Ahead of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War this week, the chief of the ruling communist party To Lam struck a reconciliatory tone toward people from former South Vietnam.
His lengthy commentary, published in state media two days ahead of the anniversary, won praise at home and some cautious hope, mixed with skepticism, among those who fled the country after 1975.
The April 30 anniversary is most commonly celebrated domestically as the reunification of the communist North and the U.S.-allied South Vietnam, and this was the first time that the head of the Communist Party had used the occasion to acknowledge political differences and call for reconciliation. He dispensed with the usual glorification of the party’s achievements and harsh criticism of enemies.
“Vietnam is one, the Vietnamese people are one,” To Lam, the party’s general secretary, wrote, quoting founding communist leader Ho Chi Minh.
He referred to those originating from the former Republic of Vietnam – the formal name of South Vietnam – as “people on the other side.” He said that “despite differences in political views” they were “all Vietnamese people.” He also called for “no reason for Vietnamese people – sharing the same bloodline, the same mother Au Co, always yearning for a unified, prosperous country – to continue to carry hatred, division and separation in their hearts.”
Au Co refers to a goddess in a Vietnamese creation myth who symbolizes the mother of its civilization.
To Lam pulled back on the use of terms like “American imperialism,” “hostile forces,” “invasion,” and “puppet government” that are a stock-in-trade of party language referring to the war. He also dialed back their use in a speech he gave on the April 30 anniversary, which was marked with a grand military parade in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon.
By comparison, on the 40th anniversary of the war’s end in 2015, his predecessor Nguyen Phu Trong used the term “anti-American” 14 times.
The change in tone drew praise on social media.
“I BELIEVE MR. TO LAM SPEAKS FROM HIS HEART,” Huynh Ngoc Chenh, former Secretary of Thanh Nien newspaper and a political-social commentator, wrote on his Facebook account with 124,000 followers. Tran Thanh Canh, who regularly expresses his views on other political and social issues, wrote, “I am truly happy and hopeful for a bright future for our country!”
Facing historical truth
Not everyone shares his optimism that a change is in the air in Vietnam, which is under one-party rule. Political dissent is often punished with harsh prison terms.
Dr. Nguyen Quang A, one of Vietnam’s leading critics, expressed skepticism, saying: “Has anyone inside Vietnam been convinced?”
He said the government needed to change its treatment of followers of Thich Minh Tue – a popular Vietnamese monk whose popularity has made him an object of official suspicion – and others in the country before “speaking pretty words.”
Lawyer Vu Duc Khanh, currently living in Canada, said that as one of the legions of ‘boat people’ who escaped Vietnam after the communist takeover, he read To Lam’s article “with a sense of calm, mixed with a cautious hope.”
In a departure from past official rhetoric, To Lam wrote in the article that he had met “many people from the ‘other side’” and he admitted that he felt that these people “although they may have different political views, historical experiences, or living conditions ... all carry national pride in their hearts.”
But Khanh observed that true reconciliation requires “facing the entire historical truth.” Among those truths, he said, are the “pains which millions of compatriots endured after April 30, 1975.”
In addition to the millions of boat people who fled the country, many from the former Republic of Vietnam had property confiscated and were put into re-education camps. More 165,000 people are estimated to have died in the camps.
Cemetery for soldiers from the South
One matter of enduring concern to those who were on the losing side in the war is the government’s treatment of the Bien Hoa Military Cemetery, outside Ho Chi Minh City, where Republic of Vietnam soldiers who died during the war are buried.
Many Vietnamese organizations in the United States have made efforts over the years to find ways to restore this cemetery, but have encountered many difficulties from the Vietnamese government.
More than 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers are estimated to have died during the war, and about 1 million from the North.
Phillip Nguyen is president of Viet Benevolence, an organization with the mission of finding the remains of soldiers of the Republic of Vietnam and restoring the Bien Hoa cemetery, with the hope of “healing the past and reconciling the future.”
He questioned To Lam proposed reconciliation, saying that “it’s easier said than done.”
“The Bien Hoa Military Cemetery is still prohibited from being renovated. Thousands of disabled veterans of the Republic of Vietnam are now old, around 80 or 90 years old, sick, but are still oppressed and do not receive help from friends, relatives, or former comrades,” Nguyen told RFA.
Still, he remains hopeful.
“I hope that under To Lam, there will be a difference. I have high hopes. It is very easy for them to prove that they really want reconciliation. If they want it, they can do it,” he said.
To Lam has made positive statements about the Republic of Vietnam in recent months.
On Jan. 9, he said, “In the 60s, Saigon - Ho Chi Minh City was a bright spot, the Pearl of the Far East, Singapore was not as good.” Then, on Feb. 13, he said, “Looking at Singapore, in the past, they said that going to Cho Ray Hospital for medical treatment was a dream.” Cho Ray hospital in Saigon was built by the government of Republic of Vietnam.
These statements from To Lam were also received positively, but so far, little has happened to build on the general secretary’s conciliatory words.
“Reconciliation cannot stop at statements; it needs to be demonstrated by concrete actions, especially from the authorities, to restore the trust of those who were victims of history,” said lawyer Vu Duc Khanh who urged To Lam to prove his goodwill.
Edited by Mat Pennington.