We were driven out. Yes, it’s taken 50 years. Vietnam is not at the level of economic development — or political freedom — as South Korea. But it’s doing pretty well. Need we have intervened as we did? What if, after the Geneva Accords, we had supported general elections and let the people of Vietnam unify under whatever government type and leadership its own people preferred, even if that happened to be Communism? Ideally a non-aligned, homegrown version of Communism? We could have demanded protections for former anti-Communists under the new system, or (as we did anyway) accept anyone who felt they had to escape the new regime as exiles to the US.

The argument will be made, of course, given post WW2 realities and the Cold War, that America had to fight vehemently against Communism, against the Chinese and Soviet Union indirectly to avoid nuclear disaster, but directly via conventional proxy wars between client regimes, including against Ho Chi Minh’s Communists in the north.

The underlying story is not that simple. The best characterization of Ho Chi Minh’s interests — as with so many rebels against colonial powers in Asia and globally — was his concern for his own people.⁷ Probably he should be thought of as more a nationalist than as a Communist puppet or plant. He fought first against the Japanese (by allying with American OSS, forerunners of the CIA), then he fought against the French for independence. Finally he fought against the Americans when they insisted on the proxy war against the Communists in the north (USSR, China).

Ho Chi Minh was assuredly a socialist, then a card-carrying Communist from early days, and he was trained and provided resources specifically from the USSR. (His relationship with China was mixed.) But he also disagreed with Soviet policies and was even detained for years because he wouldn’t align with Party ideology. As many non-aligned developing countries are trying to do today, he attempted to play the Powers off against each other for the sake of his own nation and people.

That, of course, is a charitable view — but it’s not an incredible one.⁸

---

I am immensely thankful Vietnam has pulled itself out of the morass of the tragic showdown that took place on its territory, destroying in the process so much life, livelihood, and liberty. Were mistakes made — and I don’t mean solely the grievous tactical crimes committed on the ground? Yes, I think so. The west, including America, forced small poor countries to become divided within themselves and to align, yes or no, black or white, with over-dominant world powers in ways completely alien to their own interests.

Just today, I happened upon a remarkable talk given by Condoleezza Rice a few months ago at the Hoover Institute, “What Does America Stand For?” You may argue it’s old school, dated, too redolent of post-1989 Fukuyama-ism. But this quote, from near the end of the Q&A, stands out to me with respect to ongoing Great Power competition in the developing world. Rice is discussing present day concerns regarding competition with China in Africa. She veers away from what could so easily become a replay of Cold War confrontations.

You can have a policy in Africa that isn't just always responding to the Chinese, the Chinese, the Chinese. Because the Chinese are making a mess of their policy in Africa right now. These debt traps that they've set… people are starting to notice. Maybe that “loan for own” thing worked in the 19th century; it doesn't work so well in the 21st century. They have a terrible reputation for things like labor safety and environmental standards, and so if we just have a positive policy there and help create circumstances for investment, for foreign direct investment, I think we're going to go a long way to having African partners. That isn't just dependent on challenging the Chinese. We need not to make the mistake that we made in the Cold War, which is that the reason we wanted to be in the developing world was because the Soviet Union was in the developing world, and that led us to support all kinds of governments that were bad for their people. Could we not do that again just because we're trying to challenge the Chinese.

Source: “What Does America Stand For?” at 1:11:20. I have cleaned up the transcript a bit for readability’s sake.

Could we not do that again?

I’m pleased the US now considers Vietnam amongst its chief allies and partners, not least because I hope to be able to visit this unique and prospering country many times again in the future.

Visiting the War Remnants Museum, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.

1. The secret, as we learned from a guide: Look at oncoming traffic, motorbike riders and the drivers of cars, and see that they see you. Then, walk slowly and steadily, step by step. Traffic does, by and large, obey traffic signals and pedestrian signs, and it doesn’t move nearly as fast as you think. (Our street food tour, from the back of a motorbike, gave a much better sense of the ebb and flow, and limited velocity, of the “dance.”) Oncoming riders/drivers will avoid you if you don’t do anything stupid and behave predictably. Nevertheless, courage is certainly required. Suffice to say, I’ve come a long ways from the country bumpkin who found herself at age 18 in Northfield, MN having a hard time crossing a Midwestern small town Main Street!

2. A recent Foreign Affairs article compares capitalist success in Switzerland, Taiwan, and Vietnam.

3. Some quick research indicates it costs a few hundred US dollars up to about $1000 to buy a motorbike.

4. One of the most compelling arguments of

Brian

’s carefully researched and reported series on Ho Chi Minh is the need to take close account of the early 20th c. background throughout Asia, especially in China. That early period featured Japan invading everywhere throughout Asia, with the last Chinese empire collapsing, followed up by decades of warlords involved in chaotic regional power struggles, then alliances (during WW2) followed by civil war between the nationalists and Communists — all overflowing onto China’s traditional satellite nations. There was the end of colonialism, spreading industrialization, mercantilism evolving into global trade, and nauseating western arrogance. No nation’s history, in Asia or otherwise, can be understood apart from these world-transforming factors of the early 20th century (building on the long 19th century, evolving from the first waves of “globalization” in the 16th century).

5. It’s not a light-hearted visit. I might compare to seeing Dachau or Auschwitz, although the mode of presentation is entirely different.

6. We traveled only in the south, and so one might think this is the reason Americans are tolerated. But it’s important to remember that any south Vietnamese who were strongly pro-American had to leave Vietnam at the end of the war, leading to the mass exodus of the boat people.

7. I can’t recommend highly enough Erez Manela’s Wilsonian Moment and Pankraj Mishra’s Ruins of Empire to get a feel for how western-educated leaders in Asia reacted to the peace talks at Versailles, President Wilson’s rhetoric of self-determination, and the frustrations of seeking independence from colonial powers, or even just to be heard. Ho Chi Minh was at Versailles. How much blame does the west bear for these leaders turning to Communist powers for succor — especially when, at that early date, they were hardly known for the brutality they would later embody? (And the seekers were embraced.)

8. Behind what I’ve blithely written is an incredibly complex yet also well-studied history, most of which I haven’t read at all. I’m a naive tourist. For the general story and references to firsthand resources and bibliography, see posts at

Postcards from Vietnam

as well as the voluminous number of published works.