On 23 September 2024, Columbia University (CU) hosted the address of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam (CPV) and State President, Tô Lâm. The address focused on Vietnam‘s increasingly global presence and partnerships with the United States(See here for a Transcript of the address.) Asia News Network published an extensive summary of key themes in Lâm’s speech.

As the free world becomes uneasy with China‘s economic dominance and its restrictive approach to human rightsVietnam has become an attractive and eligible partner in economic partnerships. In March 2024, the Vietnam-Japan Joint Initiative in a New Era marked stronger bilateral investment ties and development between the two countries.

Vietnam and Japan’s economic cooperation is evident in Japan’s creation of favorable conditions for Vietnamese interns (especially in the semiconductor industry). Further examples include the opening of Vietnam tech giant CMC Corporation‘s third Japan-based officeamong other activities.

Diplomatic Rhetoric and Free Speech

A certain level of diplomatic doublespeak and sugar (or gold?) coating is expected from all politicians at mass addresses like the one at CU. Other journalists such as Elaine Pearson (Al Jazeera) and the platform Investigative Journalism Reportika have detailed human rights missteps that occurred under Lâm’s authority.

Thus, I will not comb his speech and pick out hypocritical statements. Instead, I will consider responses to the controversial event, concluding that CU was right to model open dialogue through their choice to platform him against cancellation pressure.

Silence for Lâm, Uproar for Stock

The first thing that struck me, at least from the recording and surrounding coverage, is the absence of noise from the audience. You cannot hear people outside screaming or even groaning during his references to Vietnam’s commitment to “democracy,” “open dialogue,” and “human rights.” This surprise at the presence of basic politeness may seem farcical.

However, consider the fuss surrounding gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock during and in the lead-up to her address at the Oxford Union. She needed to be escorted by three security guards, and in the recording, screaming protesters outside were audible throughout the event. One transgender activist wearing a shirt that read “no more dead trans kids” glued their hands to the floor inside the Oxford Union.

Compared to Stock, recent tensions between Vietnam and the US should make Lâm a far more controversial guest. Washington refused to recognize Vietnam’s status as a market economy due to Hanoi’s tendency to interfere with economic affairs such as trade, pricing, and currency. Then, the US-backed institution Fulbright University Vietnam suffered social media attacks due to accusations of fomenting a “color” revolution.”

Finally, PEN America has been a longstanding critic of Vietnam for being among the top jailers of journalists. It spearheaded advocacy efforts for the releases of Phạm Đoan Trang, Nguyễn Vũ Bình, and others.

Protests and pushbacks

Indeed, CU’s event with Lâm faced cancellation pressure. Singer and political activist Mai Khôi said she would “feel shame” and protest non-stop if she were a CU student. “Does Columbia want their students to follow Tô Lâm’s authoritarian leadership path?” she asked.

Conservative youth organization Young America’s Foundation called the event proof of CU’s “lack of moral clarity” and disdain for “principles that allow liberalized democracies to succeed.”

California representative Michelle Steel sent a letter requesting CU to rescind their invitation to the Vietnamese president. “Sixteen-point-seven percent [of my] constituents are Vietnamese,” her letter stated. “Human rights violations [are] one of the most important issues because these people came to this country for freedom.”

Voices Unfiltered

However, it is precisely because America is a country that protects free speech (primarily through the First Amendment) that CU was right to honor its invitation to Lâm. Regardless of one’s attitude toward the CPV or its founding ideology, I am glad that CU did not cave under pressure to cancel the event.

As the leader of an increasingly attractive economy, Lâm plays a significant role as Vietnam tries to shoehorn itself into international organizations and global environmental efforts. Foreigners should be allowed to hear and evaluate his perspective with a discerning ear.

If only CU had shown the same sensitivity in handling the Gaza Solidarity Encampment and student self-censorship. Both these factors earned CU (along with Harvard) last place out of 251 colleges and universities in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.

Looking Beyond Scandals

In the days after his confirmation as Nguyễn Phú Trọng’s successor, media outlets were quick to reference Lâm’s notorious moment eating gold leaf-encrusted steak after paying respects to Karl Marx. This incident may be excellent meme material. However, it does not make for mature political dialogue, especially given that politicians in Western countries have faced scrutiny for far more scandalous behavior during the COVID pandemic.

Examples include Boris Johnson’s Partygate incident and findings that former New York City COVID czar Jay Varma attended drug and sex parties while preaching social distancing. Beyond the distractions of salacious stories, substantial evaluations of Lâm and the nation of Vietnam he leads will allow for more productive collaboration and improvement of human rights concerns in the country.

Dialogue Over Criticism

Instead of being a threat, we might be able to frame Lâm’s speech as an invitation for his critics to hold him on his commitment “for… both sides’ need to promote research on each other’s history, culture, people, political systems, and socio -economics.”

In John Stuart Mill’s words, it is not enough that a student should hear “the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

What better way to engage in dialogue than with the one-party state of Vietnam which seems keen to cooperate with the US to boost its own development?

Contrary to those who called for Lâm’s cancellation, simply hearing him speak will not cause authoritarianism to spread. Modeling a culture of censorship will.

RELATED:

Author: Frances Anne