Family friends and country Nguyen Thi Binh

silent if they saw someone making a profit, but as soon as they heard of
money lost in a trade, they looked for “serious short-comings.”

Everyone knows that one always wants to make a profit in business, but
equally, it is unrealistic to think one will profit immediately. The
economic police demanded that I dismiss this person and then that person
so these staff members could have “their situations solved.” I refused
because I knew these brothers and sisters had done nothing wrong. They
had only followed the ministry’s directives. Thus, the ministry was
responsible for protecting them.

My resolute attitude on this matter brought me countless problems.
Even now, as I think about it, I still believe my attitude was correct. If I
have any regret, it is that I could not completely protect all the people
under me. I thank Comrades Trần Xuân Nhĩ, Đoàn Văn Di,[21] and many
other brothers and sisters who supported me when countless obstacles
were scattered in my path. My greatest regret is that the movement to
introduce work and vocational training into schools, which had only just
burst forth, suffered from such dousings of icy water. The negative results
remain today.

Many comrades say, “Perhaps your views were ahead of the times, like
Uncle Kim Ngọc’s with his agricultural piece work. They made him
miserable because he saw a solution earlier than everyone else. But now,
everyone accepts his view and says he was correct.” Anything new often
suffers from critics looking for ways to obstruct the initiative. Yet only if
we have people willing to look ahead can we have change, economic
development, and progress. That’s the law of life and of economic and
intellectual development.

I finished two terms as minister of education with greater
understanding of our country’s social situation, added experience in State
management, and wonderful memories of time with the staff and teachers
in our educational system.

I am proud to have given my greatest effort to complete my
assignment. Many problems remained, and I left tasks unfinished. We still
had no directives in place to solve basic problems, yet Renovation placed
extensive demands on the education our people needed for the nation’s
development. My greatest personal gain was a deepening understanding
about the importance of education for the nation and for each individual.
Essential to establishing equal rights for every person is the right to study
and secure the opportunity to grow and work toward a future life.

I also understood more deeply a teaching we can perhaps attribute to
Elder Phan Châu Trinh: “Expand the people’s intellectual standard, adjust
their intellectual standard, and support improved living standards.” That
theory still has value today, when the need is even clearer and more
pressing. If we do not develop our nation’s intellectual standard to its
greatest strength, if we do not have adequate intellectual standards for our
schools, then we cannot develop our country. Our people will not be able
to stay abreast of other peoples from across the world.

*

**

In 1984, my husband Khang began his retirement. He had high blood
pressure and was not as healthy as before. For years, he had been an army
officer wrapped up in his work. When he retired, he became active in our

neighborhood and served as general secretary of a model Party cell. He
was much beloved by his comrades. Khang would make careful
preparations for Party cell meetings, which were held at our house. I
would tease him, saying, “You plan more carefully for the local Party cell
than I do for a meeting of the Party Central Committee.” He’d laugh and
say, “Living with a purpose brings me joy.” To support my work, he
shouldered all the family tasks except the cooking. I was very fortunate to
have a life partner, who was constantly empathetic and loving.

At the end of 1984, we had especially good news: Our daughter Mai
married, and a month later, our son Thắng also married. The other two
families were both from the Hà Nội intelligentsia.

*

**

Late 1986 brought an important turning point in our country’s post-war
development. During the years after the war, we had a major socio-
economic crisis. Dogmatic thinking and the extended rationing system
brought endless difficulties. People’s ordinary lives were hard for many
reasons. Food and other necessities were in extremely short supply. The
directives forbidding small markets were supposed to limit speculation
and protect the State’s management system with equal allotments.
However, in reality, those directives hampered the circulation of goods and
led to serious limitations in production. Life became increasingly
stressful, while the authorities became even stricter in forbidding markets.

Some officials left the city for their ancestral villages, where relatives
gave them a little rice. Other officials went on assignment and returned

with a kilo of tea. The economic police “invited” such people in for
questioning and confiscated their rice and tea. My close friends and the
mid and high-level staff at the Ministry of Education received moldy rice
mixed with cassava and cereal for our rations. Each month, an entire
family received only one kilo of meat mixed with fat.

Given the dreadful living situation, it is no wonder that people sought a
way out. Many cooperatives in the countryside implemented “piece work”
so that farmers could do some work only for themselves instead of for the
collective. Leaders in many local areas could no longer stand with their
arms folded. Officials in Long An Province implemented “Put a Price on
Salary.” In reality, they erased the backward and useless rationing system.

It was impossible to silence the word-of-mouth among the populace
about these activities.

Indeed, these initiatives encouraged serious work in preparation for the
VIth Communist Party Congress in late 1986. Comrades in the Party
leadership divided up the local sites to visit. Party General Secretary
Trường Chinh[22] went to Hồ Chí Minh City to see what was happening at
factories. Then he went to Long An, the area that had dared to break the
economic rules and was actually developing economically. The Party
heard what the people said about their need for viable livelihoods.

The Party leadership sent the first draft of its report for the Party
Congress to the lower levels. Lively and sometimes contentious
discussions ensued until the final draft, which became a true report
“looking straight at the truth.” From that base came Renovation, the major
political and economic shift in late 1986 that broke the prolonged jam and

created Việt Nam’s new, vital season of invigorated economic
development.

Here was an achievement of all our people, the entire Party, and a deep
lesson: We must listen to the people. If we stray from the people, we will
face difficulties. If we stay close to the people, then we can build strength.

In 1986, Comrade Nguyễn Văn Linh,[23] the person regarded as the
decisive leader for Renovation, was elected Party general secretary. How
could Nguyễn Văn Linh have seen this situation so early and so clearly?
My guess is this: An important part of Nguyễn Văn Linh’s political work
for many years during both the French War and the American War was as
an underground revolutionary in Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn, a very dynamic city.
During those years, he would have had direct exposure to the city’s
vigorous market economy with its many classes of people. He understood
the people’s wishes and strengths.

I think the lessons of the VIth Party Congress will always remain
timely for our country’s development. People in the international
community know about the Party’s Renovation policy. Indeed,
“Renovation” has become a word used world-wide in reference to Việt
Nam. “Renovation” is rather like the phrase “dienbien-fouet,” which
meant “a telling blow” and was in vogue after the Vietnamese victory over
the French at Điện Biên Phủ.

In the middle of 1987, I moved to the Party’s Central-Level Foreign
Relations Department. Once again, I returned to people-to-people
diplomacy.

[1] Nguyễn Văn Huyên (1907-1975) came from Hà Tây Province in the Northern Region.

He earned a law degree in France and then became the first Vietnamese to earn a Ph.D. from the
Sorbonne. He returned to Hà Nội and taught at Bưởi (now Chu Văn An) School. Nguyễn Văn
Huyên was education minister in the first government, which the first National Assembly
affirmed in March 1946. He held that position until his death. Nguyễn Văn Huyên was a member
of the National Assembly, Sessions II (1960-1964), III (1964-1971), and IV (1971-1975).

[2] Võ Thuần Nho (1914-1994) came from Quảng Bình Province in the Central Region,

north of what later became the DMZ dividing Việt Nam. He was the younger brother of Võ
Nguyên Giáp, commander-in-chief of the People’s Army. Võ Thuần Nho studied at Quốc Học,
the famous school in Huế, and was arrested and imprisoned in October 1930, along with his
brother and other activists. He served as vice minister of education from 1950 to 1980.

[3] Hồ Trúc, like Võ Thuần Nho and Võ Nguyên Giáp, had been a student of the great

literary scholar, Đặng Thai Mai. Hồ Trúc was one of the three deputies to Nguyễn Văn Huyên,
along with Võ Thuần Nho and Lê Liêm (who had been responsible for the Political Department at
the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ).

[4] Nguyễn Cản Toàn (1926-) came from Nghệ An Province in the Central Region but north

of the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam. He was the first Vietnamese to earn a doctorate (science
and mathematics) in the former Soviet Union, served as rector of the Hà Nội Pedagogical
University from 1967 to 1975 and as vice minister of education from 1976 to 1989. He
continued his research in mathematics after his retirement.

[5] Bùi Thanh Khiết (1924-1984) came from Đồng Tháp Province in the Southern Region.

He joined the army in the Southern Region in 1945, went out to the North in 1954 for
regrouping, and then returned to the South in 1964 to fight in the American War. He was deputy
head of the PRG military delegation at Camp David in Tân Sơn Nhất Airport from 1973 to 1975.
He shifted over to education after Việt Nam was re-united and served as vice minister of
education from 1976 to 1981. Bùi Thanh Khiết was a representative at the National Assembly,
Session VI (1976-1981).

[6] Y Ngông Niêk Đam came from the Ê-Đê ethnic minority in Đắc Lắc Province in the

Central Highlands and studied at National School in Quy Nhơn. A medical doctor, he was a
representative in the National Assembly, Session IV (1971-1975). He met Hồ Chí Minh several
times and wrote about this in books for children.

[7] Literacy Program: In 1945, Việt Nam had a literacy rate between 5 and 10 percent. The

day after the Declaration of Independence, President Hồ Chí Minh met with the provisional
government and established six crucial issues (famine, illiteracy, lack of a constitution, alcohol
and opium addiction, unreasonable taxes, and divisions between religious groups). Minister of
Education Vũ Đình Hòe, who was not a communist, had studied the issue of illiteracy. He
quickly presented a plan. The Literacy Campaign began immediately, applying the month-long,
adult-education curriculum that patriotic Vietnamese scholars had designed in 1939. Simple and
clear, the curriculum used rhymes to distinguish the letters and included adult-appropriate
content. Examples include:

The large “I” is like a hand-grip with hooks on the bottom and top.

The small “i” has a stem. Then hop to its dot on top and stop.

A second stage, “Continuous Learning,” added substantive revolutionary material. Cadres
implemented the program throughout northern Việt Nam and areas of central and southern Việt
Nam controlled by the revolutionaries. Local cadres tested citizens entering village markets and
enrolled anyone who could not read. Those with a third-grade education taught second-level
students, who in turn taught the beginners. Within a year and a half, 2.5 million people had
mastered basic literacy skills. However, war prevented the Literacy Campaign’s success in areas
occupied by the French and later by the American-backed Sài Gòn administration. Nevertheless,
in 1975, the Ministry of Education for newly re-united Việt Nam already had an effective
literacy-training model with the revisions that teachers had been adding for thirty years.

[8] Eat like begging monks, live like prisoners: This is a pun. In Vietnamese, “sư phạm”

means “pedagogy,” but “sư” by itself can mean “monk,” while “phạm” by itself can mean
“prisoner.”

[9] “Pilotless soup” is slang for “soup without meat.”

[10] “The Cow’s Tongue”: See Chapter 7, “Total Victory,” footnote 13, p. 238.

[11] Phạm Văn Đồng: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Negotiation in History,” footnote 89, p.

230.

[12] Tố Hữu (1920-2002) was a poet, Politburo member, and first vice chair of the Council

of Ministers (1981-1986). His poem, “Emily, My Child,” is written in the voice of Norman
Morrison, the American pacifist who immolated himself below Secretary of Defense McNamara’s

window at the Pentagon. In Tố Hữu’s poem, Morrison speaks to his eleven-month-old daughter
before passing her to a bystander.

[13] Phạm Minh Hạc (1935-) came from a district that is now part of modern-day Hà Nội.

He studied at the Hà Nội Pedagogical University and then studied for fourteen years in the former
Soviet Union, where he earned a doctorate in science. He was minister of education from 1987 to
1990, when the ministry was restructured into the Ministry of Education and Training, where he
was vice minister until 1996.

[14] Phạm Tất Dong (c. 1933-) grew up in Hải Phòng and flourished in school until the

Japanese invasion in 1940. He was able to continue his studies during the Resistance Against
France. He was sent to China to study trains, but then he was re-assigned (rather against his
youthful wishes) to study pedagogy. Professor Phạm Tất Dong spent many years as the vice
president and general secretary of the Association to Encourage Studies.

[15] Hà Thế Ngữ (1929-) came from Thừa Thiên Province in the Central Region south of

the DMZ, which later divided Việt Nam. He earned his Ph.D. in education.

[16] Phạm Văn Hoàn (1925-1989) came from Hưng Yên Province in the Northern Region

and studied at Hà Nội’s Thăng Long Free School, which had been established by nationalists. He
continued his studies at Chu Văn An School. Phạm Văn Hoàn studied pedagogy in China for five
years and in Moscow for four years.

[17] Lương Ngọc Toản (1935-) came from Thanh Hóa Province in the Northern Region.

After the end of the French War in 1954, he was able to study at the Hà Nội Pedagogical
University. He earned his Ph.D. in biological sciences in Moscow and returned to teach in Vinh
during the hardest time of the American bombing. Lương Ngọc Toản was vice minister of
education for twelve years. He was a member of the National Assembly, Sessions IX (1992-
1997) and X (1997-2002), where he was an outspoken critic of corruption.

[18] Trần Xuân Nhĩ has retired as deputy minister of education. He speaks often on

educational issues.

[19] Ethnic minorities: Việt Nam has fifty-four different ethnic groups, with the Kinh (Việt)

comprising about 85 percent of the population. Each group has its own culture, language, and
oral and/or written literature. Most of the ethnic minorities live in the mountainous north and in
the Central Highlands. During the 1940s, the ethnic-minority Tày and Nùng revolutionaries in the
far north of Việt Nam were crucial in the Việt Minh organization, serving as leaders, participants,

and local organizers. Hồ Chí Minh and Võ Nguyên Giáp both learned the Tày and Nùng
languages. General Võ Nguyên Giáp’s first army unit was formed in late 1944 with thirty-four
troops, of whom only four were ethnic Vietnamese. Many of those initial those Tày and Nùng
troops were generals and high-ranked colonels during the French War and the American War. The
ethnic Black Thái in the Northern Region followed the revolutionaries at Điện Biên Phủ during
the French War, while the ethnic White Thái followed the French, with many of them settling in
France or the United States. During the American War, the US-backed Sài Gòn regime divided
ethnic minorities, with some H’Mông in the Central Highlands working directly for the CIA.
Many H’Mông have settled in the USA. Today, Việt Nam has special educational programs for
ethnic minorities, since they tend to live in remote areas still beset by poverty. Many international
NGOs also concentrate their programs on ethnic-minority areas.

[20] Emulation movement: Over the years, particularly during the American War, leaders

in Việt Nam called attention to individuals who had made great contributions through “emulation
campaigns,” which were designed to encourage others to follow the examples presented.

[21] Đoàn Văn Di (1900-1984) came from Thừa Thiên-Huế in the Central Region south of

the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam in 1954. A surgeon, with others, he established the first all-
Vietnamese medical school during the War of Resistance Against France.

[22] Trường Chinh (1907-1988, given name: Đặng Xuân Khu) came from an educated

family in Nam Định Province in the Northern Region. He joined the Revolutionary Youth in
1927, the same year of its founding in Canton by Hồ Chí Minh, then using the alias Lý Thụy.
Trường Chinh was an early activist in one of the three communist parties that Hồ Chí Minh pulled
together in 1930 to form the Vietnamese Communist Party. Trường Chinh was arrested in 1930
and sentenced to twelve years in prison but released in 1936 during the French Popular Front. He
served as Party general secretary from May 1941 to September 1956, when he resigned as part of
the repair for damages in the Land Reform Campaign but retained his position in the Politburo.
Trường Chinh served again as Party general secretary from July to December 1986, during the
short period between the death of Party Secretary Lê Duẩn and the VIth Party Congress, which
promulgated the policy of Renovation.

[23] Nguyễn Văn Linh: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,”

footnote 14, p. 77.

12.

Returning to People-to-People Diplomacy

In 1987, I returned to my forté of twenty years before.

When I first became active in foreign relations in the 1950s, I worked
in people-to-people diplomacy, representing the Youth Union, the
Women’s Union, and the Asian-African Solidarity Committee in an effort
to encourage people from other countries to support our opposition to US
intervention in the South. Later, I was appointed foreign minister of the
Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of the Republic of South
Việt Nam and shifted to State diplomacy. Now, in 1987, I was returning to
people-to-people diplomacy as deputy director of the Party Foreign
Relations Department and president of the Union of Organizations for
Peace, Solidarity, and Friendship with All Nations (the Union).[1]

Simultaneously, in terms of the State, I served as chair of the National
Assembly’s Foreign Relations Committee.

From personal experience, I expected shifting from State diplomacy to
people-to-people diplomacy would not bring new hurdles but would,
instead, allow greater flexibility and more opportunities for initiative. In
our country, the people as a whole and the State administration have the
same objective. In earlier years, our shared goal had been to oppose the

imperialists in order to secure independence and unification. Now, as I
took on this new position, our goal was to protect and rebuild our nation.
The major difference was the focus of my activities, since people-to-
people diplomacy involved mobilizing people in other nations for our
cause, while State diplomacy focused on building relationships between
governments. In our system, these two lines of diplomatic work support
each other and create the special character of Vietnamese diplomacy in
modern times.

In general, most people wish for peace and freedom and would, if
asked, take a stand on the side of justice. In contrast, the administrations
of capitalist, imperialist countries support the profiting class and the rights
of special-interest cliques. These governments often work in opposition to
the people’s wishes. They play the role of “divide and conquer,” often
leading people away from their own true interest and away from the true
interest of others from different religious or racial groups.

We know that working with ordinary people is very important because
the people do have the power to force their governments to change policy.
We know the French people’s movement against the French War in Việt
Nam and then a similar American people’s movement helped force the
French and US administrations to end their wars of aggression.

I never studied in a school of international relations but instead moved
from working as an organizer of local political activities in Sài Gòn to
mobilizing among the people. Activism in people-to-people diplomacy
was appropriate for me, since the work still involved mobilizing, but the
scope was world-wide. People-to-people diplomacy requires good
arguments and the empathy needed to persuade others, yet you must

remain rigorous in your position. Most important is honesty with
colleagues. I never spoke only about our people’s good qualities and
achievements. I would also note the deficiencies that were readily
apparent. For that reason, when something was not clear to our foreign
friends, they would seek me out.

They would say, “I trust Mme. Bình. I must ask her.”

Women are easily moved by the pain and injustice others endure.
However, youth, workers, intellectuals, and artists— each one of them has
his or her social context. To be effective, our struggle for freedom,
independence, and the right to live had to affect each person emotionally.

The world-wide people’s solidarity movement supporting Việt Nam’s
just cause, particularly during the American War of Aggression, was the
largest international movement ever seen at that time. It strongly affected
the American administrations’ policies. Important to that movement were
contributions from our “people-to-people diplomacy” army, which worked
continuously for several decades. We can say that, during those war years,
our Vietnamese warriors on the diplomatic front left their footprints
everywhere, from the coldest areas near the North Pole to the smallest
islands in the Pacific Ocean. We were present whenever we had an
invitation and the wherewithal to travel.

This was possible because of huge assistance from friendly countries,
the international democratic organizations,[2] and the organizations for
Asian-Pacific solidarity. They supported us in spirit and with funding so
that Vietnamese delegations could take our message to other nations. A
key guideline for many international democratic organizations may seem
surprising: “Those directly active in the struggle receive priority for

assistance.” As a result, during the war, our delegations from the South
and the North did not spend Vietnamese funds for their world-wide
activism.

Since I was returning to a familiar environment, I felt no reservations,
although the situation in our country had changed completely. My
comrades and I in the Union of Organizations for Peace, Solidarity and
Friendship with All Nations concentrated on opening bilateral friendship
associations. Our country had achieved independence and re-unification,
and we had unified our administrative structure. Now, although we were
attentive to State diplomacy, we concentrated on organizing
internationally with our supporters. We sent delegations to visit other
countries, received organizations working in solidarity with Việt Nam, and
attended meetings supporting the other nations that continued to struggle.

In 1982, the Asian-Pacific Solidarity Committee elected me as vice
president, a position I continue to hold. Hence, two or three times a year, I
would take part in meetings, which opposed apartheid in South Africa,
supported Palestine, and opposed the plots to invade Cuba. Our friends in
those settings appreciated hearing our voice, for Việt Nam had become a
symbol and a model for other countries. For many years, the Soviet Union,
the German Democratic Republic, and Eastern European socialist
countries contributed both political and financial support to the
international democratic organizations attending these meetings.

When the Soviet bloc split apart, the international democratic
organizations, including the Committee for Asian-African Solidarity,
faced many difficulties.

People-to-people diplomacy in the Soviet Union and Eastern European
nations was active and inspiring between 1970 and 1980, offering financial
and psychological support for international solidarity. We had portraits of
socialism, perhaps idealized, with its many beautiful details from the
Soviet Union and other socialist countries. These inspired revolutionary
movements in general as well as socialist solidarity movements opposing
imperialism and capitalism.

Looking back at that period, I wonder whether some of those socialist
countries may have made mistakes, which led to their weakening or even
disintegration. Still, we should not deny the achievements of those
socialist societies, which emphasized care for children and the elderly and
where no great distance existed between laborers, officials, and
intellectuals.

In 1985, many Party members in other countries were delighted as
Perestroika began to “restructure” the Soviet Union. They wanted the
Soviet Union to address its shortcomings, develop a long-term base, make
secure changes, and become even stronger. At about that same time, in
1986, we in Việt Nam accepted the huge shift to Renovation, which we
continue to follow today. We looked straight at the truth. We were
determined to dismantle the conservatism that had stymied us.

Our “Renovation” and the Soviet Union’s “Perestroika” occurred at
about the same time, but the situation in the two countries was entirely
different. The causes of the crises were different, the solutions were
different, and the results were different. I do not want to go deeply into the
internal affairs of a friendly country. The leaders of each country are
responsible for answering to their own people. I hope only that the former

Soviet Union and the former socialist countries will remain strong, loyal,
and trusted friends and will develop in ways honoring their people’s
interests and their heroic heritage.

We Vietnamese are delighted and proud of our achievements during
Renovation, but we have also only just overcome a serious socio-economic
crisis. When Renovation began, we faced many challenges to our
independence and sovereignty. Now, we are on the way to regaining
prosperity for our nation and happiness for our people. While on that
route, we needed our friends’ support and the spirit of international
solidarity.

*

**

During my tenure as chair of the National Assembly’s Foreign
Relations Committee, several other comrades and I took part in
conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).[3] At that time, the
“hot” issues in people’s minds about Việt Nam were Cambodia and our
detaining and re-educating officers from the former Sài Gòn
administration. Many people in several countries admired Việt Nam for
generously helping Cambodians escape the Pol Pot regime’s genocide.
These people understood that we had carried out a noble international duty
while simultaneously protecting our own independence and sovereignty,
which we had just achieved after years of sacrifice and hardship.

The Cambodian people faced genocide such as humanity may have
rarely seen. Việt Nam was the only country willing to sacrifice to save its
friend. No one else lent a hand. We were whole-hearted in helping our

Cambodian friends, and we were also determined to fight off what we saw
as another new plot. Hence, we were determined also to protect our
country from Khmer Rouge incursions into southwestern Việt Nam, when
we had only just achieved control over our own borders.

However, some nations misunderstood our magnanimity and the
meaning of our sacrificial struggle. The United States seized this
opportunity to heighten its embargo against Việt Nam. We had to explain
our principles so our friends understood. Afterwards, people and even
governments of Western countries recognized our purpose, saying, “We
did not completely understand Việt Nam. If you friends had not stopped
the genocide in Cambodia, no one knows what would have happened to the
Cambodian people.” For years, we had to clench our teeth and pay a high
price in the international community for having helped our friends in
Cambodia.

I remember one ECOSOC[4] conference in Bangkok, where
representatives from Singapore, Thailand, and other nations accused Việt
Nam of invasion, imperialism, and colonialism. Usually, I would refute
their accusations and repeat that the Vietnamese people’s war had lasted
thirty years. I would explain our reasons for helping the Cambodian
people. This time, some people understood. They said, “It’s so good to be
imperialists and colonialists like Việt Nam!”

Those of a realistic bent could understand why we had detained officers
from the Sài Gòn administration for re-education. They knew that, in
1975, we did not wipe out the Sài Gòn army but, instead, only dispersed it.
Those forces could have recovered. If we had not detained the Sài Gòn
officers, we would have left behind a dangerous military infrastructure for

any new administration. Later, we gradually released the officers. In some
cases, we held officers for a needlessly long time and some treatment
situations were improper, leading to negative outcomes.

At first, some delegations at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
denounced Việt Nam, even though they accepted that our new
administration had not perpetrated a “sea of blood” or “revenge” against
the defeated. However, after many meetings with us as witnesses, this
issue receded.

At that time, progressive people found it disconcerting that some
representatives from former socialist countries in Eastern Europe spoke
out with unsparing accusations against the old “socialist system.” Among
them were doctors and lawyers, who had benefited from the socialist
educational system. Nevertheless, they denounced the socialist system’s
support for education and training. I remember one IPU meeting in
Bulgaria. I was very moved when a demure Japanese woman spoke. She
stated her name, identified herself as a communist, and spoke about the
situation in Japan. She spoke calmly about the mistakes that had occurred
in the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Then she said one
must analyze the historical source of that phenomenon to evaluate it
correctly with understanding and fairness. Her open, self-confident
attitude after several reckless, revengeful speeches encouraged those at the
meeting to regain their balance.

*

**

At that time, an important duty of the National Assembly’s Foreign
Relations Committee was to encourage other countries and US
organizations sympathetic to Việt Nam to demand that the US government
lift its embargo. Many National Assembly delegations and people’s
organizations went to the United States to lobby.

Here, I should also mention Americans working to normalize relations
between the United States and Việt Nam, in particular the Aspen
Institute[5] and John McAuliff (director of the US-Indochina
Reconciliation Project).

At this same time, the Union shifted its political activities to include
economic and cultural cooperation appropriate to Renovation. We
suggested to the government that we establish the People’s Aid
Coordinating Committee (PACCOM) to facilitate assistance from
international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). As far as I know,
from that time during the embargo until now, INGO activities have given
substantial assistance so that impoverished Vietnamese can improve their
livelihoods.

As I have noted, after 1975 we entered a severe socio-economic crisis,
when our country was at its lowest post-war ebb and as some of the other
socialist countries were disintegrating. Many well-intentioned
international friends were worried. They were unable to see how Việt Nam
could develop. I had two close friends—Gabriel and Joyce Kolko. He was
a professor of economics, while she was a historian. They were leftist
Americans, who had published a famous book, Anatomy of a War. Many
Vietnamese said of that book, “Their evaluation of the situation and their
analysis of the American and Vietnamese principles are similar to ours.”

In about 1982, the Kolkos[6] returned to visit Việt Nam. After that, we
invited them many times, but they were too busy. Now, the sad news is that
both Kolkos have passed on. While the Kolkos were active, they sent
letters to some friends in Việt Nam, worrying that Việt Nam would
abandon socialism and become like the Soviet Union and China. They
feared the capitalist class would develop and counter the people’s
interests. Their assessment resembles that of some other good friends.
However, given the complicated new situation, these friends surely cannot
understand all the realities in our country. Meanwhile, other friends who
supported us during the war were despondent because Việt Nam followed
socialism instead of nationalist independence like many nations in the
region.

It’s fair to say that after the war, there were some shifting relationships
and even splits between us and some international friends. Some wanted
us to turn to the right, while others wanted us to bend to the left. This is
easy to understand. Other friends remained calm and objective. They
thought Việt Nam’s choice was the Vietnamese people’s decision. Those
friends only wanted us to have a better life worthy of the sacrifices and
hardships borne during many years of war.

*

**

In 1989, two years after beginning work with the Union, I suffered a
major loss. My husband Khang passed away from illness. At the time, our
son Thắng was studying in Czechoslovakia. It all happened suddenly. On
December 24, a Sunday, Khang and I were talking about our two
grandchildren. That evening, we took Khang, in an emergency run, to 108

Hospital, which had treated him before. I wanted to stay over at the
hospital to look after him, but he insisted I go home to rest. His character
was like that. He would never trouble anyone, not even his wife or
children. The next morning I arrived to visit him before going to a
National Assembly session. He was very weak and could only say, “I’m so
tired!”

The doctor arrived to give him an injection for his heart. With that,
Khang stopped breathing! And so, our plans, simple hopes, deep
attachment, and our thought that, after I retired, we would take better care
of each other and travel as tourists to different sites— all that disappeared
in a flash!

I had many friends and comrades around me. They were endlessly
sympathetic, but I still felt truly alone and bereft. That pain is endless.
Until now, I do not have anyone with whom I can pour out every thought,
confidence, and worry, and from whom I can receive encouragement and
the words of comfort that I need. Life is like that. What can we do?

[1] The Union of Organizations for Peace, Solidarity, and Friendship with All Nations is

now known formally as the Việt Nam Union of Friendship Organizations and is referred to
simply as “VUFO” or “the Union.”

[2] International democratic organizations: Party organizations of professional groups and

Party mass organizations in other socialist countries.

[3] The Inter-Parliamentary Union, established in 1889, now has 166 member parliaments

of sovereign nations and ten associate members.

[4] ECOSOC: The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

[5] The Aspen Institute is a non-profit educational and policy-studies organization based in

Washington, D.C. John McAuliff brought many delegations of college and university professors
to Việt Nam in the late 1980s and early1990s, thereby facilitating subsequent educational
exchanges. He is currently director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, which
focuses on US-Cuban relations. He visited Việt Nam in 2013 for the fortieth anniversary of the
signing of the Paris Agreement.

[6] Gabriel and Joyce Manning Kolko: See Chapter 7, “Total Victory,” footnote 22, p. 250.

13.

The Vice Presidency

After Khang’s death, my friends in Hồ Chí Minh City urged me to
return to “the home I’d left.” I had close friends in Hồ Chí Minh City from
my activist days opposing the French. In addition, I had other close friends
from the former South who had regrouped[1] to the North following the
Geneva Agreements. They had returned home after liberation in 1975 and
urged me also to return.

Two of my brothers—Nguyễn Đông Hà and Nguyễn Đông Hồ—were
also in Hồ Chí Minh City. Hà, the next youngest of my siblings, had been
an activist in the South during the American period. The Sài Gòn
authorities imprisoned him on Côn Đảo Island, where they held him in a
“tiger cage” for nearly seven years. Hà had been separated from our family
for the entire twenty-one years that Việt Nam was divided into South and
North. He was very keen on reuniting our family and particularly wanted
to be close to “Second Older (Eldest) Sister.”[2] We two had so many
shared memories from our childhood. Hà was three years younger. At age
sixteen, he joined the Sài Gòn (revolutionary) Youth Union, where he was
an organizer until his arrest in late 1968.

Hồ, who had earned his master’s degree in mechanical engineering,
returned after liberation from his studies in Russia to work in Hồ Chí
Minh City.

In 1990, my son Thắng went to Hồ Chí Minh City to work and also to
prepare for my return. I had been based in Hà Nội for thirty-six years, ever
since regrouping to the North in 1954. That was a longer time than my
youth and years of activism in the South. I’d come to understand quite a
bit about northern Việt Nam and had many close friends here from my
years working at the Central-Level Women’s Union, the Re-Unification
Committee, the Foreign Ministry, the Party Central-Level External
Relations Committee, and the National Assembly. But, in truth, the
memories of my youth and those years when my parents and siblings were
all together in the South had created my most deeply felt memories, which
I could not forget.

This was my thinking in the beginning of 1992, when Party General
Secretary Đỗ Mười[3] came to see me. He told me the comrades in the
Politburo had decided to nominate me at the next National Assembly
session to serve as the country’s vice president. This news caught me
totally by surprise. My first reaction was to refuse because I was already
sixty-five, well beyond the established and required retirement age of
fifty-five for women. Besides, I already had plans to live in Hồ Chí Minh
City. I thanked Comrade Đỗ Mười, saying, “It’s regrettable that when I
was still young and could have perhaps made a substantial contribution,
you comrades didn’t evaluate me accurately. But now, I’ve reached the age
when I must retire!”

To tell the truth, this was hardly a deliberated response, but instead an
honest exposure of the feelings I had held for a long time. But then I
thought again. I had always worked for our nation and for no other
purpose. In the end, I agreed to accept this new duty and continue working.
My children had no opinions about my decision. “Mother,” they said, “it’s
up to you.” Mai and Thắng had never relied on their parents’ “positions.”
This was true when I served as minister of education and true when I was
vice president.

But Hà was not happy. He spoke half in jest, half in truth. “I want you to
lose this election for the National Assembly,” he said. “That way, you’ll
avoid selection for vice president. Then you can return and live with us!”

But I did not follow Hà’s wish. A few years later, Hà passed on while I
was still working in Hà Nội.

And so, I continued working for ten more years, for two terms as the
country’s vice president.

*

**

I was sixty-five when I accepted the vice presidency. I believe that I
carried out the responsibilities given me both clearly and well. Because of
this, I’ve given some thought to our country’s policy regarding women
officials, because the operative assumption is that women over the age of
fifty-five or sixty absolutely cannot produce good work.

During my tenure, I was fortunate to receive many important
assignments. Yet countless other older and younger women from before

me and after me had excellent qualifications. They were not inferior to the
men, but unfortunately their abilities were not recognized. They earned but
have not received their just place in society.

I believe that, in order to develop any nation, we must create conditions
whereby women can both tend their families and contribute to the nation’s
management. This need is particularly true for a country like Việt Nam,
which has endured so many struggles to create a cultured, contented life
for its people. Establishing a family and tending our children are
extremely important responsibilities. Woman cannot neglect that work, but
the care of children is also society’s responsibility. We need a policy to
assist women with the practicalities of rearing children. Simultaneously,
the State should increase participation of women in the nation’s
management. It is utterly indispensable that we have guidelines and
policies to spread this change across all areas of society.

Until now, our policies regarding officials have not affirmed the
abilities of women. Thus, we have not yet created the conditions needed
for women to advance.

Yet now, today, we are in the twenty-first century. Many activists across
the world are saying, “This is the century of women.” I hope Vietnamese
women will make great advancements. I hope Vietnamese society will
give women a place worthy of their great achievements and potential.

*

**

When I began to serve as vice president, President Lê Đức Anh[4]
assigned me to assist him with tasks in diplomacy, education, health,
patriotic emulation campaigns, and, later, with judicial affairs. In general,
these tasks were not unusual for me.

I often represented the president in receiving diplomatic credentials. I
don’t remember how many newly arrived ambassadors to Việt Nam I met
when they came to present their credentials. Our role in the international
arena had improved substantially by the beginning of 1996. We had
withdrawn all our troops from Cambodia, the United States had lifted its
embargo, and we had normalized our diplomatic relations with the major
powers. Many countries had already established normalized relations with
Việt Nam but did not yet have embassies in Hà Nội. Now, they asked to
open embassies. Other countries had only recently established diplomatic
relations with us. Our foreign policy was to diversify our foreign relations
and increase our multi-lateral relationships. We wanted to be friends with
all nations in support of peace, freedom, and social progress in order to
implement our important mission—building and developing our country.

After the presentation of credentials, I had a chance to talk with the
ambassadors. Since I had been active in diplomatic relations for a
relatively long time, I knew a little about the situation in many countries
and the relationship between those countries and Việt Nam. As a result, my
conversations with ambassadors were both delightful and useful to both
sides.

In addition to my diplomatic activities, I also met with heads of state,
government officials from other countries, and many foreign people’s
delegations of intellectuals, youth, and women. These meetings included

the friends who had supported us during our Resistance Wars Against
France and the United States. The comrade in charge of the Office of the
President counseled me. “Older sister,” he said, “now that you are a
representative of the State, you should not meet with delegations unless
they are from states or governments.” I did not agree. Why should it be
that way? Our diplomacy was revolutionary diplomacy. Our national
tradition is to be true to our friends. I took this point up in a discussion
with President Lê Đức Anh, who completely agreed with me.

Beginning in 1991, the Organization Internationale de la Francophonie
organized meetings of its leaders every two years. I was assigned to attend
these meetings. I went to one conference on Mauritius Island (1993) with
the theme “Unity in Diversity;” to another in Bénin (1995) with the theme
“Dialogue, Cooperation, and Development;” and to the one in Canada
(1999) with the theme “Youth.” Since I knew French, this assignment was
not difficult. Most of the organization’s members were former French
colonies, which were especially sympathetic with Việt Nam, while the two
large countries—France and Canada—also gave Việt Nam special
consideration.

Even though conference representatives arrived with different
objectives, the Organization Internationale de la Francophonie gathered
together more than fifty countries and territories into a forceful
concentration of nations. Everyone spoke French and knew about and
understood French culture. The delegation from Việt Nam used these
meetings to concentrate on cooperative relationships with France and
Canada in economics, culture, and education. On another front, we wanted
to increase solidarity and cooperation with the African members that

shared the goal of protecting national independence and developing our
own countries.

I first met French President Jacques Chirac[5] in the Bénin Republic.
The Vietnamese and the French had developed a special friendship after
our shared history. Uncle Hồ, other Vietnamese leaders, and I all had many
close friends in France. President Chirac received me with great warmth.
On that occasion, I raised this question: Why had France placed Việt Nam
on its fourth-priority level for commerce?

“There’s no reason,” President Chirac said. He immediately called over
his special assistant and said, “Shift Việt Nam to the third level.” With
that, he addressed our request.

After that conversation, I had many chances to meet President Chirac,
who was always solicitous. We in the diplomatic corps knew Mr. Chirac
was a member of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a center-
rightist party. However, his diplomatic principles were strong and
progressive. (He was determined not to join the United States in its War of
Invasion Against Iraq.) President Chirac had a sympathetic attitude toward
Việt Nam. Some people said President Chirac’s response to Việt Nam was
better than that of another country’s president, whose party was regarded
as “leftist.”

*

**

In 1994, I visited West Africa, particularly the Francophone countries
that I had visited during our Resistance War Against the United States. At

the request of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I went to Algeria, Mali,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal to improve on our traditional
solidarity. These countries had developed considerably compared with
twenty years before, but not as much as Asian countries. In general, they
still faced major difficulties, in particular, food shortages. Perhaps one can
say they faced the additional challenges that had appeared with
globalization.

These friends admired Việt Nam for our victory over major imperialist
nations and our achievements in development. Our delegation included
Minister of Health Nguyễn Trọng Nhân,[6] Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs Nguyễn Dy Niên,[7] and Comrade Bình, deputy general director of
the Food Company of the North. Our visits were favorable since I had
personally made the acquaintance of these countries’ presidents and prime
ministers when they were foreign ministers. We were received with high
honors wherever we went. The presidents of Algeria, Guinea, and Mali had
their own airplanes and provided us with travel to our next destination.

After this trip, while en route from Senegal to Paris, I had a delightful
experience. I sat next to Mr. Jacques Diouf,[8] a Senegalese, who was
director of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
We discussed the world food situation. Mr. Diouf was very direct, asking
me, “How is it that not long ago Việt Nam was importing food but is now a
major exporter of rice?” We discussed many ideas about the difficulties
African countries faced in agricultural production. In the end, I told the
FAO director that Việt Nam wanted to help its friends, but we were still
too poor to send agricultural advisors to other countries.

We tossed this around and came to an important idea—a tripartite
cooperation, where Việt Nam would contribute the advisors, FAO would
provide the major financial assistance for the advisors, and the host
country would cover the advisors’ on-site living expenses. We agreed the
cooperation would begin with Senegal.

I returned home, and a month later, a Senegalese agricultural delegation
arrived to discuss plans with our Ministry of Agriculture. The two sides
quickly settled everything except the entangling question of salaries for
the Vietnamese advisors. Several ministries, including the Finance
Ministry and the Ministry of Labor, War Invalids, and Social Affairs held
that since these were international consultants, their salaries should be
high.[9] However, in reality, at that time, we had only a few credentialed
agricultural experts; most of the consultants we could send were only mid-
level technicians. In addition, Mr. Diouf and I had envisioned a
cooperative project in a spirit of solidarity and mutual assistance.

The prime minister of Senegal telephoned, asking me to intervene. I
phoned directly to Prime Minister Võ Văn Kiệt.[10] He agreed
immediately with my point of view and directed Deputy Prime Minister
Nguyễn Công Tạn[11] to solve the problem of salaries for Vietnamese
agricultural advisors in Senegal. I was delighted to find my initiative
backed by a governmental policy, for this project had value not only for
our friends but also for us. Further, we had precisely followed a political
route by implementing “South-South” cooperation according to the
orientation of the Non-Aligned Movement. Two years after beginning the
cooperation, the Senegalese government was delighted because its rice
production had increased three to four times. Hearing this news, many

other countries raised with Việt Nam the issue of agricultural cooperation
using the Senegalese model.

*

**

The major diplomatic event I remember most clearly from that time
was the seventh meeting of the Organization Internationale de la
Francophonie in 1997 in Hà Nội. The Francophone member nations took
turns hosting the conference. We were reluctant when it was Việt Nam’s
turn because this would be our first time hosting a high-level conference.
(Participants would all be heads of state.) We knew we would have trouble
with the basics, yet refusing would bring a loss of prestige. And so, in
1995, we joined hands and began to prepare.

Most important, we needed a large meeting hall. With assistance from
France and Canada, by the beginning of 1997, we had built a conference
center at 11 Lê Hồng Phong Street, Hà Nội. At that time, this was the city’s
most spacious meeting hall with suitable accommodations. Other pressing
arrangements included preparing conference documents, lodging, meals,
and transporting fifty heads of state. The organizing committee headed by
Deputy Prime Minister Nguyễn Khánh[12] saw that every detail was in
place according to plan by the opening day of the meeting.

By this time, Comrade Lê Đức Anh was no longer president. Comrade
Trần Đức Lương[13] had succeeded him.

We held the conference opening ceremony at the Soviet Friendship
Palace and the working sessions at 11 Lê Hồng Phong.

The opening ceremony was a solemn affair. The organizing committee
presented its formal welcome and announced the reason for the meeting.
Then we had a small performance to welcome the representatives. Twenty
children—ten boys and ten girls between the ages of ten and twelve—
came on stage. Dressed in Vietnamese ceremonial robes, they folded their
arms across their chests and bowed in the traditional way that Vietnamese
children greet their elders. Then the children sang in French, “We children
dream of the day…” They were so endearing. The distinguished heads of
state were delighted.

After that, President Trần Đức Lương gave his opening speech in
French. Then President Chirac replied on behalf of the guests.

Fifty-five state representatives, with most of them presidents or prime
ministers, participated in the summit. Many heads of state were visiting
Việt Nam for the first time. Several representatives said, “I’ve heard so
much about Việt Nam. I’ve wanted to visit and learn about the people and
country so famous for bravery!”

I was assigned to preside at the meetings since Việt Nam was the
conference host. Comrade Trịnh Đức Dụ,[14] Việt Nam’s representative to
the executive committee of the Organization Internationale de la
Francophonie, returned from Paris to assist me.

The conference faced several difficult issues, including the choice of
the secretary general to succeed Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,[15] who had
completed two terms. That question was settled outside in the corridors.
The greatest challenge in chairing the meeting was managing the time. In
the summits that I had attended, the chair was usually light-handed,

especially when the “large countries” had the floor. As a result, the smaller
countries wasted many hours waiting for their turns to speak. Right from
the start, I diplomatically encouraged our distinguished guests to honor
our program and allotted work times. My attitude was mild and friendly
but created additional respect and consideration from the guests for the
chair.

The meals outside the conference hall were gracious, and travel to sites
went smoothly. The reception at the Presidential Palace and the
performance in Hà Nội’s Municipal Theater both created a good
impression. The delegates appreciated Việt Nam’s national culture and our
hospitality. The success of the Hà Nội summit of the Organization
Internationale de la Francophonie helped many countries—including those
visiting Việt Nam for the first time—understand more about our nation.
They saw that Việt Nam, a country with a tradition of resisting powerful
foreign aggressors, was developing quickly. They perceived that Việt Nam
had a policy of friendship, cooperation, and openness. Also, they
experienced our unique, long-standing culture. Many foreign journalists
covering the summit published articles and relayed broadcasts about Việt
Nam. Perhaps we can say that the seventh summit contributed decisively
to lifting Việt Nam’s status in the international arena.

At this meeting, Senegalese President Abdou Diouf thanked our leaders
for assistance with great results in agricultural development. The president
of Mali made known his wish for assistance. Following this meeting,
French President Chirac increased his close relationship with Việt Nam.
Many times, when on assignment to France, I would arrange to meet
President Chirac for a courtesy visit.

He always received me with great warmth.

*

**

Within the Politburo, President Lê Đức Anh was assigned responsibility
for the judicial system. At that time, public opinion was expressing
dissatisfaction with our courts and jails. In 1995, the president asked me to
represent him in examining and evaluating our legal offices in the
localities.

In truth, only after we’d had peace for some years did our leaders begin
to concentrate on our legal system. Our Ministry of Justice had been
reorganized in 1980. In comparison with the public-security system, we
had relatively few court officials, few staff in investigative bureaus, and
few lawyers. Furthermore, staff educational levels were low. Thus, the
short-comings were easy to understand.

If we wanted to develop a strong country and build a state governed by
the rule of law, then examination and evaluation of our current justice
system was a serious and necessary step.

My participation in many National Assembly sessions and now my role
as vice president helped me understand the judicial system’s importance.
A democratic state must be managed through a comprehensive, equitable
justice system. Another important issue was that the people needed to
understand their rights and responsibilities within the justice system. That
step would require a long-term educational and mobilization process.

To implement the major appraisal of the judicial system that President
Lê Đức Anh had suggested, I put together a delegation composed of the
president’s dedicated judicial staff: Comrade Phạm Hưng,[16] former
chief justice of the Supreme Court; the deputy ministers from the Ministry
of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice, and the People’s Procuracy; as
well as several others. We decided to work in nine provinces from north to
south. To insure adequate participation from the judicial system itself, we
would listen to the local authorities and justice officials’ reports. We
would then discuss and evaluate the unsettled local issues while we were
on site.

We saw clearly that, in general, the justice-system offices were dismal.
The courts at the local levels were shabby, lacking the commanding
appearance appropriate for judicial offices representing the Socialist
Republic of Việt Nam. The provincial and district jails were generally
abysmal. Further, the professional level of officials required great
attention. In many areas, the level was low and inconsistent. In particular,
there were too many emergency police arrests and the redress and
correction of cases in the courts at all levels had many shortcomings.
Further, coordination between the justice system offices, the police, the
People’s Procuracy, and the courts was inadequate, particularly in the
south of the country.

After reviewing nine provinces, I presented a report to the president
about our country’s judicial activities and recommended that we revamp
our judicial system as soon as possible. I believe that the Party and the
State’s subsequent judicial guidelines contained some of our contributions.

During the inspection tour, we made recommendations for solving
some issues on site. We found one situation at the Ministry of Public
Security’s jail in Hà Nội, where a youth from outside the city had been
sentenced to death but held in custody for six years without the sentence
being carried out. The defendant and his family insisted on his innocence.
Their appeal to a higher court had gone this way and that without resolving
the case. We recommended that if there were not sufficient evidence of a
capital crime, then the court should reduce the sentence. The defendant
should receive treatment like other prisoners. Later, I learned that the
city’s court reviewed the case, with its decision following our suggestions.

In Hồ Chí Minh City, we visited a jail in Củ Chi District and met
women who had been arrested for “gambling.” These women had made
their living through engaging in petty trade by buying goods, which they
resold from baskets hanging from their shoulder poles. Some of these
detainees had small children. We met with the local comrades and
suggested they give the women a warning, perhaps fine them, and release
them.

Whenever we went to a jail, I would ask to meet the oldest prisoner and
the youngest, the women prisoners, and those who had the highest
education. In each case, I wanted to learn the reasons for their arrests. I
remember when we went to Z.30 (Xuân Mộc), and I asked if any detainees
had a high level of education. The guards told me one prisoner had a
doctorate. I asked to meet this detainee, whose name was Mr. Nguyễn T.

Older Brother T. had completed his doctoral research in the Soviet
Union. He returned home to Việt Nam because the situation in the Soviet
Union at that time “was not favorable.” While he waited for a work

assignment, his office suggested he take responsibility for a “make-a-
living enterprise” to help his colleagues, who faced extreme economic
difficulties. Older Brother T. had never been a businessman. With our
tortuous economic system at that time, it was easy to understand that his
enterprise failed. He was blamed for the failure. I felt very uncomfortable
when I heard this. I asked Older Brother T. whether he had anything to say.
He answered calmly, “I made a mistake. I must bear the consequences.”
He had been held in prison for nearly five years.

After the inspection stage, we instituted a second stage of granting
reprieves. I suggested that the Amnesty Council look again at Older
Brother T.’s case. He received an early reprieve. Truly, it is a regretful
practice to treat our officials that way and not help them do their work
successfully.

During the investigation in Bà Rịa – Vũng Tàu Province, we heard
reports about complicated cases. The port in this province had our largest
oil and gas installations, which had brought prosperity. As a result, many
Vietnamese and foreigners poured in, looking for economic opportunities.
The situation was quite complicated, yet our visit was very short. We had
little time to go deeply into issues and understand details. I worried about
this. When we returned to Hà Nội, Comrade Phạm Hưng and I asked the
Supreme People’s Procuracy to send us several files. These provided the
basis for close, concrete guidance.

Among the cases was the issue of T.V.B., an overseas Vietnamese,
whose home area was Sóc Trăng Province. He had returned from Holland
to invest in Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu’s sea products and environmental tourism.
Even though the local leaders disagreed about his transgressions, the

provincial legal office imposed its judgment. T.V.B.’s family sent appeals
to many central-level offices. I had heard about this case. After checking, I
found that the Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu authorities’ methodology did not follow
the Party and State’s policies, particularly regarding overseas Vietnamese,
whom we had urged to return and help rebuild the country.

At that time, we were still working out our legal system. Our own
citizens’ engagement with our legal system met difficulties, but it was
even more problematic for overseas Vietnamese. I felt that if returning
overseas Vietnamese had not done anything terribly wrong or dangerous,
then we should warn them and guide them toward better behavior.
However, the police offices, the People’s Procuracy, and the Supreme
Court did not accept my suggestions. Many Vietnamese journalists
disagreed with the legal decisions regarding T.V.B.’s case and covered his
story. There was also a great deal of public discussion among Vietnamese
in foreign countries. Comrade Phạm Hưng, who was then the legal advisor
to President Trần Đức Lương, and I tried to explain this point to the Party
leaders but to no avail.

In the end, I decided I must use my rights as a National Assembly
representative. During a session in May 1998, I stood up and raised the
issue with the chief justice of the Supreme Court, requesting that the
National Assembly Standing Committee address the matter. Comrade
Nông Đức Mạnh,[17] then the president of the National Assembly,
recorded my request. After that, he assigned the Legal Affairs Committee
to supervise the case, but the committee did not address the case seriously.
It did not clarify the issues, instead causing prolongation and further
complications.

I think I took the correct position in terms of conscience and
responsibility. Many people agreed with my attitude, yet others felt
differently and asked, “Why do you champion T.V.B.? Have you ever met
him?”

I answered them directly, “No, I have never met him. Still, we must
apply the law correctly according to the person and the offense!” Later, I
learned that the government finally reviewed this case. At that point,
everyone said, “If earlier we’d listened to Older Sister Bình, then we
wouldn’t have this mess!”

I finished my first term as vice president and was elected to continue
for a second term.

*

**

During this time, my family experienced a great sorrow. After my
younger brother Hà returned from Côn Đảo Prison Island, he set about
moving and restoring the altar to Elder Phan Châu Trinh. He chose a place
closer to the site where Elder Phan had been buried sixty years before. The
new site was more spacious and more appropriate for honoring a great
patriot. After finishing this work, Hà fell ill. Comrades in the health sector
did their best but couldn’t save Hà from serious illness. I was bereft
because Hà and I never did have the chance to live near each other, as we
had when we were young. I had never been able to take him to visit the
revolutionary bases and resistance sites where he had worked so that he
could see once again his close friends from those days.

However, at that time, I did achieve something that would have
delighted my husband, were he still alive. I was able to help our son,
Thắng, do graduate studies overseas for two years. That study provided
Thắng with useful knowledge and experience for his later work. Some
years before, when I was at the Paris Conference, Thắng was chosen to
study in the Soviet Union or the German Democratic Republic. Khang and
I discussed this and decided Thắng should not go. Instead, we reasoned, he
should study at home for “more-rooted training.” We sent him to the Vĩnh
Yên Military University.

Thắng graduated and wanted to continue his studies overseas, but
securing a place was difficult. “My friends can easily continue their study
overseas,” he said, “because they already have degrees from abroad, but I
studied at home…” I heard this as blame even though Thắng had never
complained. He worked for many years here and there in mechanical-
engineering jobs. Finally, he was able to study overseas. He improved his
educational level and shifted into economics and finance, the new
branches of knowledge that our society badly needed. I was delighted we
could repair part of a rigid decision my husband and I had made years
before.

During my second term as vice president, I had more experience. At the
direction of President Trần Đức Lương, who had succeeded Lê Đức Anh, I
continued to concentrate on education, social affairs, and emulation
awards and commendations.

In 2001, I handled a matter I can never forget. One day, I was on my
way to a Central-Level Party meeting, to which I had been invited as a
special guest, when I ran into an elderly man with white hair. I did not

recognize him initially but then realized he was a doctor I’d known forty
years before. He had brought a farmer to see me. When I heard the
farmer’s story, I understood immediately why this friend from years
before had sought me out.

In Bến Tre Province, a youth named Nguyễn Văn M., the son of Nguyễn
Văn Út (the farmer who had come to see me), was accused of raping and
killing a woman. The court sentenced the young man to death and the
execution was to be carried out in four days. Nguyễn Văn M.’s family and
friends held that he’d been the victim of injustice, so they had gone hither
and yon, seeking intervention.

I was not yet clear about the case, but I knew my friend, the doctor, to
be honest and careful. We had known each other when he was a member of
the State Committee on Forensic Medicine. I also knew that if the accused
were executed, there would be no opportunity for redress. As soon as I
arrived at the Central-Level Party meeting, I sought out Nông Đức Mạnh,
who by then was Party general secretary.[18] I explained the situation and
presented Nguyễn Văn Út’s petition to delay execution and re-examine the
case. Hearing my proposal, Comrade Nông Đức Mạnh agreed and asked
the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who was present at the meeting, to
send an urgent directive to the Bến Tre Provincial Court. The intervention
prevented the execution.

After that, I suggested that the courts and legal offices at both the
central level and the locality review the case. From my point of view, if
there were insufficient evidence or if the evidence had been misplaced,
then the sentence should be revoked or lessened. Also, we needed to open
ways for elderly and young defendants. I was pleased because I had

followed my conscience and had helped an impoverished farming family
overcome a disaster. After that incident, I continued to remind comrades in
the locality to scrutinize this case and resolve it exactly according to the
law.

In my role as vice president, I took situations regarding officials’
misbehavior to the responsible offices, but I was also rigorous about the
good comrades who had been falsely accused. Not all my interventions
were effective, but I did try my best to be responsible.

During my ten years as vice president, I was also concerned with
culture and social affairs. Comrade Vũ Dũng,[19] deputy director of the
Office of the President and now a deputy foreign minister, and I raised
with President Lê Đức Anh and the Politburo the issue of restoring
emulation commendations and awards, which had fallen into abeyance.
Many people said that competition in the market economy created
emulation. However, we thought differently. We felt we needed emulation
not only to affirm competition for profit but also for patriotism and
solidarity. We needed to highlight situations of mutual progress to
encourage us to overcome difficulties for each person, regardless of
wealth or status. We felt this point was needed in the management of our
society.

The Politburo instituted Directive 35 regarding emulation
commendations and awards. After a short time, a patriotic emulation
movement spread everywhere. Prime Minister Phan Văn Khải[20] chaired
the Central-Level Council on Emulation Commemorations and Awards,
while I served as first deputy chair. In 2000, we organized the first
National Emulation Congress, which was lively and successful. I was

delighted to find many worthy sisters among the labor heroes from
Renovation, including Captain Nguyễn Xuân Hồng, perhaps the only
woman commanding a ship in Việt Nam. During the fierce typhoon of
1998, Ms. Hồng braved tall waves to rescue dozens of fishermen.

Another example was Sister Trần Thị Đường, director of Phong Phú
Textile Company, one of our most prosperous textile companies. And then
there was Trần Ngọc Sương, director of the Sông Hậu Farm in Cần Thơ.
She had followed her father as a labor hero by establishing a large State
Farm, which increased the living standards of several thousand farming
families. I can say that the women chosen for emulation were truly skilled
and as deserving as the men.

Recently, some of the leaders of the Sông Hậu Farm, including Ms.
Sương, were accused of financial mismanagement. I heard many
contradictory views in the public discussion. I am not clear about the
details, but I believe that with economic activities during the difficult
times under our old system, we assigned people tasks but did not provide
the assistance and constant monitoring necessary to flag problems early.
Then when the situation became serious, we would sue, pass a cold verdict
to solve a situation, and condemn people. But where was our
responsibility? Were such actions reasonable and appropriate? In truth, I
did not agree. I believe truth will eventually win.

In 1994, the Party and State issued a directive honoring Heroic
Vietnamese Mothers. This step, which President Lê Đức Anh proposed,
received widespread support, although some people said the idea was long
overdue. After twenty years, many mothers worthy of recognition had
passed on. Nevertheless, this directive brought deep meaning, pride, and

comfort to thousands of families. Two localities with many Heroic
Mothers were Quảng Nam Province, my ancestral home, and Củ Chi
District,[21] the “land of steel” in Hồ Chí Minh City. The responsible
authorities were the Ministry of Defense; the Ministry of Labor, War
Invalids, and Social Affairs; and the Central-Level Council on Emulation
Commemorations and Awards.

As representative for the president, I received many Heroic Mothers,
most of whom were impoverished and lonely. Mother Nguyễn Thị Thứ
from Điện Bàn, Quảng Nam Province had lost her husband and ten
children and grandchildren. This was also the ancestral home of Nguyễn
Văn Trỗi[22] and Trần Thị Lý.[23] Perhaps across the world few families
have experienced so great a loss. When I heard about the lives of these
mothers, I felt even more strongly about this point: “In war, women
endure the greatest sacrifice!”

*

**

I also reserved time to work on the issue of children, particularly those
with difficulties and handicaps. The Law of Care, Education, and
Protection of Children went into effect in 1991, along with the decision to
establish the Child Protection Fund to mobilize the people’s contributions
along with State assistance for this important cause. I was invited to serve
as the Fund’s president. Several retired ministers and deputy ministers
(including Comrades Lê Xuân Trinh, Trần Thị Thanh Thanh, Lê Huy Côn,
and others) served on the Fund’s council.

After fifteen years, the Fund continues to grow in strength and has
brought assistance to thousands of unfortunate children with disabilities
(including victims of Agent Orange) through programs, such as “A
Thousand Smiles,” “A Childish Twinkle,” “Limb Surgery,” and more
recently, “Young Hearts.” Truly, nothing could give me greater joy and
happiness than work, albeit small, that “saves lives.”

I will always remember visiting a surgical program in Hồ Chí Minh
City for children who had been blind from birth. A youngster about twelve
years old came up and hugged me, saying, “Grandmother, Grandmother, I
beg you. Help my blind younger sister to have surgery like me.” We in our
delegation all had tears in our eyes.

When we arrived at the Ophthalmology Hospital in Đà Nẵng, we met a
mother hugging her two-year-old, who’d just had surgery in one eye for a
birth-defect cataract. The child was awaiting surgery on the other eye. The
mother wept, saying, “For the first time, my child has seen her mother.”
My heart leapt with joy.

I feel special affection and sympathy for children with cleft palates.
Some youngsters of thirteen or fourteen had always remained inside their
houses, refusing to go out because of awkwardness and self-pity. I was
delighted when they could have surgery through “A Thousand Smiles.”
Indeed, smiles appeared on the children’s faces. Yet after surgery, some
children still spoke with lisps and faced cruel teasing from schoolmates.
We found an expert and set up a project, “Addressing Pronunciation.”
Although we were not 100 percent successful, we did help many children
have a more normal life.

The program for heart surgery came about later because the surgery
was sophisticated and expensive. For many reasons, the number of
children born with heart defects is rather high. Without early intervention,
it is difficult for those children to live. We did everything we could in that
difficult work.

My greatest sorrow, affection, and sympathy are for children affected
by Agent Orange. Nearly half of them live with severe handicaps, such as
brain damage and leg paralysis, which cannot be treated. It rends my heart
when I see the mothers who have been holding handicapped children in
their arms for thirty years. These mothers and fathers usually come from
poor families. Surely across the world there is no place where people must
bear such pain!

In 1998, we organized the Fund for Assistance to Victims of Agent
Orange, which belonged to the Vietnamese Red Cross. I was introduced to
serve as honorary chair. The director was Dr. Lê Cao Đài,[24] whom one
could call a hero. He had been courageous in his service in the South
during the American War. After the war, he dedicated himself to Agent
Orange victims. And then in the end, he passed on, possibly because of the
effects of Agent Orange.

In February 2002, I took part in the United Nations conference to report
on Việt Nam’s ten years of implementing the Convention on the Rights of
the Child.

This was my second visit to the United States. In 1991, I had visited the
States as president of the Việt Nam Union of Peace, Friendship, and
Solidarity Organizations to join a conference of American NGOs working
in Việt Nam. That conference of peoples’ organizations was very favorable

for us. During our trip, we stayed in the homes of American families, who
had supported Việt Nam during the war. American veterans escorted us
wherever we went. We visited several residential areas of American
veterans in remote, rural areas of California. These veterans had been
demobilized long before, but their employment status was insecure, their
incomes marginal, and their housing minimal. Nevertheless, when we
arrived, these families gathered together and greeted us with great warmth.

My second visit to the United States was as Việt Nam’s vice president.
By then, we had fully normalized diplomatic relations. Many countries
supported our report on implementing the Convention on the Rights of the
Child. They were particularly interested in our organizational model,
because our Committee for Care, Education, and Protection of Children
linked various ministries and branches as appropriate to the State’s
national goals. The other delegations found our model an interesting
experiment with good results. It is a great loss that we did not keep this
model but, instead, reorganized and divided the issue of children among
various ministries. We have lost the concentration. The current results do
not equal earlier outcomes.

Our delegation visited Washington and met with a State Department
representative. We also met again American friends from the anti-war
movement, including Merle Ratner. In 1991, Merle had organized a
meeting of nearly three hundred people from many localities. Some
traveled a distance of six hundred kilometers. The two bodyguards who
had accompanied our delegation stood on either side of the door as we
entered the meeting hall. Merle led a dozen people, who greeted us in
song. We caught the words as they repeated the chorus:

Live like her, Madame Bình

Dare to struggle, dare to win

Điện Biên Phủ will come again

Live like her, Madame Bình.

Spirit of Việt Nam

Stronger than US bombs

Spirit of Việt Nam

Stronger than US bombs.

Are any Vietnamese lyrics more beautiful? Our dear American friends,
whose hair was turning white, remained as deeply committed and
sympathetic with Việt Nam as in the old days.

At that time, in 1991, we were still mobilizing to end the US embargo
and normalize diplomatic relations between the United States and Việt
Nam. When I made my request, the entire meeting hall was astir. Everyone
shouted, “Now! Now!!” Many women came up to take my hands and
embrace me.

In July 2002, I finished my second term as vice president in a favorable
light. I felt I had completed my assigned tasks. Before that, in April 2002,
I had been honored with the Hồ Chí Minh Medal.[25] I am grateful to the
comrades who gave good reviews of my contributions and who honored
and encouraged me with this very special award.

[1] Regrouping: See Chapter 3, “I’m a Happy Person,” footnote 3, p. 54.

[2] Second Older Sister: In the South, children are named by birth order, starting with

“Second.” Thus, “Chị Hai”—literally “Second Older Sister” is Nguyễn Thị Bình’s family
nickname.

[3] Đỗ Mười (1917-, given name: Nguyễn Duy Cống) came from an area, which is now part

of Hà Nội. He was a worker in Hải Phòng, joined the Party in 1939, was arrested in 1941, and
sentenced to ten years in Hỏa Lò Prison, one of the five major French prisons for political
detainees. (During the American War, Hỏa Lò housed captured American bomber pilots and was
known as the “Hanoi Hilton.”) Đỗ Mười was released during the August 1945 Revolution and
became Party secretary for Hà Đông Province, now part of Hà Nội. He held various
administrative positions in internal trade and construction. In 1976, he was elected to the Party
Central Committee and as an alternate to the Politburo. He was elected as a full member of the
Politburo for the next term, which began in 1981. Đỗ Mười was Party general secretary (the top
leadership position in Việt Nam) from 1991 to 1997.

[4] Lê Đức Anh (1920-, a.k.a. Sáu Nam – “Sixth South”) came from Thừa Thiên-Huế in the

Central Region south of the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam in 1954. He worked on a rubber
plantation west of Sài Gòn in 1944, joined the army in 1945, and fought the French in the
Southern Region until 1954, when he regrouped to the North. Lê Đức Anh held various positions
in the army’s Combat Operations Department until 1964, when he returned to the South to serve
as deputy commander and chief-of-staff for the Liberation Army of the South. After the
American War, he held various commands until he became army chief-of-staff in 1986 and
minister of defense in 1991. In 1992, the National Assembly affirmed him as president, a position
he held for one term, until 1997, when he retired.

[5] Jacques Chirac (1932-) earned a degree in political science and held a number of civil-

service positions. He was French prime minister from 1974 to 1976 and from 1986 to 1988.
Jacques Chirac was president of France from 1995 to 2007.

[6] Nguyễn Trọng Nhân (1930-), a medical doctor, was director of the Central-Level Eye

Institute, minister of health from 1992 to 1995, a member of the National Assembly, Session X
(1997-2002), and president of the Vietnamese Red Cross (1988-2003). He had resigned part way
through tenure as minister of health because of frustration with the low priority given to health
for ordinary people in Việt Nam during more modern times.

[7] Nguyễn Dy Niên (1935-) came from Thanh Hóa Province in the Northern Region, joined

the Party in 1965, and earned his master’s degree in Indian literature. He held many positions in
the Foreign Ministry between 1954 and 2006, including vice foreign minister from 1987 to 2000.
Nguyễn Dy Niên was foreign minister from 2000 until his retirement in 2006.

[8] Jacques Diouf (1936-) finished high school in Senegal and then went to France, where

he earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in agricultural science and his doctorate at the
Sorbonne in social sciences. From a young age, he held many positions at agricultural research
institutes and then was secretary of state for agriculture and development in Senegal. Jacques
Diouf was Senegal’s ambassador to the United Nations from 1991 to 1993 before becoming
director of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) from 1994 to 2011.

[9] Salaries: At that time, a large percentage of such salaries went to the office or ministry

providing the consultant.

[10] Võ Văn Kiệt (1922-2008, given name: Phan Văn Hòa, a.k.a. Sáu Dân – “Sixth

Citizen”) came from Vĩnh Long Province in the Southern Region. He joined the Revolution when
he was sixteen and joined the Party in 1939. Võ Văn Kiệt was a Party organizer and leader in the
Southern Region and particularly in Sài Gòn during both the French War and the American War.
During the Hồ Chí Minh Campaign to Liberate Sài Gòn, Võ Văn Kiệt was the Party secretary of
the Party Special Military Committee for Sài Gòn. Subsequently, he was president of the Hồ Chí
Minh City People’s Committee. Võ Văn Kiệt served as prime minister from 1991 to 1997 and is
often credited with substantive advances in Renovation, the move toward a market economy.

[11] Nguyễn Công Tạn (1935-2014) came from Thái Bình Province in the Northern

Region, received his degree in agricultural science and worked for the most part in that sector. He
had served as vice minister of agriculture and then as minister of agriculture from 1987 until
1997, when he became vice prime minister, a position he held until he retired in 2002.

[12] Nguyễn Khánh (1928-) was born in what is now a district of Hà Nội. His father was a

patriot, whom the French arrested and sent to Côn Đảo Prison Island when Nguyễn Khánh was a
year old. Nguyễn Khánh was vice prime minister from 1987 to 1997.

[13] Trần Đức Lương (1937-) came from Quảng Ngãi Province in the Central Region south

of the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam. In 1954, he regrouped to the North, where he earned an
advanced degree in geology from the University of Mining and Geology. Trần Đức Lương held
many positions in both geology and Party affairs until 1987, when he was appointed vice prime
minister, a post he held until 1997. He then served two terms as president, from 1997 to 2006.