“Vietnam’s Communist Party Reveals Harsh Stance on International Partnerships in Leaked Document”

Vietnam’s Communist Party Reveals Harsh Stance on International Partnerships in Leaked Document

Vietnam, once known for its quiet presence in the global arena, is now in the spotlight as it gains attention from world leaders. US President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping both visited Vietnam last year, elevating the country’s relationship with the US to a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” With 18 existing or planned free trade agreements, Vietnam is sought after for collaboration on various issues such as climate change, supply chain resilience, and pandemic preparedness. It is also seen as a key player in the US-China rivalry and an alternative to China for manufacturing outsourcing.

Despite these international partnerships, Vietnam’s Communist Party maintains an iron grip on power and political expression. As one of the few remaining Communist, one-party states in the world, Vietnam does not allow political opposition, and dissidents are routinely jailed. Decision-making within the party remains secretive.

However, a leaked internal document from the Politburo of the Central Committee, known as Directive 24, sheds light on the party’s stance on international partnerships. The document warns of threats to national security brought about by “hostile and reactionary forces” through these partnerships. It argues that these forces will increase their sabotage and internal political transformation activities, forming alliances and networks that could lead to the formation of domestic political opposition groups.

Directive 24 urges party officials to be vigilant in countering these influences, highlighting potential risks in areas such as the economy, finance, foreign investment, and energy. The document’s alarmist tone is a departure from the Vietnamese government’s usual public pronouncements.

According to Ben Swanton, co-director of human rights organization Project88, Directive 24 signals a harsher campaign against human rights activists and civil society groups. The document instructs party officials to police social media, prevent the formation of independent political organizations, and be alert to attempts to incite “color revolutions” and “street revolutions.” Swanton believes that Vietnam’s rulers are openly stating their intention to violate human rights as a matter of policy.

However, not everyone interprets Directive 24 in the same way. Carlyle Thayer, an emeritus professor of politics at the University of New South Wales and a renowned scholar on Vietnam, argues that the directive does not indicate a new wave of repression but rather the continuation of existing repression against activists. Thayer suggests that the timing of the directive, published after the US and Vietnam agreed to their higher-level partnership, was meant to reassure hardliners within the party who feared US encouragement of pro-democracy sentiment in Vietnam.

The directive highlights the dilemma faced by Vietnam’s communist leaders as the country becomes a global manufacturing and trading powerhouse. Unlike China, Vietnam cannot isolate itself behind a “great firewall” and relies on foreign investment and technology for its rapid growth. While Vietnam has agreed to free trade deals with human and labor rights clauses, Directive 24 suggests reluctance to honor these clauses fully. The party demands strict control over independent trade unions and emphasizes the ongoing leadership of the Party at all levels.

Ben Swanton argues that Directive 24 exposes the fig-leaf nature of agreements on human and labor rights, indicating that they are merely covering deals made with a political system that does not respect individual rights. He questions which civil society groups will be allowed to monitor these agreements when environmental and climate campaigners have already been jailed on questionable grounds.

Vietnam’s leaders aim to maintain strict control over their people’s political lives while exposing them to ideas and inspirations from overseas. They hope that this approach will keep the economic fires burning bright. However, as one-party Marxist-Leninist states become historical anomalies, it remains to be seen how Vietnam’s conjuring trick will fare in the face of increasing international scrutiny.