Family, Friends and Country: memoir/Nguyen Thi

Binh

translated by Lady Borton

Published in English by Tri Thuc Publishing House

and Phuong Nam Book Co., Ltd.

Vietnamese version copyright © Nguyễn Thị Bình, 2015

English translation, introduction, and annotations copyright ©

Lady Borton, 2015

Preface copyright © Nguyên Ngọc, 2015

All rights reserved

All photographs courtesy of the author unless otherwise indicated.

Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means

(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise),

without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner

 Introduction

She broke stereotypes. She captivated the world.

During the Việt Nam War, which is known in Việt Nam as the “American
War,” US leaders led those of us in the West to believe the “Việt Cộng” were
ignorant, barefoot peasants. Then, on November 4, 1968, there appeared on
the world stage at the Paris Conference on Việt Nam the “Việt Cộng’s”
official advance representative—a petite, demure woman of startling
elegance and presence in an áo dài, the Vietnamese traditional dress that
looks like a Western evening gown.

She spoke quietly, calmly, forcefully. The world listened. Her name was
Nguyễn Thị Bình, but this was not her “real” name.

So, who was she?

Now, at last, we can know.

* *

Nguyễn Thị Bình (1927, birth name, Nguyễn Thị Châu Sa; first
revolutionary alias, Yến Sa) came from a family of patriots. Her maternal
grandfather was the famous and beloved patriot-scholar Phan Châu (Chu)
Trinh (1872-1926). Her father, also a patriot, worked for the French
administration as a surveyor, taking his family with him in the Mekong Delta,
where they lived on a boat. Later, the family moved to Phnom Penh,
Cambodia, where young Châu Sa studied in a French school. She was the
eldest child and close to her siblings, as she is today. Châu Sa excelled in
mathematics and sports; she competed in cross-country races and basketball
games (an American invention!).

Then the revolution and war intervened, as it did for all Vietnamese of her
generation. Mme. Bình, as she is called by many people both inside and
outside Việt Nam, never finished her baccalaureate. However, she holds a
“doctorate” from a “prestigious French institution” in the colonial prison
system for political activists.

The French and later the Americans thought they could repress
nationalism by arresting revolutionary patriots. Instead, their jails became
graduate schools, where political prisoners organized classes and shared
expertise. The curricula ranged from literacy training to the Chinese
ideographs in Tang Dynasty poetry, from basic numeracy training to
mathematics and physics, from the works of Victor Hugo, Marx, and Lenin to
those of Hồ Chí Minh.

In April 1951, the American-backed Sài Gòn authorities arrested “Yến

Sa” and held her in Catinat Detention Center. Like her brothers and sisters in
the Revolution, she was tortured. Political prisoners passed along personal
experiences on how to organize for the Revolution and how to withstand
torture if arrested. Writing now, many years later, Nguyễn Thị Bình gives her
readers a mini-lesson:

“I was cruelly beaten without stopping because an earlier arrestee had

broken down under torture and given my name. First, they tortured with
savage beatings, then by submerging us in water, then with electricity, then—
I wanted to die so they would finish... I was most worried about breaking
under torture and giving names, leading the enemy to arrest others. I decided
that I would accept whatever the enemy said about me, but my one purpose
was to say nothing else. After a time, the torturers saw they could not wrest
any information from me.”

Mme. Bình spent three years in Chí Hòa, the most infamous of the Sài Gòn
prisons. Political-prisoner “doctoral graduates” during the French War and
the American War learned how to be stalwart under the most intense pressure
imaginable. That lesson served them well in many venues.

While at Paris, Mme. Bình was deputy head of the delegation from the
National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Việt Nam until the formation of the
Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt
Nam on June 6, 1969, whereupon she became the PRG foreign minister and
the head of the PRG delegation to the Paris Conference.

Henry Kissinger and his American colleagues at the Paris Conference on

Việt Nam (1968-1973) faced three key Vietnamese opponents—Lê Đức Thọ
(special advisor to the delegation from the Democratic Republic of Việt
Nam, the DRVN, or “North Việt Nam”), Xuân Thủy (head of the DRVN
delegation), and Mme. Bình. All three held “doctorates” from “prestigious
French institutions.”

In his introduction to the Vietnamese edition of Family, Friends and

Country, writer Nguyên Ngọc cautions readers not to expect new information
about the Paris Conference. However, Nguyên Ngọc was writing for
Vietnamese, who had seen or read many interviews with Paris participants.
In contrast, international readers will find much to learn from Nguyễn Thị
Bình, the only living signatory to the Paris Agreement.
 *

* *

International readers may be surprised to see that, on January 1, 1969, the

Vietnamese published Hồ Chí Minh’s “New Year’s Greetings,” with
President Hồ’s unshakeable two-step strategy. His New Year’s poem ran on
the Vietnamese newspapers’ front pages. Liberation Radio in the South and
Voice of Việt Nam in the North repeatedly promulgated the president’s
greetings. US leaders seem not to have paid much attention. Yet the
Vietnamese in both the former North and former South who participated in
the war’s “three arrows”—the interlocking political, military, and diplomatic
initiatives—can still recite the two-stage plan that President Hồ crystallized
in his quatrain’s second line:

“Fight so the Americans leave; fight so the puppets collapse.”

The Paris Agreement completed the first step in President Hồ’s strategy.
As Nguyễn Thị Bình writes, “We achieved a momentous victory. The United
States was forced to withdraw completely, while Vietnamese troops
remained on Vietnamese land.”

Family, Friends and Country answers many questions about deeper

levels of the Vietnamese two-stage strategy. Mme. Bình’s writing style is
subtle and fluid. It is easy to read this book quickly and miss important
points. For example, many Westerners wonder about the relationship
between the DRVN and PRG delegations at Paris. Nguyễn Thị Bình may be
the first Vietnamese writing for a general audience to state the relationship
clearly, but she does so briefly:
 “Although two, we were one; although one, we were two. … The two
delegations were closely coordinated under one source of flexible, precise
guidance, which came from inside our country.”

The National Liberation Front had been established on December 20,

1960 as a neutral (neither overtly pro-communist nor overtly pro-capitalist),
all-inclusive organization of patriots to represent the people of the South.
The neutral stance allowed the NLF-PRG to participate and subsequently to
join the Non-Aligned Movement. Official neutrality also fostered greater
access to the international peace and anti-war movements. Nevertheless,
senior NLF-PRG leaders were Party activists. Their key visionary was Hồ
Chí Minh, who determined not only the overall NLF-PRG strategy but also
many of its subtleties.

Attentive readers will notice that Trần Bửu Kiếm (head of the NLF
delegation) and Nguyễn Thị Bình (head of the PRG delegation, which
replaced the NLF delegation at Paris) and not Xuân Thủy (head of the DRVN
delegation—the “North”) presented the Ten Points, Eight Points, Seven
Points, and Two Points in “successive diplomatic offensives.” The two
delegations’ shared goal was independence and freedom for South Việt Nam
and re-unification of the entire country. Thus, readers will notice that Mme.
Bình returned from a consultative visit in Hà Nội with the Ten Points in
hand.

DRVN delegation head Xuân Thủy—a journalist, newspaper editor, poet,

chess aficionado, and diplomat—was famous for his smile, dignified
bearing, and his genuine, perceptive charm. His subtlety kept the focus on the
NLF-PRG as representatives of the southern people. He would gracefully
and astutely use the Western custom of “ladies first” to introduce the genteel
representative of the “Việt Cộng” first, thereby emphasizing the PRG
position. Xuân Thủy could not have done this so easily had the PRG
delegation’s head been a man.

* *

Việt Nam—a small country—faced a behemoth at Paris.

Hồ Chí Minh was a realist with many years’ experience living in the
West, including a year in the United States when he was in his early twenties.
President Hồ and his colleagues knew that to negotiate successfully with the
United States they must first draw world opinion behind their cause.

American leaders, remembering that Việt Nam had recently fought a war
with France, may have thought Paris would give the United States a site
advantage at the negotiations. The opposite was true. The DRVN and NLF
were delighted with the choice of Paris, even though Paris was a long
distance from Hà Nội. Members of both delegations had many French friends
both officially and informally. On September 1, 1966, French President
Charles de Gaulle, speaking in Phnom Penh, had delivered his famous policy
statement urging American withdrawal. The French government offered to
host the Paris Conference and financially supported the DRVN and NLF-PRG
delegations with security and transportation.

In addition, France had an active Communist Party, which contributed

housing for the delegations, arranged sites for the private bi-lateral meetings
that the DRVN hosted, and supplied security personnel and drivers. Overseas
Vietnamese living in Paris provided tailored suits for the men, custom-fitted
áo dàis for the women, and home-cooked family meals so delegates could
savor ordinary family life with children. The overseas Vietnamese also
provided interpretation at public press events, although of course they were
never involved in any official or even informal diplomatic meetings. Most
important of all, the overseas Vietnamese showed up en masse in front of
Kléber International Conference Center, waving DRVN and NLF-PRG flags.

Paris was the media capital of Europe and a perfect setting for the long-
term tactic of seeking international press coverage and widespread citizen
support from across the world for the Vietnamese cause in general and, in
particular, for President Hồ’s strategic Step One—American withdrawal.
The DRVN and NLF-PRG delegations each included a solid contingent of
journalists. Liberation Radio in the South telegraphed out to Hà Nội the news
of American offensives, atrocities, and bombing in the South. Each week, a
North Vietnamese envoy traveled overland from the center of the country to
Hà Nội, carrying news and photographic film about US bombing in that
region. Hà Nội then forwarded the latest news and documentation from both
the North and the South to Paris in time for the Thursday post-conference
briefings.

Delegation journalists wrote press releases, while Xuân Thủy and Nguyễn
Thị Bình concentrated on interviews with radio, TV, and print journalists
from all over the world, in addition to their Thursday briefings. Overseas
Vietnamese living in Paris sponsored their own press conferences and
provided additional interpreters. This complex, carefully directed publicity
galvanized world opinion in support of the DRVN and NLF-PRG
delegations’ shared cause. Such international exposure, which was
impossible in Hà Nội, was facilitated by the conference location in Paris.
 Nevertheless, the public-relations process was daunting and draining.

Family, Friends and Country offers an intimate view of Mme. Bình’s

apprehension when facing aggressive Western journalists. In addition, we
also now have the backstory for the thorny question of North Vietnamese
soldiers in the South. Nguyễn Thị Bình had received a simple yet seemingly
impossible directive:

“You must not say Northern troops are in the South. You must not say
Northern troops are not in the South.”

As one of the “long-haired warriors” in Paris, Mme. Bình had clear

marching orders. She tells us how she held her stance, parrying the
journalists’ fiercely repetitive, aggressive questions.

Now, too, we have the truth of the personal worries lying beneath Nguyễn
Thị Bình’s composure. She spoke about the US bombing of civilians, hiding
her anxiety when she did not know if her young son and daughter had
survived US bombs. She spoke about political prisoners, concealing her
personal agony: Very shortly after her appointment to Paris, the US-backed
Sài Gòn authorities arrested Mme. Bình’s younger brother, Nguyễn Đông Hà,
whom the authorities tortured and detained for nearly seven years in Côn Sơn
Prison’s “tiger cages.”

The French had secured rights to Côn Sơn Island south of Sài Gòn in 1783
but occupied it only in 1861. They began to turn the island into a prison for
political activists in 1862. In 1940, the French added 120 “tiger cages.”
Guards walking on the rebar roof threw lime down on the prisoners. One
cage usually held five prisoners. The cells’ dimensions of 1.45 x 2.5 meters
meant two prisoners slept atop the other three.
 Unlike American POWs captured in the South and in the North during the
US air war, Nguyễn Đông Hà was not released in accordance with the
January 1973 Paris Agreement; he and many other Vietnamese in the South
were not freed from the tiger cages until May 1, 1975, the day after the war
ended.

* *

The DRVN and NLF-PRG’s shared strategy at Paris also included

“people-to-people diplomacy,” where individuals and groups seek to affect
policy. In Family, Friends and Country, Nguyễn Thị Bình describes a tête-
à-tête supper conversation with Hồ Chí Minh in Hà Nội. President Hồ
emphasized the importance of organizing people world-wide.

International readers will be impressed to see how much careful thought,

planning, and just plain good luck contributed to the success of the NLF-
PRG’s activities with the peace and anti-war movements in Europe, Africa,
Latin America, the former Soviet Union, China, and North America,
particularly the United States.

These efforts included the more formal activities with the Non-Aligned
Nations Movement. In those days, the NAM meetings were gatherings of
male heads of state and foreign ministers. One can imagine how the entrance
of a petite Asian woman in an elegant áo dài accented with a silk neck scarf
must have turned heads, causing senior NAM leaders to whisper, “Who is
that?”
 Many international activists would have found these challenges daunting,
but the DRVN and NLF-PRG delegations’ commitment to their cause was
unshakeable. Mme. Bình’s skills and natural talents, all the more remarkable
for a woman at that time, made such commitment even more effective.

* *

As Nguyễn Thị Bình makes clear in the beginning of this memoir, she
came to maturity during the mid-late 1940s and early 1950s as a community
organizer of mass demonstrations in Sài Gòn. Now, for the first time, we
have in English an account of the French re-invasion of Sài Gòn (with British
and American backing) in late September 1945, three weeks after Việt Nam’s
Declaration of Independence. The perspective is that of a young, idealistic,
eighteen-year-old.

We are there with young Mme. Bình at the outset of the French War in her
efforts to persuade others to the cause, there with her in the mass
demonstrations, and there for her youthful “breaches of discipline,” which
exposed her undercover identity. Perhaps most surprising for Western
readers will be Mme. Bình’s first-hand account of the repression of activists’
attempts to promulgate the contents of the 1954 Geneva Agreement. Those
arrested included the wealthy Sài Gòn lawyer and activist, Nguyễn Hữu Thọ,
later vice president of re-united Việt Nam.

For Mme. Bình, her later roles at Paris and in “people-to-people

diplomacy” were versions of her earlier community organizing writ large on
the world stage.
 An unasked question remains. Who cast Nguyễn Thị Bình for this role?

It seems likely that only one person in the Politburo of the Vietnamese
Workers’ Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party) had the depth of
vision and the breadth of experience to think of choosing a woman. President
Hồ Chí Minh had lived in New York and Boston during the peak of the
Women’s Suffrage Movement before World War I. After World War I, he
lived and worked in Paris. His earliest writings about women’s rights
appeared in 1922. During the mid-1920s, he pushed women’s rights in his
classes and writings for young revolutionaries.

Hồ Chí Minh knew that, regardless of political affiliation, overseas

Vietnamese esteemed Nguyễn Thị Bình’s maternal grandfather, Phan Châu
Trinh, as a great patriot, nationalist, and early Vietnamese advocate of
democracy. Phan Châu Trinh had mentored young Hồ Chí Minh during their
shared years in Paris from the late teens through the early 1920s.

From Family, Friends and Country, we know Hồ Chí Minh asked to meet
Nguyễn Thị Bình shortly after she “regrouped” from the South to the North in
accordance with requirements stipulated in the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
Mme. Bình met Hồ Chí Minh subsequently on various occasions before the
Paris Conference. President Hồ knew that Nguyễn Thị Bình possessed the
generous, open, and honest personality needed to win over those holding
different views. He would have known that her quietly forceful and gracious
presence as “Việt Cộng” representative would challenge stereotypes and
command attention whenever and wherever she stepped on stage. He
probably also realized he could find no southern representative with a family
heritage of greater resonance to encourage support from overseas
Vietnamese.
 Thus, it is no wonder that Nguyễn Thị Bình is the Vietnamese participant
at Paris whom many people outside Việt Nam remember most clearly.

* *

After the war ended in April 1975, the VIth National Assembly met in
July 1976, drawing representatives from across the country to re-unite North
Việt Nam and South Việt Nam. Re-unification combined the PRG and DRVN
into the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam (the country’s formal name today). In
1976, Nguyễn Thị Bình became minister of education for re-united Việt
Nam.

By 1976, Mme. Bình had become an experienced negotiator and

spokesperson; she was not only the most famous Vietnamese outside the
country but also, through her work with the Non-Aligned Movement, the
Vietnamese diplomat who had the deepest relationships with foreign leaders.
Thus, many foreigners and Vietnamese alike wonder why the senior
Vietnamese leadership did not select Mme. Bình to serve as foreign minister
of newly re-united Việt Nam.

The answer is simple: The times had changed. Việt Nam faced incursions
from the Khmer Rouge into southern Việt Nam, rumblings with China on the
northern border, and an intensive US embargo. Amidst those external
challenges was a momentous internal challenge that would be crucial to the
new nation’s future: re-uniting the country’s education.

The skills that had served Mme. Bình in Paris and her southern roots as a
granddaughter of one of Việt Nam’s most famous educators made her an
obvious choice for the daunting task of weaving two very different
educational systems into one. The Vietnamese people could not re-unite into
one country unless and until northerners and southerners shared the same
level of education. The low literacy rate in the former South (compared with
the high literacy rate in the North) and the lack of trained teachers were huge
obstacles. Creating a comprehensive and effective educational system amidst
internal political challenges and a stifling bureaucracy was a huge
assignment, to which she devoted a decade.

Subsequently, Mme. Bình worked again in “people-to-people diplomacy.”

Then, from 1992 until 2002, she served as Việt Nam’s vice president, with
responsibilities including State diplomacy, education, health, and judicial
reform. The chapters in Family, Friends and Country describing State
service in newly re-united Việt Nam are a manual written in anecdotes for
those who want to learn about assertive (but not aggressive) relations across
cultures, even in war (the greatest of cross-cultural conflicts). They are also
a guide for managing bureaucratic tangles, conservatism, and obstinacy,
always with an eye toward ethical action.

Mme. Bình formally retired in 2002 at the age of seventy-five. She notes
that her years since “have been very busy, at times even busier than before.”
She worries:

“When will we have a society that is truly democratic, equal, and

cultured? It is as if these dynamics harass me. I cannot sit still. I must
continue to take a full part in life. … Perhaps it is my ‘fate’ from when I was
young: I want always to be deeply involved and committed in my work. I’m
not able and don’t know how to stand on the outside.”
 These days, Mme. Bình cares as fiercely as ever about children and adults
suffering from the effects of Agent Orange and unexploded bombs and mines
left from the war. She holds strong positions on rights for women and
children. She travels often to domestic and international conferences
covering many issues. Yet her deepest commitment remains to Việt Nam’s
future. She worries that the Vietnamese educational system, once among the
world’s best in spreading limited resources to the most students and adults,
has become “seriously backward.” She adds:

“As long as I have an ounce of strength, I will voluntarily contribute

everything I can to the important and decisive issue of education.”

Indeed, here is a feisty activist in her late-eighties, who refuses to wait in

the wings. She still takes center stage. She is still petite and demure. She still
speaks quietly, calmly, forcefully.

The world still listens.

Lady Borton

Hà Nội, Việt Nam

Spring 2015
 Preface

In the reader’s hands is a memoir by Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình, former vice
president of Việt Nam, the country’s first woman foreign minister, and head
of the delegation of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam at the Paris Conference (1968-1973). The first
thoughts of quite a few people when they pick up this book is curiosity as
they anticipate extraordinary stories about the author’s participation in the
famous negotiations that were the longest in the history of diplomacy. One
must say immediately that this particular wish won’t be satisfied. However,
do understand that this small book contains many “extraordinary” events but
of a different kind about one person, about her way, and about her life. The
simple title she chose—Family, Friends and Country—captures the sources
creating her special strength.

Many people who know Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình are surprised by two
points. The first is her appealing strength and persuasive character, qualities
that strike not only people in our country but also so many foreigners,
including some famous and “difficult” ones. We know that not long after
1979, many of our long-term foreign friends did not understand when we had
to implement the Border War in the West and South to oppose the repeated
Pol Pot incursions and save the Cambodian people from genocide. They
sought out Mme. Bình. After they heard her explanation, these foreigners
said, “All right. We’ve heard many Vietnamese speak, but when Mme. Bình
speaks, we believe and trust.”
 During our terribly difficult years of the cruel war against foreign
aggression, Nguyễn Thị Bình visited all over the world. Wherever she went,
people said the same thing: “If Bình speaks, then we believe.” We can say
without fear of error that perhaps Mme. Bình is the Vietnamese person with
the most friends across the world, from ordinary people to famous heads of
state, who represented many different political views. During the war years,
she traveled across most of the planet.

Here’s what was truly unusual and beautiful: The image of Việt Nam
during our devastating struggle was not an armed warrior but, rather, a
slender, unassuming yet erudite woman who was personable and who spoke
clearly. Decisive events could not change her leisurely, self-confident
presence. She called her work “people-to-people diplomacy,” meaning one
person to another person, one heart to another heart. She brought many
friends to our nation’s side. This was an important, decisive point in Việt
Nam’s unusual victory during the last century.

The second “unusual” point about Nguyễn Thị Bình is the youthful strength
of her intellect and spirit, her life force, her stunning endurance, and her wide
yet deep point of view, which has expanded even during her older years. It
seems as if she still stands in our front line, working tirelessly in all the key
and important areas of our society’s life.

I was fortunate to work with Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình and be near her for a
number of years. I am honored to introduce readers to her writing, which
calls on us all to think deeply not only about those seething days in the past
but also about our country today and tomorrow.

Nguyên Ngọc
Writer
 Translator’s Note

Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình’s Family, Friends and Country is perhaps the
best book in English from Việt Nam to give us insight into life among
Resistance activists (the Việt Minh, later called the “Việt Cộng”) in the south
of Việt Nam during the French War and the American War (the Vietnamese
name for the Western term, “Vietnam War”).

Mme. Bình wrote this memoir for Vietnamese readers but also with
foreign friends in mind. However, much of the text assumes Vietnamese
readers’ knowledge of their own country’s history and culture. For that
reason, this English version includes annotations, which can be easily read at
the foot of the page or just as easily skipped. I have kept the notes about
international figures and major Vietnamese leaders brief, since more
information is immediately available in English on the Web at Wikipedia and
other sites. The notes about other Vietnamese figures and points of history
and culture are more detailed, with information drawn from interviews and
from books and websites available only in Vietnamese.

I am grateful to Mme. Bình for her guidance and to her colleagues, Phạm
Ngạc and Nguyễn Văn Huỳnh, for answering specific questions. I also want
to thank fellow Westerners, Florence Howe, Randy Ross, Judy Gumbo
Albert, and Margrit Schlosser for their editorial advice, copy-editing, and
proof-reading.

Lady Borton
Hà Nội, Việt Nam

Spring 2015
 1.

My Homeland

Quảng Nam, my native province, was split into two because of the special
circumstances that arose during the American War[1]. After 1975, Quảng
Nam once again became one province.

My ancestral home[2] of Quảng Nam is not opulent, but it is abundant and

diverse, with bright green rice paddies and many rivers. There is the famous
Thu Bồn River, the Hàn River, which is short but full and strong, and the
Trường Giang River, which is very special in that it does not pour down from
the mountains but, rather, connects one estuary to another. Then there is the
Tam Kỳ River, which appears blue throughout the seasons, and the Cổ Cò
River, which is like a natural canal intertwining and connecting all the
waterways across the province. People say Quảng Nam Province is unique
because its waterways—whether large or small—flow freely across the
province without finding their way to the sea. Quảng Nam also has
mountains, the sea, islands, and beaches, which some people consider the
most beautiful in the world. UNESCO has listed Quảng Nam’s Cham Island
in its World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Quảng Nam also has Hội An. From the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
onward, Hội An was a bustling port and the first place in our country to
interact directly with the West. Hội An residents conducted business with the
Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch traders who arrived early
on. The local residents gained experience in international business
transactions and the cultures of other civilizations. They also developed a
personal dynamism, which was genuine.

Đà Nẵng, which is less than thirty kilometers from Hội An, is the largest
international gateway to Quảng Nam Province and Việt Nam’s Central
Region[3]. In 1997, Đà Nẵng City became one among several major cities
linking directly to our national government’s central level. The remainder of
the province retained the name of Quảng Nam but with its provincial capital
located in Tam Kỳ City. Although Quảng Nam Province and Đà Nẵng City
are administratively separate, their history, traditions, and culture have
always been one.

This strategic location led the French to station their first soldiers at Đà
Nẵng when they invaded our country in the nineteenth century. More than a
century later, the Americans landed their assault marines en masse at Đà
Nẵng to open the US Limited War in South Việt Nam. The United States
converted Đà Nẵng into a huge air, infantry, and naval base to command the
battlefields in the Central Region of Việt Nam, in the Central Highlands, and
as far north as the 17th parallel. In addition, Đà Nẵng was an airbase for US
bombing raids against North Việt Nam.

In modern times, Quảng Nam and especially Đà Nẵng were major spear
points in our Resistance Wars Against Foreign Aggressors and, therefore,
were among our country’s fiercest battlefields. The people of Quảng Nam
and Đà Nẵng suffered courageously; they endured enormous sacrifices.
Quảng Nam - Đà Nẵng has over seven thousand Heroic Vietnamese
Mothers[4]. It is poignant testimony that they comprise more than one quarter
of the Heroic Mothers from across Việt Nam. Indeed, the people of my
ancestral homeland deserve the assessment of “loyal, brave, and resilient.
[5]”

* *

I returned to my ancestral homeland in 1975, after we had completely

liberated South Việt Nam. I was horrified to see that the US and Sài Gòn
authorities’ armies had bulldozed, leveled, and completely devastated so
many villages during their policy of “free-fire zones.” Gò Nổi - Điện Bàn,
my paternal ancestral homeland and formerly one of the richest areas of
Quảng Nam, had been known for its productive fields and green marshes
along the Thu Bồn River. From long before, that area had been famous for its
silk, which had even reached European markets. However, after the war, all
that remained was an expanse of bare land, a vast wasteland of sedge grass
without the shadow of even a tree, without the shadow of even a single
human being.

My maternal ancestral homeland to the west of Tam Kỳ was also an area

that had suffered from intense cruelty. The war had also destroyed its
villages.

The aftermath of war in Quảng Nam was devastating, especially the

effects of Agent Orange, one of the defoliants that the United States sprayed
for years. The after-effects continue even today.
 During the forty years since the American War ended, the people of Quảng
Nam - Đà Nẵng have managed to rebuild. In truth, they have rescued life from
ashes.

* *

Not only were Quảng inhabitants staunch during our wars for national
liberation, but they are also proud to have contributed significantly to our
national culture. For generations, Quảng Nam has had a reputation as a seat
of great learning with a tradition of eager students and many excellent
scholars. At one point, the entire country knew the names of the Five Quảng
Nam Doctoral Scholars[6] and the four Quảng Nam champions. In the early
twentieth century, Quảng Nam was one of the sites of the Eastern Capital
Free School Movement (Đông Kinh Nghĩa Thục)[7] and the Modernization
Movement (Duy Tân).

Quảng Nam still has many areas of extreme poverty, particularly in its
mountains. However, nature has her own laws of compensation. The Tiên
Phước area of my maternal ancestral homeland, where “dogs eat stones, and
chickens eat gravel,” is the cradle of great patriots. These include my
maternal grandfather, Phan Châu Trinh (also known as Phan Chu Trinh)[8],
and Elder Huỳnh Thúc Kháng. Elder Kháng served as interim president of the
Government of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam in 1946, while
President Hồ Chí Minh[9] was in France.

* *
 People have different opinions about my grandfather’s political views.
Nevertheless, he is widely recognized as the first Vietnamese person to
introduce the concepts of democracy and civil rights in Việt Nam. The father
of President Hồ Chí Minh, Junior-Doctorate Nguyễn Sinh Sắc, described
Phan Châu Trinh as a friend, a fellow graduate, and “the first person to
organize for citizens’ rights in Nam [Việt Nam].” Historian Hoàng Xuân Hãn
speaks about the scholar-patriots searching for a way to save our nation at
the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. He points
out that Elder Phan Châu Trinh was the first person to identify our culture’s
disastrous backwardness as the primary reason we lost control of our country
at the time of the French invasion.

Elder Phan defined the process necessary to develop our nation: “Expand
the people’s cultural standard, encourage the people’s zeal, and support the
people’s material needs.” He was unequivocal: “Best of all, study!” From
this, we can understand his message: The people needed knowledge and
understanding in order to awaken national self-esteem. Only then could they
undertake the great, dual causes of freedom and happiness. I believe these
profound ideals hold priceless long-term value. I believe they apply to all of
us today.

People regard Elder Phan Châu Trinh as the embodiment of Quảng

character, for he was forthright, purposeful, and independent. The
“argumentative” habit of the Quảng inhabitants was evident in his
personality. Quảng people tend to be “passionate about their work.” They
will take responsibility for the community and for the nation, and they will
accept a challenge and plunge in energetically. At the same time, Quảng
people are rather sentimental, open, and receptive to what is new. Those
qualities have led to the following lines from oral poetry:
 Quảng Nam's soil is quick to absorb moisture even

before it rains,

Quảng Nam's people grow tipsy even

before sipping red wine.

Many of my friends say I inherited the traites of a Person from Quảng

Nam!

[1] “American War”: The Vietnamese term for what Americans call the “Việt Nam War.”

[2] Ancestral homeland: For Vietnamese, “ancestral homeland” (quê hương) is not the same as
“birthplace” but instead refers to the family’s geographical roots and the location of the ancestors’
graves. Unless otherwise specified, “quê hương” refers to the paternal ancestors. A Vietnamese
person’s quê hương has a special, emotional draw, even if she or he has never lived there.

[3] Central Region: Traditionally, even before French colonialism, Vietnamese divided their
country into three regions: Northern Region (Bắc Kỳ or Tonkin during French colonialism), Central
Region (Trung Kỳ or Annam during French colonialism), and Southern Region (Nam Kỳ or Cochin
China during French colonialism). The capitalized terms “North” and “South” for the two geo-political
regions—“North Việt Nam” and “South Việt Nam”—apply accurately only to the period between the
Geneva Agreement (July 1954) and the end of the American War (April 1975). During that time, the
Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN) was the government in the North, while the Republic of
Việt Nam (ROVN) was the government supported by the United States in the South. On December 20,
1960, the Resistance to the American-backed regime in the South formed the National Liberation Front
(NLF); on June 8, 1969, the Resistance formed the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam (PRG).

[4] Heroic Vietnamese Mother is a national honor established on August 29, 1994 for women
who had lost two or more sons or their husbands during the war or who, themselves, were martyred.
 [5] “Loyal, brave, and resilient”: In 1968, the Central-Level Office of South Việt Nam
(COSVN, the “Việt Cộng” headquarters) and the [Resistance] Regional Military Committee organized a
congress, “Hero Warriors from the Entire South to be Emulated.” The Regional Military Committee
brought in representatives from the provinces and cities of South Việt Nam, from the Military
Headquarters of Military Zones 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and from Sài Gòn - Gia Định Special Zone. The congress
unanimously presented commendations to the three provinces of Bến Tre, Long An, and Quảng Nam -
Đà Nẵng for their outstanding achievements opposing the United States from 1954 to 1968. Quảng Nam
- Đà Nẵng was awarded the title, “Loyal, brave, and resilient—a vanguard destroying the United
States.”

[6] The Five Quảng Nam Scholars (ngũ phụng tề phi) who achieved top scores and the rank
of doctorate in the 1898 triennial examination session at the Royal Court Examination are Phạm Liệu,
Phan Quang, Phạm Tuấn, Ngô Chuân, and Dương Hiển Tiến. The Four Champions (tứ kiệt) are
Elder Scholars Phan Châu (Chu) Trinh, Huỳnh Thúc Kháng, Trần Quý Cáp, and Nguyễn Đình Phiêu.

[7] Eastern Capital Free School Movement was a free, nationalist, popular-education
movement, which began in March 1907 in the outskirts of Hà Nội and spread to other cities and
provinces. It flourished until the end of 1907, when the French forced closure of the schools.
Modernization Movement: Patriotic scholar Phan Bội Châu (1867-1940), who was an acquaintance
of Hồ Chí Minh’s father, established the Modernization Movement in 1904 and the Go East Movement
in 1907 to encourage Vietnamese revolutionary youth to study in Japan.

[8] Phan Châu Trinh (1872-1926, a.k.a. Phan Chu Trinh, Tây Hồ, Hy Mã, and Tử Cán) resigned
his mandarin commission and advocated removal of the monarchy. He was arrested and held on Côn
Đảo Prison Island. After his release, Phan Châu Trinh went to Paris in 1915 to secure support for his
nationalist ideas. There, he worked with other patriotic Vietnamese, including young Hồ Chí Minh. Phan
Châu Trinh is mentioned often in this memoir. Huỳnh Thúc Kháng (1876-1947) was a leader of the
Modernization (Duy Tân) Movement. The French arrested him in 1908 and held him in Côn Đảo
Political Prison for thirteen years. After his release, Huỳnh Thúc Kháng continued his activism.
Although he was not a communist, Huỳnh Thúc Kháng was the minister of interior in the first formally
elected government of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam from 1946 until his death.

[9] Hồ Chí Minh (1890-1969) from Nghệ An Province in the Central Region was the founder of
the modern Vietnamese state. He spent thirty years (1911-1941) traveling, studying, and organizing
overseas, living in (listed in alphabetical order) China, England, France, Hong Kong, Russia, Thailand,
and the United States as well as visiting many other countries. Hồ Chí Minh was president of Việt
Nam’s Provisional Government, which was established during the 1945 August Revolution. He was
president of the formally elected government from 1946 until his death.
 2.

Childhood

My mother was the second daughter of Elder Phan Châu Trinh and a
native of Tiên Phước District’s eastern area, which is now part of Phú Ninh
District to the west of Tam Kỳ Provincial Capital. My paternal grandfather, a
native of Điện Bàn District, was a volunteer soldier in the Save-the-King
Movement[1].

My father, the tenth child in his family, was an official geophysical

surveyor. After graduation, he worked in the southwest of Việt Nam, always
floating on a huge river barge. I was born in Tân Hiệp Commune, Sa Đéc
Province; my parents named me Sa. According to my mother’s story, on one
occasion, when I was nine months old and learning to crawl, I slipped into
the Tiền River, but they immediately fished me out.

Since I spent some of my childhood in rural areas, I developed a little

understanding of farming, fishing, and catching shrimp. I will always
remember the rainy season in the western delta of southern Việt Nam, how
the rice paddies would flood with water as vast as the sea. Those childhood
days had an enduring influence on my entire life, on my activism in social
affairs, and on my personal life.
 Later, the French authorities assigned my father to work in Cambodia. He
took the whole family with him, settling us in Phnom Penh for some years.
My mother gave birth seven times. One child died from illness, leaving six
children, four boys and two girls. I am the eldest.

In addition, several cousins from the countryside came to live with us.
Because of economic difficulties, these cousins’ families had asked my father
to help them continue their education or to find them employment. Our house
was always full and happy. Eating meals involved two shifts, since we did
not have enough table space for everyone at once. Although my father’s
salary was neither high nor low, he would always help our relatives.

Father was hard working, and he was passionate about technology. On the
ground floor, he had a room filled with the machine parts he used for repairs
and innovations. Anyone looking for my father after work hours could find
him in his “special warehouse.” Perhaps because my father was dedicated to
his profession, he judged people by their attitude toward work. Since a hard-
working person was good, he did not like anyone who was lazy. As for us
children, he demanded the same from us, whether we were boys or girls. If
we knew how to ride a bicycle, then we must also know how to repair the
bike and fix its tires.

My father liked it when we were eager students reading books and playing
sports, but he disliked it when we spent time singing songs and socializing
with friends. Later, during my years as an activist and organizer, I always felt
close to working people and found it easy to associate with them. I found I
usually assessed people through their attitude toward work and their
relationship with working people. Thinking back, I am thankful my father had
that influence on me.
 My mother was not healthy, perhaps because she had given birth so often.
When she died, I was sixteen; my youngest sibling was not quite a year old.
I’d had a happy childhood filled with warmth and with the love of parents
and relatives. When my mother passed away, I felt anxious and deprived of
affection. However, watching my younger siblings, who were so small and
vulnerable, I began to sense my own responsibility—I knew I must replace
my mother and care for the younger children.

* *

While alive, my mother often told me stories about my maternal

grandfather, Elder Phan Châu (Chu) Trinh. He passed away in 1926[2], about
a year after returning from France. I never met Phan Châu Trinh in person and
did not directly receive the influence of his expansive, patriotic thinking.
From what my mother told me, I know circumstances forced my grandfather
to wander across the country from a young age. Then the colonizers arrested
him because of his anti-French activities. They might have guillotined Phan
Châu Trinh if progressive members of the French Alliance for Human Rights
had not zealously supported him. After his release from Côn Đảo Political
Prison, Phan Châu Trinh requested that the colonial authorities let him go to
France, where he lived for fourteen years. His intention was to search for
support from progressive forces in France in order to pursue independence
for our Homeland.

Even though my family did not live in Việt Nam during the early 1940s,
news of the communist insurgency[3] in Mỹ Tho (now, Tiền Giang) Province
and a number of other southern provinces reached us. Back then, I noticed
that my mother often expressed sadness and confided to her close friends,
saying, “When will our people fight the French?”

In Cambodia, our family lived on Miche Boulevard (now Preah

Boulevard) in Phnom Penh, the capital. Our house of wood had a very
special architecture because my father had designed it according to his own
specific ideas. The house was spacious, airy, and set behind a wide, sandy
area, which would become as white as snow when the moon was full. On
moonlit nights, we children loved to chase each other on that white sand.
Behind the house were rice paddies. During the rainy season, floodwaters
would reach our house pillars. I will always remember the image of our
familial house and a childhood shared with my siblings during those years
when we still had both our father and our mother.

I attended Lycée Sisowath[4], the largest middle school in Cambodia.

Since my father was a civil servant, I “received” free tuition in the French
“mother-country” school instead of attending the school for indigenous
children. Most of my fellow students were children of civil servants, who
were either French or Vietnamese with French citizenship[5]. My nationalist
spirit shared by my younger siblings resulted in a few rows with the “French
kids.”

I remember once going out to play. Several French classmates were

talking about their servants at home and saying, “All Annamites[6] are
thieves.”

I heard this. I couldn’t remain silent! I went up and asked, “What did you
just say?”

That startled the French kids.

 I threw them even more off guard when I tossed aside my schoolbag and
started pounding on them. Just then, my younger siblings came along. They
joined the fray to back me up. A scuffle occurred in which, fortunately, no
one suffered any injury worth describing. The next day, the principal called
me in. I thought he would discipline me, but he gave me only a light reminder
about proper behavior.

At the end of the previous year, my mother had gone to Sài Gòn for
treatment when her illness became serious. She was staying at Grandfather
Phan’s Temple[7] in Đa Kao Ward. After finishing my “brevet” general-
education examination, I left for Sài Gòn to visit my mother. I saw my
mother’s pale face—she was only skin and bones—and felt deep love for her
and still more regret that I had not been by her side to take care of her. I cried
until my eyes were swollen.

Mother looked at me and shook her head, mumbling, “My beloved child,”
she said, “you’re still so little!”

I was tired from a full day’s journey from Phnom Penh to Sài Gòn.
Exhausted, I fell asleep. Then suddenly our helper shook me awake, saying
my mother had just died.

At that time, my father was far away on a work assignment, but he

returned in time for my mother’s funeral. Like my father, my siblings also had
no chance to visit our mother during her last moments. I was the only one
fortunate enough to see my mother before she passed on forever. We buried
her at the Central Region Fraternal Association Cemetery (Trung Kỳ Ái
Hữu). Only in 1976, after the two wars, could we exhume her remains and
move her to Grandfather Phan’s Temple, where she now rests. Before my
mother’s death, I had dreamed that, upon completing my baccalaureate, I
would apply to medical school and become a doctor so that I could cure my
mother and treat the poor.

I had those thoughts and desires because I had seen the way the doctors
treated my mother. Even though these doctors were paid, they were neither
earnest nor dedicated. Our family had to beg them for favors. Could it be,
perhaps, that we were unable to connect with effective and knowledgeable
doctors?

And so, I lost my mother when I was sixteen. My siblings were still very
young, just thirteen, nine, five, three, and the youngest only a few months old.
While my mother was still alive, I thought only about school and having fun.
My father placed many hopes in me. I was a good student, especially in
mathematics, where I always scored high marks. Later on, I tutored; for a
time, I taught math at several schools.

“Try to study well,” my father would always say, “so that later you can
have a profession and also care for your younger siblings.” It was as if he
foresaw our situation.

During my high school years, I did study hard and began to think about the
future. I loved to read; I would stay up very late reading novels. I also
enjoyed listening to the lyrical music of Schubert, Schumann, and other
composers, and to grand symphonies. I felt my heart awaken when I heard the
song that Lưu Hữu Phước had written, calling on us youth: “Oh, youth, stand
up! Respond to the call of our nation...” [8]

My parents had sometimes taken us to watch a movie or see cải lương,

Vietnamese modern opera. These stories stirred me. I recall watching Đời
Cô Lựu (Miss Lựu’s Life)[9], a cải lương production which was very
famous during the 1940s. Members of the audience turned from looking at the
stage and stared at me. I was utterly embarrassed, but I could not restrain my
tears.

I also loved sports. My favorite was basketball. I usually played with

friends all Sunday morning. By the time I returned home, my cheeks were as
red as ripe tomatoes. Sometimes, I competed in basketball games with other
schools or in cross-country races. I paid attention to sewing and cooking as
well, since I wanted to become a woman accomplished in “industry,
appearance, speech, and good behavior[10].” Like so many girls, I had many
dreams. At that time, I met Khang, who would later become my life partner.

* *

Beginning in 1944, the situation in our country underwent many

vicissitudes. It was as if the atmosphere were smoldering hot, with the
forecast vague yet auguring the changes that everyone awaited with worry
and excitement. Japanese troops had poured into our country and spread
throughout. At this time, I also began to become more aware of many other
socio-political concerns.

Activities of the Association of Overseas Vietnamese Patriots and then of

the Movement to Assist Compatriots Starving in the Northern Region[11]
attracted the widespread involvement of Vietnamese living in Cambodia and
particularly in Phnom Penh. Of course, members of my family were
enthusiastic participants. Gradually, we came to understand about the Việt
Minh[12], the organization that had stepped forward to launch these
movements.
 The Japanese overturned the French administration in Indochina on March
9, 1945. Many Vietnamese in Cambodia felt they should return home as soon
as possible to join directly in our country’s huge struggle. Our family also
decided to return to home. And so, I put aside preparations for my
baccalaureate examination.

[1] Save-the-King Movement: King Hàm Nghi (life: 1872-1943; reign: 1884-1885) opposed the
French invasion of Việt Nam. He and some of his mandarins fled from the imperial capital in Huế to the
mountains, where he promulgated his “Save-the-King Appeal.” After two years, the French captured
Hàm Nghi and exiled him to Algeria.

[2] Funeral for Phan Châu Trinh: Phan Châu Trinh, a famous scholar-patriot in the generation
before Hồ Chí Minh, advocated non-violence and development of education to achieve national
consciousness and independence from France. Phan Châu Trinh’s funeral engendered huge
demonstrations nationwide, galvanizing a generation of young Vietnamese revolutionaries, including
Phạm Văn Đồng (later, the country’s premier), Võ Nguyên Giáp (later, commander-in-chief of the
army), and Lê Đức Thọ (later, the opponent to Henry Kissinger at the Paris Conference on Việt Nam,
1968-1973).

[3] The Southern Uprising in 1940 had been planned for the entire country, but the Communist
Party leaders decided to delay. Because the messenger carrying this news to Southern Region was
arrested, the activists there went ahead with the Uprising, which broke out on November 23, 1940
across many provinces but particularly in Mỹ Tho. Peasants rose up with courage, destroying French
military posts and roads. The revolutionaries established local democratic administrations in the areas
where the colonial authorities had fled.

Heavy French repression followed; the uprising ultimately failed. Nevertheless, for the first time,
activists in Mỹ Tho’s Châu Thanh District raised Việt Nam’s red flag with its five-pointed gold star
symbolizing farmers, workers, soldiers, scholars, and traders. Those leading the Uprising in Châu Thanh
District included Mme. Mười Thập, later president of the Việt Nam Women’s Union and, in that role, a
mentor for Nguyễn Thị Bình when Mme. Bình regrouped to Hà Nội in 1954. Mme. Mười Thập appears
later in Mme. Bình’s narrative.

[4] Lycée Preah Sisowath, a protectorate secondary school teaching in French, was founded in
1873 in Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia.
 [5] Vietnamese with French citizenship: The French Northern and Central Regions (Tonkin
and Annam) were protectorates. However, since the Southern Region (Cochin China) was a colony, its
Vietnamese residents could secure French citizenship if they had enough money and sufficiently strong
connections. Many of the ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia had come from the Southern Region
and were French citizens.

[6] “Annamites” was a common name for Vietnamese at that time, since the imperial capital of
Huế was in Annam, the Central Region.

[7] Temple for Phan Châu Trinh: Vietnamese traditionally have altars in their homes to honor
the family’s deceased ancestors. On a wider level, they have temples (not to be confused with pagodas,
which are Buddhist places of worship) to honor founders of villages and national heroes.

[8] Lưu Hữu Phước (1921-1989) composed the music to “Thanh Niên Hành Khúc” (Youth
March), while Mai Văn Bộ (1918-2002) wrote the initial lyrics in French. Ironically, the song later
became the basis of the national anthem for the US-supported Republic of Việt Nam, yet Lưu Hữu
Phước was the minister of information and culture for the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam (PRG, “Việt Cộng”), while Mai Văn Bộ was the general representative for
the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (“North Việt Nam”) to France during the Paris Conference
(1968-1973). After the American War ended in 1975, Mai Văn Bộ was the DRVN ambassador
covering Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. Lưu Hữu Phước was a member of
the National Assembly of re-united Việt Nam.

[9] Đời Cô Lựu (Miss Lựu’s Life) is a famous cải lương (Vietnamese modern folk opera) by
Trần Hữu Trang (1906-1966). First produced in 1936, it explores the vicissitudes and difficult fate of
Lựu, a poor woman during feudalist, colonial times.

[10] Industry, appearance, speech, and good behavior are the four Confucian attributes
defining the ideal woman.

[11] Famine in the North: At the end of World War II, the Japanese occupying the Northern
Region of Việt Nam confiscated the peasants’ rice and other food for Japanese troops and for their
army’s horses. The Japanese also forced peasants to grow jute instead of rice. Estimates are that about
two million Vietnamese starved during the famine in late 1944 and early 1945.

[12] Việt Minh: On May 19, 1941, the VIIIth Conference of the Indochinese Communist Party’s
Central Committee met under the leadership of Hồ Chí Minh in Pác Bó, Cao Bằng Province, very close
to the Chinese border. Three months before, Hồ Chí Minh had returned to Việt Nam after thirty years
working and organizing overseas. He reasserted control of the Party and shifted the leadership back to
an inclusive, nationalist vision of democracy, independence, and freedom. The May 1941 Party meeting
widened the revolutionary movement to include organizations and individuals who were not communists
by forming the “Việt Minh” (Việt Nam Độc Lập Đồng Minh Hội, League for the Independence of Việt
Nam).

Western sources often incorrectly use the term “Việt Minh,” which was always a movement and
never a government. “Việt Minh” can be correctly applied in the Northern and Central Regions until the
Declaration of Independence on September 2, 1945, when the Provisional Government of the
Democratic Republic of Việt Nam took effect. After that time, the government’s formal name or
“DRVN” is appropriate usage. However, in the Southern Region, depending on context, as in Mme.
Bình’s text, “Việt Minh” (as a movement, not a government) remains appropriate usage for the
Resistance Movement until formation of the National Liberation Front on December 20, 1960.
 3.

I’m a Happy Person

I must speak about my private affairs because, truly, emotional ties have
been the most precious part of my life.

When I was sixteen, my father was working for the Geophysical Survey
Office in Cambodia. A number of graduates from the Public Works
Department in the Hà Nội Polytechnic School came to Cambodia for
internship assignments. Since my father held the most senior position in his
profession in Cambodia, he received the assignment to guide them. Among
these young interns was Mr. Đinh Khang, the graduate who worked most
closely with my father. “Older Brother”[1] Khang loved sports and was
equally good at playing table tennis, volleyball, and basketball. We would
often meet on the basketball court.

Romance blossomed between us and grew in strength day by day.

However, my father was cautious because he didn’t know Khang’s family; in
addition, my father wanted me to complete my schooling. At that time, I had a
number of other male friends, but my love was only for Khang. We made
promises to each other.

When the War of Resistance Against France broke out, I went to Sài Gòn
to look for Khang and his friends. They had already returned to Sài Gòn and
were participating in the organizations that had been started by the Việt Minh.
[2] In the middle of 1946, Khang and I met again at Phan Châu Trinh’s
Temple. Khang stayed with our family for a few months and then left for Hà
Nội. Before his departure, he told me: “I must go to the Northern Region and
join our national army, where I have many friends. The situation in the
Southern Region is very complex. It’s difficult to know what to do.” We
parted and promised to see each other soon. Yet it was nine years before we
were reunited in 1954, after I had regrouped to the North.[3]

During those nine long years, I received from Khang only these few
words: “Wishing you and your family safety and health.” He had written them
on a scrap of paper, which was crumpled because a member of a delegation
of officials had hand-carried the note from our Central-Level Headquarters
in the Northern Region to the Southern Region. Could I consider that scrap of
paper a letter? Regardless, I was delighted to know that Khang was alive and
still thinking of me. Once, when my father was reading an engineering
magazine sent undercover from the Northern Region, he found an article by
an author named Đinh Khang. That’s how my father discovered that his “son-
in-law” in the Northern Region was an army engineer.

I was organizing undercover for the Resistance in Sài Gòn’s inner city and
often went out to the Liberated Resistance Zones to work and attend
meetings.

The comrade leaders of our movement showed concern for me and urged
me to reconsider the commitment that Khang and I had made to wait for each
other. Should I continue to wait? In truth, at that time, we did not know when
our Resistance War Against France would be victorious. I didn’t know when
Khang and I might meet again. I told myself that if I found someone whom I
loved more than Khang, then I would reconsider. In truth, up until that point,
Khang had been the only one I cherished.

In late 1949, a delegation from the Southern Region was about to be

dispatched to our Central Headquarters in the Northern Region. My fellow
sisters in the Revolution loved me dearly and knew my story. They asked me
if I wanted to go. I thought about this for a long time before replying that I
couldn’t leave.

I realized that, without me, Khang could find someone else. However, I
was afraid that, without me, my younger siblings would have great
difficulties. I will never regret that decision. Watching my five siblings
mature was my reward for the love I gave them. Later, they became a great
source of moral and spiritual support, and they remain so today.

* *

The Geneva Agreement was signed after nine years of the Resistance War
Against France. On November 23, 1954, I left to regroup in the North. My
father was already in Hà Nội. I met Khang again. My father had told me that
Khang “still did not have a wife” and was working with the army engineers.

The day Khang and I met I was deeply moved to see him in his army-green
uniform. He gave me a penetrating look.

“How are you?” he asked quietly. He probably perceived me as thinner,

since I had been released from prison only a few months before. I will never
forget those moments.
 We rushed to get married, because I was supposed to return to Sài Gòn in
two months to continue organizing. On December 1, 1954, we had a frugal
wedding with several plates of biscuits, candies, and cigarettes, plus tea. Our
wedding was at No. 2 Đinh Lê Street, then the Ministry of Labor. Minister
Nguyễn Văn Tạo[4] served as master of ceremonies. Especially touching was
the emotional speech my father had prepared with great care. He recalled our
story, how Khang and I had endured a very long separation but had waited
faithfully. He urged us to love each other until “our hair turned silver and our
teeth grew loose.”

Whether we are a father or a mother, we always love our children: When

they are young, we nourish and teach them. Once they are grown, we still
worry. We worry about whether they’ll be happy. My father was like that.
His nourishment, concern, and love made me always strive to succeed in
whatever I was doing. I wanted my father to be pleased and proud of his
daughter.

Unfortunately, my father had passed on by the time I’d received important

assignments and had completely fulfilled the responsibilities assigned to me.

* *

I’m a happy person. I was able to marry the man I loved, my first love.
Because of our different assignments, Khang and I were often separated.
However, the deep-rooted love between us helped me to stand firm and
complete my missions. In 1956, I gave birth to Thắng (Victory), our son, and
then, in 1960, to Mai (Apricot or Plum), our daughter.
 As the American War grew fiercer by the day, I had to be separated from
my children whenever I took on distant, diplomatic missions. My comrades
would ask me, “What has been your greatest difficulty in completing the huge
tasks the Party and State have assigned you?”

The difficulties were not few, and the responsibilities I received were
always greater than my strength. Many comrades were probably like me. At
that time, when our country was totally committed to fighting the enemy, we
could not refuse any task that the Resistance and the nation asked of us.

However, one important difficulty I could not overcome was my one

sacrifice—not taking care of my two children. From age two onward, they
had to live in crèches and could come home only once a week. Whenever I
was away, their uncles would pick them up, but if all the uncles were busy,
then the children would remain at school. When my children were older, I
was away all year and had to send Thắng and Mai to a live-in school. Then,
with the war raging, the children were evacuated with their aunt. Since their
father was in the army, he also could not look after them.

While on missions away from the city, I would hear bombs falling near the
area where my children had been evacuated. I was so worried; I felt as if my
heart would burst, for I loved them intensely. War divided our country for
more than twenty years. My deepest sympathy goes to my sisters and brothers
who were, like me, interminably separated from their children. All of us
were unable to give our children the parental love and teaching they
deserved. In wartime, many people must sacrifice, for there is no other
choice!

*
 * *

As to my own family while I was growing up, I must speak first about my
father. My mother died very young, when my father was only forty-two. He
loved his children and, given the situation of the Resistance struggle, he did
not remarry.

Now, looking back, I believe my father’s hardships probably would have

lessened if he’d had someone to take care of him when he was ill while we
children were all away.

My father had the courage to express his convictions. People say that
during the Land Reform Campaign[5] he dared stand up to protect people
who had been unfairly accused. He was in good physical shape from his
work as a surveyor. He would cross jungles and wade streams as if such
treks were nothing. However, with advancing age, he became ill perhaps
because the enemy had arrested and tortured him many times. Then he served
as head of the Southern Military Engineers who were operating deep in the
southern forests with contaminated water. He had to stay in the hospital about
six months.

In 1969, I returned home from the Paris Conference to receive new

directives and was terribly distressed to find that my father had been in the
hospital for several months. He was frail and emaciated. I embraced him.
Between tears, I asked, “Why didn’t you tell me you were ill?”

My father’s answer touched me: “My illness is minor,” he said. “Your

work now is far more important!”
 That was my father’s disposition. He loved his children dearly, but he
was always also thinking about shared work. He was proud that the whole
family participated in the Resistance. I remember that during those cruel
years my father followed closely the situation in the southern battlefields. He
heard news that our relatives were massacred and wept; he heard news that
our soldiers were victorious and wept.

By that time, four of us children were in North Việt Nam, but Hà, the
younger brother closest in age to me, was active organizing undercover in
South Việt Nam. My father was always talking about Hà, about not knowing
how Hà was. In 1968, we heard that Hà had been arrested. This came as a
terrible shock to my father. The sad truth is that Hà never again met our
father, who died in 1969, when the war was still far from over. Hà was
exiled to Côn Đảo Political Prison Island,[6] where he was held
continuously until the liberation of South Việt Nam in 1975. Only then was
Hà able to return home.

On May 1, 1975, our forces liberated Côn Đảo Prison Island. Boats from
the mainland went out to meet our brothers and sisters, who had been
prisoners. We siblings met Hà again after twenty years of separation. We
hugged with endless joy while also repeatedly speaking of our father. If our
father had still been alive, his joy would have been indescribable!

During all those war years, like so many other families with each person
in a different place, we had few chances to meet. Younger brother Hải, next
in line to Hà, went to study in China from 1953 until 1958, when he returned
home, but then he and Hồ left for the Soviet Union as graduate students. Loan,
my younger sister, studied in China from 1961 until 1966. Only Hào, the
youngest, went into the army. He was so thin, but he hiked the entire Hồ Chí
Minh Trail and stayed in the ranks for six or seven years before returning
home.

Hải and Hồ were not present when our father passed away in 1969 and
could not accompany him to his final resting place. Only Khang and my two
children were there. I heard that my son, Thắng, mourned my father the most.
Perhaps this was because Thắng had been living for a long time with his
grandfather and had witnessed first-hand the harsh and exhausting toll of my
father’s old age and illness even as he continued caring for two
grandchildren.

Work usually kept me far from my family, but I felt as if I had them each
and all nearby, closely bound to me as the force driving me during every task
I undertook. It would be true to say that I’ve had a rather strange life. I can’t
separate the influence and love of my family from my life’s path with its
many hard places. The members of my family were and are the strength and
happiness of my life.

[1] “Older Brother”: The Vietnamese language uses dozens of words for forms of address and
for the pronouns “you” and “I” of English. Most of the Vietnamese words are family based, such as
“brother,” “sister,” “aunt,” “uncle,” “grandfather,” etc., with further differentiation for paternal/maternal
and older/younger. This usage has a deep history in the language itself and is not connected to
communism or revolutionary politics. That said, for many years, “comrade” was a commonly used
pronoun, of course with revolutionary connotations.

[2] Việt Minh: See Chapter 2, “Childhood,” 12, p. 51.

[3] Regrouped to the North: In accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement, revolutionary
activists and combatants in South Việt Nam regrouped to North Việt Nam. Similarly, French-allied
activists and combatants in North Việt Nam regrouped to South Việt Nam. Many Catholics, influenced
by American CIA operatives working in the North, left for the South as part of regrouping.
 [4] Nguyễn Văn Tạo (1908-1970) came from what is now Long An Province in the Southern
Region. He worked and studied in France, joined the French Communist Party, and was a member of
the French Party’s delegation to the VIth Comintern Congress in Moscow in 1928. The French in Paris
arrested him in 1930 for organizing a demonstration supporting the Yên Bái Uprising in Việt Nam. After
Nguyễn Văn Tạo served time in prison, the French sent him back to Việt Nam. He took part in the
August 1945 Revolution in Sài Gòn and then went out to the Northern Region in 1946. He served as
minister of labor from 1946 to 1965.

[5] Land Reform Campaign: The National Assembly passed the Land Reform Law on
December 4, 1953. The law began to take effect in 1954 to redistribute land to the peasants. Even
though guidelines were more lenient than the Chinese model, there were excesses. In 1956, the Party
formally admitted to “serious mistakes” in the Land Reform Campaign. Trường Chinh resigned as Party
secretary; Hồ Chí Minh assumed that role.

[6] Côn Đảo Prison Island: Côn Đảo Island (known as Côn Lôn or Poulo Condor during the
French period and as Côn Sơn during the American War) is the largest island in the Côn Đảo
Archipelago, which is now a district of Vũng Tàu - Bà Rịa Province. Côn Đảo Prison Island is about
140 miles south of Sài Gòn. Marco Polo sought refuge in the archipelago from a storm in 1294. In the
early 1700s, British and French trading companies vied for control of the archipelago.

In 1783, the French secured the Versailles Treaty, whereby the Nguyễn regime ceded Đà Nẵng and
the Côn Lôn Islands in return for four battleships, twelve hundred soldiers, two hundred gunners, and
two hundred African soldiers to fight against the Tây Sơn Uprising. However, the French took
advantage of the treaty only in early 1862, when they turned Côn Lôn into a prison island by building
Prison 1. They built Prison 2 next door in 1916 and Prison 3 a kilometer away in 1928. In 1940-1941,
they added two more prisons (Prisons 4 and 5) as auxiliaries to Prison 3. Prisons 4 and 5 contained the
infamous “tiger cages,” which appear later Mme. Bình’s account.
 4.

Forged during the Resistance War Against France

In July 1945, our whole family was together in Sài Gòn. Any Vietnamese
who lived through that period will recall how everyone wanted to follow the
call of our Homeland.

My father immediately joined Eastern Group #1, since that’s where his
friends were. As for me, I did whatever the leaders asked. One day in late
September, our leaders requested that I go to the Sài Gòn Municipal Theater
to meet Comrade Hà. I expected an imposing revolutionary, but instead Hà
was a rather young man only about thirty years old. Later, I learned that he
was an agricultural engineer, who had joined the Việt Minh[1] early on.

Comrade Hà had heard that I knew English. The first task he assigned me
was to welcome representatives of the British and Indian forces arriving in
Sài Gòn on behalf of the Allies to disarm the occupying Japanese.[2] The
Allies’ representatives whom I met were mostly British. The Indians and
French Foreign Legion soldiers were only guards.

I had never spoken English with someone from Great Britain. I was
terribly embarrassed. I winced most when the British officers asked me
about dancing and entertainment sites and matters about which I was
completely ignorant. After several days, I requested release from my
assignment. Comrade Hà gave me another task, which I now know to be
intelligence work. I was to follow individuals to see where they went and
what they did. I was equally abysmal at following and investigating. July and
August of 1945 had been an animated time[3] in Sài Gòn. People and
vehicles bustled about night and day. Young vanguard pioneers practiced
marching—one, two, one, two—and singing “To the Streets”[4] by Lưu Hữu
Phước. The atmosphere suggested “imminent uprising.” People were out in
the streets in large numbers, yet everything was orderly. It was as if we were
feeling the steamy breath of something hugely important about to burst forth.

Everyone was in the streets again on the morning of September 2.[5] I

went with Hà and Hải, the older two of my younger brothers, to the square at
Notre Dame Cathedral. Something tremendous was about to occur—for the
first time, representatives of the Revolution’s administration were going to
appear in public. Across the country, the Việt Minh had seized political
power from France and Japan. The Việt Minh in Sài Gòn had established the
city’s Provisional Administrative Committee, which was our own city
government run by Vietnamese belonging to the Revolution.

That afternoon, we were waiting to hear the speech that was to be

broadcast from Hà Nội by the country’s new president, Hồ Chí Minh, when
guns at the French priests’ house fired into the throng. Masses of people, who
had assembled peacefully, turned into an uprising. A tense atmosphere surged
across the city.

Clearly, the French colonizers could not bear to withdraw. They were
using any method—including war—to re-occupy Việt Nam.
 Within three weeks, as soon as the Allies’ troops arrived, we saw that the
British and Indian armies were helping the French army return. British and
Indian troops guarded the city’s access points. They had not come to disarm
the Japanese army. Instead, they were in Sài Gòn to stop our struggle.

The Việt Minh forces switched to alternative tactics. I received orders to

carry pistols from the inner city to the outskirts. We were all fervently
fulfilling our tasks regardless of danger. Everyone, particularly the youth,
thought of only two words, “Independence” and “Freedom.” Those two
words—“Independence” and “Freedom”—how sacred they were!

On September 23, the French Army publicly provoked hostilities with the
Việt Minh. Gunfire erupted throughout Sài Gòn.

My father left as a liaison with men in Group B, while I stayed with my

younger siblings at Elder Phan’s Temple in Đa Kao Ward. We could hear
gunfire all around. Hà, Hải, and I decided to retrieve the pistol my father had
left at the temple. We agreed that, if need be, we would shoot; we were
determined that the French would not arrest us. Fortunately, the French only
passed by. We did not need to use the pistol. The truth is that none of us had
ever held a gun, let alone fired one. Including all my subsequent years in the
Resistance, I still haven’t learned how to shoot a gun!

Several days later, the local population began evacuating from the city’s
center to its outskirts and the provinces. Our family evacuated to Lái Thiêu,
where a cousin had a farm. My younger siblings remained there, while my
father and we three older children joined the Resistance, each of us with an
assignment. My fourth and youngest brother, Nguyễn Đông Hào, was very
small but brave. My father dispatched him and others to Cambodia with TNT
sticks for the munitions workshop recently set up to produce grenades and
mines. Another brother and I left for Hồng Ngự in Đồng Tháp Province to
haul food to our armed forces preparing to resist in the Eastern Zone.[6] My
cousins in Sài Gòn—Hồng, Cống, Nông, and others—also joined the
Resistance.

* *

My father’s perfectionist anger would occasionally frighten us, but in fact,

he was very gentle. After my mother passed away, my father paid much more
attention to my life. He encouraged me to study, to take care of my siblings,
and play sports, but he would not allow me to organize at night. But then the
Việt Minh assigned me to work at Hồng Ngự in logistical supply for our
soldiers. My third brother, Hào, had already left for Hồng Ngự, about 175
kilometers from Sài Gòn. I would have to travel by night and alone.

My father took me to the Sài Gòn Wharf. There, sampans were filling with
passengers. My father asked around. He told me that my trip’s first leg would
take me to Mỹ Tho, where I would have to find a sampan leaving for Hồng
Ngự. My father worried about my traveling alone, but assignments for our
country took priority. I was also worried. Up until that moment, nothing had
ever required that I be so brave! Yet when I saw that my father was of mixed
minds, I reassured him, saying, “There’s nothing to worry about, Father. I can
do this!”

I climbed aboard the boat, which already had about thirty passengers
ready to depart. They must have been local people from the six delta
provinces on their way back home from Sài Gòn. Since I didn’t know
anyone, I sat huddled in one place and didn’t sleep the whole night. Everyone
disembarked at Mỹ Tho the following morning. I had never been to Mỹ Tho
and didn’t know whom to ask about a boat to Hồng Ngự. I walked around and
around in the streets, searching for the Việt Minh office. Luckily, I ran into
Comrade Hà, and then later I met an old friend from Cambodia. Before long,
I was on my way to Hồng Ngự. I had a cousin, who had been working in
Hồng Ngự for a while. As soon as I arrived, I learned that local Resistance
activists had elected him president of the Hồng Ngự District Resistance
Committee.

I was relieved to have arrived safely. Yet problems arose with my

assignment to carry dried beef to the Eastern Zone. The day after I’d left Mỹ
Tho Provincial Capital, the French occupied the city, and then they continued
on, taking Sa Đéc and Châu Đốc Provinces. By now, the French had blocked
the road to Sài Gòn. I remained in Hồng Ngự, where I worked as secretary
for the local Resistance Administrative Committee. Since I was in the Hồng
Ngự liberated area, I participated in the first general election in independent
Việt Nam.

By January 6, 1946, we had completed all our local preparations for the
nationwide elections.[7] The people flocked to the People’s Committee
Office to join this great event. Then we heard airplanes. People ran about,
yelling, “Airplanes!” “Airplanes!!” Bombs exploded. The French airplanes
had arrived to destroy the elections. A dozen people were killed or
wounded. Nevertheless, our general elections continued that afternoon.

I stayed in Hồng Ngự until May 1946. By then, the French had occupied
most cities and provincial capitals in southern Việt Nam. Our Resistance
Armed Forces had withdrawn to the countryside, leaving only the undercover
units behind in the cities. My father asked friends to guide my brother and me
from Hồng Ngự back to Sài Gòn. My entire family assembled at Elder Phan’s
Temple, but we could no longer organize openly. Many families, including
my father’s friends from Cambodia, were in the same situation. Friends
without houses in Sài Gòn came to live with us.

During this time, we faced financial difficulties. My father had used his
savings to build the Phnom Penh house, where relatives now lived. We took
on every kind of paid work, even rinsing bottles at factories, to support
everyone living with us in Đa Kao Ward. I decided to take advantage of the
neighborhood near Elder Phan’s Temple. I opened a stall to sell rice, fish
sauce, and miscellaneous goods, such as duck eggs, tomatoes, onions, and
garlic. Several office functionaries and engineers joined my father as
“porters” fetching rice and eggs from the Cầu Ông Lãnh Market for me to
sell.

The atmosphere in Sài Gòn was tense and claustrophobic. People worried
about how to secure food and other necessities for their daily lives. The city
throbbed with anxiety about whatever might happen, for nothing seemed
clear. Perhaps whatever was coming would be dangerous, yet everyone was
impatient with anticipation for whatever change might soon arrive. By the
end of that year, all would be clear.

* *

Even now, my younger siblings still enjoy telling the story of their “elder
sister selling tomatoes at Tân Định Market.” Indeed, the best place to sell
was Tân Định, which was over a kilometer from our house. My skills did not
include carrying heavy baskets with a bamboo shoulder pole. After walking
several dozen meters, I had to set the baskets down and switch shoulders. By
the time I arrived at the market, I was soaked with sweat.

A French soldier at the market collected taxes, while a French police

officer following behind him scrutinized prices. One day, the friend who sold
duck eggs next to me was haggling over prices with a half-French, half-
Vietnamese woman. The “State” price was sixteen cents per egg, but we had
bought our eggs for more than twenty cents. We had to sell them for at least
twenty-five.

The police officer managing prices intervened and forced my friend to

sell several dozen eggs at the “State” price. My friend burst into tears. I
could not restrain myself. I snapped in French at the police. This startled
everyone. Even the French police and the half-French, half-Vietnamese
woman were surprised. They looked at each other and left. The sisters in the
market thanked me profusely. However, after that incident, the brothers and
sisters in our Resistance organization would no longer allow me to sell
goods at Tân Định Market. By speaking French, I had blown my own cover
as an underground organizer.

At the end of 1946, many families with their homeland in Việt Nam’s
Northern Region (Bắc Kỳ, Tonkin) sought a way to return to Hà Nội, since
the French had not yet occupied our capital. However, it was not long before
the Nationwide Resistance[8] broke out. The fires of war leapt across the
entire country.

Early in 1947, the French army began using its forces for terror and
suppression to reinforce its control. It ran constant scouring sweeps at night
in Sài Gòn, arresting organizers in the Resistance. French troops rummaged
through Elder Phan Châu Trinh’s Temple at 13 Gallimard Street (now
Nguyễn Huy Tự Street) thirteen times. They arrested and tortured my father.
We children felt deep love for our father. We worried about him. Each time
the police arrested our father, our hatred for the French grew.

By the end of 1947, my father could no longer stay in the city. He received
orders from the Resistance organization to leave for the mangrove swamps.
[9] I received a directive to remain behind, organize for the Resistance, and
tutor for money to feed my siblings. After a while, friends in the Việt Minh
realized I was always at Elder Phan’s Temple. They pointed out that my
presence there could easily expose our network. I had to slip away to another
site.

I made up my mind to ask an older cousin, a patriotic businessman, to tidy

up his affairs, move to the temple, and live with my younger siblings. I felt
such love for my younger brothers and sister, but I had no other choice. I
could only drop by now and then to visit them. One time, I returned to find
my youngest brother with a high fever. He was huddling under Grandfather’s
altar. I felt beset by pity. At times, I felt I should stop and care for my younger
siblings. I had to repress those feelings to continue my organizing.

* *

Work as a private tutor covered our expenses during my clandestine

organizing in Sài Gòn. I’d had teaching experience in mathematics with
students at an exam-training center and, for a while, had taught at Colette
School,[10] where the curriculum was in French. The principal was a friend,
Older Sister Nở. Most of the students were the children of wealthy business
owners or officials from the Sài Gòn administration.
 At the end of 1946, the Resistance assigned me to organize for the
Association of Women for National Salvation,[11] beginning with
Neighborhood 5, the area where my family lived. Subsequently, I received an
appointment to the city’s Association of Women for National Salvation.
Sisters organizing with me at that time were Nga, Hữu Bích, Đạt, Hạnh, and
Tư Kiều, but I was closest to Duy Liên.[12] She and I were the same age.
Duy Liên was lively, sharp-witted, and looked younger than her years. The
police arrested us both several years later, in April 1951. Duy Liên gave her
age as six years younger, making her a “teenager.” The enemy fell for her
ruse.

In 1946, the two older sisters working with us were Bảy Huệ[13] (my
first mentor in the Resistance and later the wife of Nguyễn Văn Linh)[14] and
Chín Châu. I was very fond of Bảy Huệ, who was gentle, upright, and caring.
She made careful recommendations and went to unnecessary lengths so that I
would understand important points about relating to ordinary people. She
would say to the other women, “Yến (that was the alias she had given me) is
a student. She has just finished school and does not yet know anything. She
needs your help.” It is true that I participated with all the enthusiasm of youth.
I wanted to add my small part to the common struggle, even though I did not
know the least thing about politics.

The sisters in the Resistance assigned me to live with a farming family in

Tân Phú Đông on the outskirts of Sài Gòn so that I could learn about
organizing among ordinary people. Every day, I swept the fallen leaves in the
huge orchard, cooked the rice, boiled the water, and so on. The grandmother
was head of the household; she belittled me for not knowing how to cook and
tidy up the house. I decided that “working for the Resistance” was not easy!
However, after several months, the family—even the grandmother—began to
treat me with affection.

I received an introduction to Comrade Hoàng Quốc Tân,[15] who was

part of a Marxist cell in Sài Gòn. Several French communists joined the cell
meetings. I borrowed books on Marxism-Leninism and read about dialectical
materialism, but my understanding was fragmented. I gradually gathered
some knowledge about the Revolution through meetings with brothers and
sisters returning to the city from the Resistance Zone and through my
occasional trips out to the mangrove swamps for large meetings. I tried to
transfer whatever I had learned to the brothers and sisters in my unit.
Whenever I spoke with the students for whom I was responsible, I would
bring in new points and ways of teaching, which the students welcomed.

I also campaigned among my acquaintances. At that time, I would refer to

Bùi Thị Cẩm,[16] a lawyer and the wife of a famous intellectual, as “Older
Sister,”[17] using a somewhat intimate term even though she was far older.
She asked me what she should do for the Resistance. I said, “You and your
husband can look for whatever is useful for the Resistance and then do it.
Don’t do anything that isn’t useful.” Even though my response was simple,
she was effusive in her thanks.

“Younger Sister,” she said, “you’re so right!”

I realized that everyone has at least latent patriotism. Sometimes, a

statement as simple as my response may reveal huge truths and be a catalyst
changing a person’s life. Older Sister Cẩm subsequently joined the
Resistance and later held important positions.
 In addition to assignments mobilizing and educating the populace, my
friends and I distributed propaganda leaflets and encouraged strikes to
oppose the enemy’s schemes and cruelty.

* *

In 1948, Comrade Hồ Bắc from the District Party Steering Committee

came to visit me, saying the district-level comrades had evaluated my
organizing as zealous and had decided to receive me into the Indochinese
Communist Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party). He briefed me on
the Party and Hồ Chí Minh as president of the State and of the Party. I found
this very interesting but asked for time to consider. To my thinking, Party
membership was for model revolutionaries prepared to sacrifice for ideals.
After some time, I agreed. The two people who formally introduced[18] me
were Hồ Bắc and Comrade Hồ Thị Chí,[19] the wife of Comrade Hà Huy
Giáp.[20]

In 1946, the Fontainebleau Conference[21] failed; our patient efforts to

avoid war had not been successful. President Hồ Chí Minh stayed on in Paris
to negotiate a modus vivendi (a temporary but official, diplomatic agreement
pending settlement of a dispute) in September. Nevertheless, two months
after he returned to Hà Nội, the French attacked Hải Phòng. President Hồ’s
speech to the entire nation on December 19, 1946 at that crucial point
expressed our people’s profound aspirations and determination:

“We want peace. We must make concessions. But the more concessions
we make, the more the French colonizers invade. They are determined to
steal our country once again! No! We will sacrifice everything! We will not
tolerate the loss of our country. We will not be slaves.”

In Sài Gòn, the Resistance Movement under the People’s Committee and
Party leadership burst forth across all the social strata. The leadership
assigned me to take charge of political training for core student groups in
addition to mobilizing women. Among those students was Bình Thanh,[22] an
excellent activist from the Marie Curie School.[23] We bonded immediately
and became close friends. Later, during my diplomatic missions, Bình Thanh
served as my personal assistant and secretary.

In addition to our organizing among workers and small traders, Duy Liên
and I received assignments to mobilize bourgeois intellectual women. For
me, this was difficult because these women were accustomed to a casual,
free lifestyle; they could not easily adjust to the rigorous life of an activist.
Many times, in the middle of a meeting, we would hear a car horn. The
women would jump up and rush out to dine with their husbands in Chợ Lớn.

Yet these sisters were patriotic. After participating in our mobilizing

activities, they agreed to join the Association of Progressive Women. I will
always remember Older Sister Hạnh, a doctor, and Older Sister Quỳnh Hoa,
[24] who later became minister of health for the Provisional Revolutionary
Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt Nam. When Quỳnh Hoa left
Sài Gòn for the Resistance Base, the Sài Gòn administration confiscated all
her belongings and sentenced her to death in absentia.

In 1949, Duy Liên and I received an introduction to a cell led by Nguyễn

Hữu Thọ.[25] Students who had just finished school went to the offices of
this very famous lawyer, who was among the twentieth century’s greatest
Vietnamese intellectuals. Duy Liên and I arrived, all aflutter. We were
completely out of our element! The office was elegant and luxurious, while
the lawyer was tall and handsome. He smiled graciously as he welcomed us.
From that point onward, my fate and my life were linked closely to the life of
this man of great intellect, this best of comrades. Our cell also included
Older Sister Tám Lựu[26] as cell secretary. An experienced revolutionary,
she had taken part in the Southern Uprising of 1940.[27] The general
secretary of the City Party Committee at that time was Comrade Nguyễn Văn
Linh.

Along with Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, I must also speak of Dr. Phạm Ngọc Thạch,
[28] Huỳnh Tấn Phát,[29] and the many other Southern intellectuals whom I
knew during my years as an activist. For the most part, they were wealthy
people of high social station, but when faced with the Revolution and our
country’s huge needs, they discarded everything and threw themselves into
the shared Resistance struggle, contributing their extraordinary intelligence to
the nation. To my thinking, the dominant characteristic of the Vietnamese
intelligentsia at that time was the “wealth” of their patriotism. Indeed, the
intelligentsia was the quintessence of patriotism. I have great respect and
affection for those comrades.

We soon saw that our undercover activism would be insufficient unless

we expanded the movement. We needed to bring our people out into open
struggle under many forms, both legal and illegal. Organizers formed many
groups, such as the Association of Progressive Women, the Association to
Assist Victims of the Tân Kiểng Fire, plus organizations of workers,
university students, high school students, etc. Every stratum of society had its
public, legal organization. The body representing these organizations was the
Coordinating Committee of Organizational Representatives, which was
headed by Nguyễn Hữu Thọ.

At the end of 1949, the enemy arrested a number of students at Pétrus Ký

School.[30] A protest erupted at the school, demanding the arrested students’
release. The enemy responded with a further terror of arrests. Police rounded
up all students who had protested. On January 9, 1950, several thousand
students from across the city marched toward the official residence of
French-backed Governor Trần Văn Hữu[31] in the botanical gardens on
Lagrandière Street (now Lý Tự Trọng Street). They held aloft banners with
the slogan, “Free the Arrested Pétrus Ký Students!” Many, many supporters
joined their march.

The students had selected representatives to meet Governor Trần Văn

Hữu, but he closed his doors and refused to see any of them. At midday, the
police arrived in dozens of vehicles with several hundred soldiers to repress
the demonstration. The students tried to resist but couldn’t. Trần Văn Ơn,[32]
a student leader, blocked the road so that other students could escape. The
police beat Trần Văn Ơn with their cudgels and shot him dead when he tried
to scramble over a hedge. Trần Văn Ơn fell backwards. News of the
demonstration and of Trần Văn Ơn’s martyrdom spread like flames
throughout Sài Gòn. Indignation erupted into anger. Trần Văn Ơn’s death was
the spark igniting a firestorm.

On January 12, 1950, Trần Văn Ơn’s funeral became a colossal

demonstration drawing people from all classes in Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn. Many
people came from Mỹ Tho Province and even from Bạc Liêu and Cần Thơ
Provinces farther south in the Mekong Delta. The Coordinating Committee of
Organizational Representatives with Nguyễn Hữu Thọ as its head had sent
many proposals to the Sài Gòn administration, demanding that the authorities
end their terror and release all the students and everyone they had arrested in
connection with the demonstration. Open organizations and undercover
organizations met frequently to plan their opposition to the enemy.

* *

Then we heard that on March 19, 1950 two American ships—the

command ship Stickwell and the destroyer Anderson—would land at Sài
Gòn. Here was public evidence of American intervention to assist the French
colonizers, who were facing difficulties on every front.

The Sài Gòn Party Committee organized a working committee to direct

widespread opposition to the French colonizers’ invasion and the American
imperialists’ intervention. At the same time, we would oppose the enemy’s
repression and terror, which increased daily in the cities. I was appointed
representative for women on the demonstration’s organizing committee. We
mobilized in preparation for a workers’ strike and a huge demonstration on
March 19.

At 8:00 that morning, crowds gathered at Tôn Thọ Tường School.[33] Just
as Nguyễn Hữu Thọ and comrades from the Coordinating Committee of
Organizational Representatives were arriving, the openly organized groups
tossed flyers from the school’s top-floor windows. The flyers, which
demanded that the enemy cease its terror, fell like welcomed rain.

Nguyễn Hữu Thọ had not begun to speak when police vehicles arrived.
People pushed out to fill the street and block the police, with everyone
marching in the direction of the Sài Gòn Market. Nguyễn Hữu Thọ and many
famous Sài Gòn intellectuals led the march, along with a French woman, who
was married to Comrade Phạm Huy Thông.[34] The comrades heading the
trade-union delegation stretched out the red banners they had prepared
beforehand. Wherever the trade union leaders went, bystanders holding aloft
red flags with gold stars[35] surged into the street and followed like waves
of water in a flood. Our flags flew, dignified and dauntless, right there in the
middle of enemy-occupied Sài Gòn. Many people could not restrain their
tears.

According to the organizing committee’s plan, wings of demonstrators

would approach the Municipal Theater from different directions and then
pour out to the wharf, where the two American ships were due to dock. In
fact, the two ships had already arrived but did not dare approach the wharf;
instead, they anchored at a distance. The demonstrators coming from Tôn Thọ
Tường formed the primary wing. I accompanied that group. We had divided
the organizing committee, with each of us following a wing. However, we
were undercover as leaders. Our small group—Năm Sứ, Duy Liên, and
myself—was so engrossed in the momentum that we had a hard time sticking
to discipline.

At this point, we were still on Lê Lợi Street in front of the Municipal

Theater. A huge American flag appeared from the second floor of the US
government’s Sài Gòn office. I had just arrived. I saw several young men
climbing up onto each other’s shoulders to snatch the flag. I looked around; I
knew undercover secret-police agents were nearby.

I shouted, “Protect those brothers!”

 The youths yanked the American flag free. The crowd tore it to pieces.

The young men had just jumped down when secret- police agents arrived
to nab them. I did not have time to think. I knew only that if I did nothing, the
French police would arrest the youths. I jumped in and grabbed the hand of
the secret-police unit’s commander, twisting his wrist. This gave the youths
just enough time to escape. The youths kept running while the police
commander shook his wrist, recovering from shock. The youths ducked into
the crowd, darting this way, that way until they disappeared.

I realized I was also in danger. The crowd was seething. I darted into the
throng where it was thickest. Our crowd pressed toward the Town Hall.
Another clash with the police ensued. I never heard whether the French
commander’s wrist was injured, but the demonstrators did set his vehicle
afire, turning it into a charred frame.

We pushed on to the river, shouting, “Down with the invading French

colonizers!” “Down with the intervening Americans!”

The purpose of the demonstration was to show our flag and instill spirit
for opposing the American imperialists’ aid to the French colonizers. Faced
with the advancing masses of people, the two American ships hastened to
weigh anchor and steam away. Some people estimated that nearly half a
million people had joined that demonstration, yet the population of Sài Gòn
was only one million. However, it did seem to me as if all the city’s
occupants were in the streets.

The enemy administration remained paralyzed for hours.

 We said to each other, “If only we’d had weapons, we could have seized
political power!”

There are so many unforgettable anecdotes about that demonstration on

March 19, 1950. As our wing moved from Tôn Thọ Tường out toward Bến
Thành Market, we met the train en route from Sài Gòn to Mỹ Tho. The
railway workers stopped the train, jumped down, and joined our march. In
another wing, the police threw tear-gas grenades. Many demonstrators
fainted. Residents living on both sides of the street brought out pails of water
and ice; they took the injured inside for first aid. Wherever the French
arrested demonstration leaders, the throng would protect other activists so
they could escape.

After the police officers recovered, they began sweeps throughout the city
to pursue us. First, they arrested Nguyễn Hữu Thọ to “answer for his crimes.”
However, the police could not intimidate him and the Coordinating
Committee of Organizational Representatives, which he led. Nguyễn Hữu
Thọ exposed the enemy’s cruelty. He said the people’s indignation was
legitimate and that the administration’s repression and terror had forced the
people to rise up in opposition. A few months later, the authorities exiled
Nguyễn Hữu Thọ[36] to Lai Châu Province in the far north.

* *

Other demonstrations burst forth in Sài Gòn. In April 1950, the enemy
burned a hamlet of thatch houses at Tân Kiểng in the Bàn Cờ area of
workers’ housing that served as one of our undercover Resistance bases in
the inner city. The authorities wanted to drive the people into another area.
Several hundred families lost their houses, possessions, and what little
capital they had accumulated; the French repression had forced them to live
on reed mats under the open sky. The Coordinating Committee of
Organizational Representatives strongly condemned the enemy’s scheme and
demanded that the enemy assist the local people. The legally open trade
unions organized drives to raise funds to help the victims. This was also an
occasion to continue encouraging the masses of people to join the struggle.

On May 12, 1950, the enemy arrested and murdered Trần Bội Cơ,[37] a
female ethnic Chinese student. Comrade Lien and I were responsible for
organizing in the ethnic Chinese community. We received an assignment to set
up a meeting in Chợ Lớn to denounce this cruelty and call on the ethnic
Chinese to join with ethnic Vietnamese in opposing the aggressors and in
protecting our youth.

Once again, I made a mistake: I did not follow strict discipline and
allowed the police to learn my identity.

The brothers and sisters had set a table alongside a crowded Chợ Lớn
street. At precisely the predetermined time, a young ethnic Chinese man
jumped onto the table to speak. I looked around and saw that no one was
guarding him. I called on several people to surround him. He held forth for
about five minutes before the police arrived. The police arrested several
people on site; nevertheless, the meeting created indispensable echoes.

Other echoes from struggles outside the city reached the enemy’s prisons.
In July 1950, brothers and sisters incarcerated at the Sài Gòn Interrogation
Center staged a hunger strike to oppose the prison’s harsh treatment and to
support demands made by compatriots outside the prison. The Resistance
leaders asked me to organize a demonstration by families of prisoners held at
the Center and, particularly, to mobilize the sisters whose husbands were
prisoners.

* *

The year 1950 was especially notable for the ebullience of the Sài Gòn -
Chợ Lớn movement. I cannot remember all the demonstrations that we
organized. These actions led our revolutionary brothers and sisters to call us
the “demonstration advisors!” Indeed, we were ardent. We threw ourselves
into those demonstrations.

At that time, we heard about preparations for a general, nationwide

counter-offensive. This encouraged us to increase our actions. I was elected
president of the City Women’s Union and Party general secretary for the Unit
of Women for National Salvation. The responsibilities were exacting, while
my family responsibilities also brought increased worries. Two of my
siblings had left for Resistance zones, but I still had three younger siblings at
home as well as my cousins. I had to stop by home frequently to tend to them.

These demonstrations occurred as battlefields across the country were

generating important changes. The Autumn 1950 Border Campaign of the
People’s Army of Việt Nam (PAVN)[38] liberated three northern-border
provinces—Cao Bằng, Bắc Cạn, and Lạng Sơn. This inspired the movement
of the people’s opposition in Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn.

The French added to their terror in Sài Gòn. We activists received orders
to conceal ourselves and protect our forces. This was the period when the
police arrested the greatest number of activists in the inner city. I received
orders to go out to the work site for our most important comrades (such as
Dr. Phạm Ngọc Thạch and architect Huỳnh Tấn Phát) in the Administrative
Committee for the Resistance.

Previously, I had gone on assignments to the key Resistance Zone and had
worked on the newspaper Chống Xâm Lăng (Oppose Aggression), even
though I had no journalistic skills. Later, I went to another guerrilla zone, to
Area 8, for meetings of the Women’s Union of the South.[39] There, I met
revolutionary women leaders, including Mười Thập[40] (for whom I later
served as secretary), Tư Định, Lê Thị Riêng,[41] Tám Thanh, Mười Huệ, and
others. Each woman influenced me in her own way; each one enlarged my
vision and understanding; each one helped me become even more
determined. None of these women is still alive, but for me, their images live
on in my memory.

While in the guerrilla zone, I visited my father in Đồng Tháp Mười

Province. There, he served as head of the Southern Military Engineers.

The Party Committee for the South called me to its office. For the first
time, I met the high-level comrades who had come to southern Việt Nam from
the Party Central Level in the Northern Liberated Zone.[42] They included
Comrades Lê Duẩn,[43] Lê Đức Thọ,[44] and Phạm Hùng.[45] I had always
thought these comrades would be humorless and even hardened, but I found
them easy-going, friendly, and caring. I was pleased to meet them and to
report on the pulse of the work we had done in the city.

One of the comrades asked, “What’s most interesting when you’re

organizing in the city?”
 Without thinking, I answered, “The demonstrations.”

They all laughed.

I was able learn from the comrades’ discussion and advice, but my
deepest impression came from careful instructions and their confidence in the
path I was taking.

* *

By the beginning of 1951, we needed to strengthen the opposition in the

city through greater flexibility in our actions to avoid the enemy’s scrutiny. I
no longer worked with the women but had moved over to responsibility for
an intelligence team composed of Aunt Đạt, Older Brother Định, and myself.
At the same time, I served as secretary of the Party Inner City Committee for
Junior Staff. Comrade Nguyễn Kiệm[46] chaired the committee. The situation
was tense, with more arrests of comrades, such as Nguyễn Kiệm, Đoàn Văn
Bơ,[47] and others.

I had been working on my new assignment for three months when, in April
1951, the secret police arrested me along with Older Brother Nguyễn Thọ
Chân,[48] Aunt Đạt, and Duy Liên. They jailed us in Catinat Police Station.
[49] Đạt had been working in the Town Hall; she’d slipped out with enemy
documents and personnel records. The police suspected Đạt and arrested her
on her way home. The rest of us had been staying with Đạt, using her as
cover. Thus, the police arrested us as well.
 We were repeatedly tortured because the enemy viewed us as important
cadres for the City Party Committee. From an informant, they knew that
Comrade Nguyễn Thọ Chân had just returned from the Party Central Level in
the Northern Liberated Zone, and so they were especially ruthless when
torturing him. As for myself, I was cruelly beaten without stopping because
an earlier arrestee had broken under torture and given my name. First, they
tortured with savage beatings, then by submerging me in water, then with
electricity, then—I wanted to die so they would finish.

I was most worried about breaking under torture and giving names,
leading the enemy to arrest others. I decided I would accept whatever the
enemy said about me, but my one purpose was to say nothing else. After a
time, the torturers saw they could not wrest any information from me. The
documents they had collected provided evidence that I had worked as a spy.
In the end, they concluded that I was a spy and should receive a heavy
sentence.

Catinat Detention Center was the heart of the secret police in Indochina. I
witnessed with my own eyes evidence of the fiendish savagery of the
colonized hirelings. Without regret, they beat us to make us confess. They did
not care whether their victims were men or women, old or young. They
would use depraved tricks to humiliate us women. I had never thought it
possible that human beings could be so cruel in so many ways.

Years later, I met a number of friends, who had been arrested again during
the time of the Americans and their puppets. Those sisters told me that the
cruelty of the Americans and their lackeys was many, many times worse than
our experience under the French. Those who haven’t experienced the
imperialists’ terrible prisons can nevertheless imagine in their own minds’
eyes the pain we suffered.

While in prison, I witnessed models of bravery by the revolutionary

warriors who died without surrendering. When I was taken to the
interrogation room, I saw several secret police using cudgels and whips to
flog a youth, who was suspended upside down from the ceiling, his body
covered with blood. The youth held to his goal of giving no information.
From others, I learned that he had been assigned special tasks in the city.
This staunch warrior, whose name I never learned, was beaten to death. I
knew many other martyrs.

We know there were countless other heroic martyrs, whose names we do

not know.

Catinat Detention Center was under the direction of Bazin, the notorious
chief of the French secret police. This detention center, famous for its cruelty,
was at the head of Catinat Street (later Tự Do Street), Sài Gòn’s most
luxurious street with many elegant, expensive shops and large hotels.
Immediately in front of the Catinat Detention Center was Notre Dame
Cathedral, the city’s largest and most beautiful church. I do not understand
what the French colonizers—to be more exact, the French secret police—
were thinking when they chose that site for Catinat Detention Center. Late at
night, we would return from the torture chamber to the special detention
room. The ringing in our ears from the enemy’s horrible whippings, beatings,
dunkings, and electricity would be replaced by the văng vẳng resounding
echo of the Notre Dame bells, as if those bells wanted to lessen our pain!
What an irony!
 After Catinat, they held me in Chí Hòa Prison for three years. During that
time, our Resistance underwent major changes. Nguyễn Hữu Thọ returned
from exile. He was once again the primary lawyer who would “argue” on our
behalf. After several weeks in Sài Gòn, he once again secured entry into Chí
Hòa Prison to visit “a client.” He let us know about the political and military
situation outside and brought us nutritious food and even cakes and candy.

The victory at Điện Biên Phủ[50] created a huge embarrassment for the
enemy’s army and simultaneously created favorable conditions for us. After I
had spent three years in prison, the enemy condemned me to four more years
but with a suspended sentence! I learned that people in Paris had intervened
to lighten my sentence. They had been acquainted with my grandfather in the
Human Rights League while Grandfather was an activist in Paris. I have only
recently been able to verify this. One other detail is certain: Lawyer Nguyễn
Hữu Thọ used all his zeal to advocate for me and other comrades before the
French court. Duy Liên, my close friend, also worked in every possible way
for my early release.

I had heard from comrades arrested before me that French prisons were
schools for revolutionaries. This was certainly true for me. Political
prisoners did not allow themselves to waste time. We organized study-
practice sessions in culture and politics. Many of the women were illiterate,
but after a time, they learned to read and write. Most important of all, we
learned from each other and matured in our struggle against the enemy by
sharing our own experiences and those of the comrades who had gone before
us.

We organized “sessions” every day with balanced reports from “Chí Hòa
Prison Radio.” These contained news from inside the prison and from
outside society, news of the struggle, and news of the victories of our army
and people from across the country. We demanded improvements in the
prison system and also organized actions in response to the Resistance
Movement outside the prison walls.

At times, we organized hunger strikes for six consecutive days.

Imprisoned with us were Resistance activists as well as criminals. After
mixing with us, some criminals examined their mistakes and changed. A few
of them later became serious participants in the Resistance.

* *

I will never forget two events, which occurred while I was in prison. My
fourth younger brother, Đông Hào, had been studying at Nguyễn Văn Tố[51]
School in Region 9. In 1952, the revolutionary leaders chose Hào to go out to
the Northern Region and then on to study outside the country. Visitors to the
prison needed special photo identification papers and could visit only every
two weeks. In truth, I never thought that Hào would secretly change the
photograph on his ID so that he could sneak in and see me before leaving.

My family is like that. Our family and the Homeland and the Revolution
were one and could not be split. Seeing my brother both delighted and
worried me. We stared at each other for several minutes and spoke only a
few words amidst the noise of the other prisoners and their visitors. Those
few minutes will remain forever in both our memories. That night, I couldn’t
possibly sleep. I was so homesick; I longed for my father and my siblings!
 I heard only recently about the second event. My father was deeply sad
when he learned of my arrest. After this news, his hair quite quickly turned
white. I knew my father loved us deeply. He had always encouraged us to
participate in the Resistance, but my father also always worried about us
children, particularly his two daughters. After my release from prison, I met
my father again when he was preparing to go out to the North to join the Điện
Biên Phủ Campaign. I was so distressed to find him much weaker than
before.

Upon my release from prison in April 1954, the higher level of the
Resistance wanted me to work in the guerrilla zone, but I was better suited to
work in the inner city, where all my friends were active and where my
youngest siblings were living. I asked for some time off and then to return to
work. At the time of my release from prison, the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ was
approaching its climax. The French, nearing defeat, were increasing their
terror in the Southern Region. I had just re-established contact with comrades
in the Resistance organizations when the police arrested me again because
Elder Phan’s Temple remained a site the secret police scrutinized. This time,
the colonial authorities arrested me as well as a cousin, who was at the
house. After two months, they released us, since they had no evidence.

* *

The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ ended with our victory on May 7, 1954, but
the French War did not end until after the Geneva Agreement was signed on
July 20, 1954.[52] We celebrated the victory. Immediately thereafter, we
received an order to organize the masses to welcome the Agreement and
demand its strict implementation. Lawyer Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, lawyer Trịnh
Đình Thảo,[53] Professor Phạm Huy Thông, Professor Nguyễn Văn Dưỡng,
[54] and other leaders organized the peace movement and the struggle to
demand the Agreement’s implementation. Older sisters Tám Lựu, Duy Liên,
Hữu Bích, and I took part. We organized many meetings to explain the
Agreement’s points.

On August 1, 1954, the special police savagely repressed a large meeting,

which the Trade Union had organized. The police used not only beatings,
whippings, and electricity but also shot directly into the crowd. Hữu Bích,
my close friend, was wounded. We found a doctor to care for her. For us, the
ill intentions of the French after signing the Agreement were clear right from
the start. The ink on the Agreement was not yet dry when the French tore up
the document and threw away the scraps.

The situation during the following days was chaotic. Our orders from
above were to stay within legal limits in opposing the enemy. Then, shortly
thereafter, the police arrested three key Resistance leaders[55] and sent them
to prison in Hải Phòng in the Northern Region. As for the rest of us, we were
forced to withdraw undercover.

In October 1954, Comrade Phạm Hùng called me to Region 9.[56] The

comrades there asked that I tie up my work and join the United Ceasefire
Delegation, which would be formed in Sài Gòn and travel out to the
Democratic Republic of Việt Nam in the North. The work would be in the
South and involve the ceasefire. They had chosen me because I was
acquainted with the people and localities in Sài Gòn. I requested two months
to organize everything for my siblings’ schooling and to take care of personal
affairs. Comrade Phạm Hùng agreed.
 After I regrouped to the North[57] with my three youngest siblings, I
prepared to return to Sài Gòn but then learned that the Ceasefire Delegation
had to drop several people; the delegation would no longer include a woman.
Instead, they assigned me to work at the Central-Level Women’s Union in Hà
Nội. This began a new season in my life as an activist, and it concluded my
nine years in the Resistance against French colonialism, a time that had tested
and strengthened me.

* *

I would like to say more about the story surrounding “my legal case.”

In 1951, the French police arrested me and accused me of crimes against

national security. Albert Sonnet of the Sûreté in Cochin China, the Southern
Region of Việt Nam, signed a report, which was forwarded to the Sûreté for
all of Indochina. The report noted that I would be sentenced to death or life
imprisonment.

This alarmed our Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn leaders, who assigned lawyer
Nguyễn Hữu Thọ to follow my case, persuade the judges, and defend me in
court. During that period, I also heard that activists in France, who had been
acquainted with Phan Châu Trinh, my maternal grandfather, had found a way
to intervene and reduce my sentence. However, I didn’t know who was
involved or how they had intervened.

Then in 2001, my older cousin, Lê Thị Kinh (a.k.a. Phan Thị Minh)[58]
went to the Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer (the Colonial Archives) at
Aix-en-Provence in southern France to research the fourteen years our
grandfather was in Paris and the relationship between Grandfather Phan and
Nguyễn Tất Thành (a.k.a. Nguyễn Ái Quốc - Hồ Chí Minh). In the process of
this research, she found several documents related to my case.

Among these documents was a letter signed by Marius Moutet,[59] the

minister of colonies who had signed the modus vivendi with President Hồ on
September 14, 1946 on the occasion of the official visit to France by Uncle
Hồ as the president of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam. Marius Moutet
wrote his letter regarding my case on May 15, 1952, when he was no longer
a minister in the French government but, instead, a senator, that is, a member
of the higher house in the French Parliament. He sent the letter to M.
Letourneau,[60] minister of Associated States for the French government.
The letter said:

“I have learned that a young woman, age twenty-three, who goes by the
name of SA or SAN, is held at Chí Hòa Detention Center in Sài Gòn. Her
case is about to be settled with the death penalty. This young woman is the
granddaughter of someone whom I knew, M. Phan Châu Trinh. Vietnamese
in both [French-affiliated] Việt Nam and also among the [revolutionary]
Việt Minh regard Phan Châu Trinh as a patriotic scholar, as a hero of their
people.

“I am not clear about the accusations against this woman, but please
allow me to suggest that both moral and political factors may lead to
serious, negative results [if she is executed]. Even though this case is in
the Vietnamese court with a Vietnamese judge rendering judgment, people
will say that this sentence was under French direction. It is my deep wish
and hope that you will give this matter your greatest attention. (Signed:
Marius Moutet).”
 In addition to this letter, there were several official dispatches from the
Office of the Minister for Associated States sent to the High Commissioner
for Indochina and the secret police in the Southern Region of Việt Nam
regarding my case.

The routes and results of Mr. Moutet’s intervention are unclear since we
do not have all the relevant documents. Nevertheless, this leads me to return
and speak about several other matters regarding my grandfather.

Elder Phan Châu Trinh was among the scholars who took the initiative in
the Duy Tân Movement, which was a progressive social movement at the
beginning of the twentieth century. He was arrested in 1908 and accused as a
“rebel,” who was “instigating trouble.” The Royal Court sentenced him to
death.

The 1908 arrest of Phan Châu Trinh led to a strong emotional outpouring
and public discussion in Hà Nội among patriotic Vietnamese and also among
progressive French. Ernest Babut,[61] a journalist and member of the French
Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l’homme), led the campaign in Hà
Nội to “save” Elder Phan. Marius Moutet and a number of others in the
Human Rights League in France were also dedicated supporters of Elder
Phan. With their intervention, Elder Phan escaped execution. After that,
during fourteen years of exile in France, Elder Phan Châu Trinh continued his
activities and was able to secure support from many Vietnamese living
overseas and from progressive French people. Among them, in particular,
was French Commandant Jules Roux.

Years later, during the four-party talks with the United States in Paris, I
searched for the families of Jules Roux and other friends of my grandfather,
but unfortunately I was never able to find anyone.
 Nevertheless, Elder Phan’s reputation as a man with a patriotic spirit, a
modernist will, and a strong moral presence throughout his life created
continuing trust and love among his compatriots inside our country as well as
sympathy and admiration among international friends, particularly in France.
Those feelings were so enduring that perhaps they abrogated the death
sentence against one of Elder Phan’s grandchildren!

Perhaps Elder Phan passed along his “Deeds-Earned Benediction”[62] to

rescue us all!

[1] Việt Minh: See Chapter 2, “Childhood,” footnote 12, p. 51.

[2] The first British, Indian, and French forces landed in Sài Gòn on September 22, 1945,
three weeks after Việt Nam’s Declaration of Independence. They quickly freed the Vichy and “Free”
French who had been imprisoned by the Japanese on March 9, 1945. (Following Japan’s surrender in
mid-August 1945, the Japanese in Sài Gòn freed Allied POWs, except for the French.)

[3] “Animated time” – the August Revolution: The Việt Minh took political power across the
country during Việt Nam’s largely peaceful August Revolution (August 16-30, 1945), beginning north of
Hà Nội on August 16, in Hà Nội on August 19, in the imperial capital of Huế on August 23, and in Sài
Gòn on August 25. On August 27, the Việt Minh promulgated its list of the national provisional
government with Hồ Chí Minh as president. On August 30, Trần Huy Liệu, representing the Việt Minh,
accepted the imperial sword and scepter from Emperor Bảo Đại in Huế, thereby ending a thousand
years of Vietnamese monarchy. On the afternoon of September 2, President Hồ Chí Minh read Việt
Nam’s Declaration of Independence at Hà Nội’s Ba Đình Square, formally announcing formation of the
Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN) with Hà Nội as the new nation’s capital.

[4] “To the Streets”: Lưu Hữu Phước wrote the music for “To the Streets” (Lên Đàng). Huỳnh
Văn Tiếng, who later moved to California, wrote the lyrics. For Lưu Hữu Phước, see Chapter 2,
“Childhood,” footnote 8, p. 49.

[5] Morning of September 2: On very short notice, Việt Minh activists in Sài Gòn and other
communities across the country organized events in concert with President Hồ Chí Minh’s reading of
Việt Nam’s Declaration of Independence. In Sài Gòn on the morning of September 2, Dr. Phạm Ngọc
Thạch spoke as president of the Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn Resistance Administrative Committee and as
minister of health for the new, national government. That afternoon, at 2:00 p.m., there was to be a
much-publicized simultaneous broadcast of President Hồ’s speech from Hà Nội. However, technical
difficulties thwarted the broadcast, creating some impatience in the crowd. Shots were fired into the
crowd from French-occupied buildings on the square in front of Notre Dame Cathedral.

[6] Eastern Zone: The area southeast of Sài Gòn’s center is delta lowland very close to sea level.
Local people travel by sampans along a web of tide-affected sluices only they know. That setting was
perfect for shielding revolutionaries.

[7] Nationwide elections: These first nationwide DRVN elections on January 6, 1946 elected
representatives for the Ist National Assembly. On March 3, 1946, the Ist National Assembly met and
affirmed the first national government with Hồ Chí Minh as president.

[8] Nationwide Resistance: In November 1946, the French bombarded the northern port city of
Hải Phòng. Then the French Far-East Expeditionary Corps landed and began its march toward Hà Nội.
The DRVN government withdrew to its Secure Zone in the northern mountains of Việt Nam. The
Vietnamese dismantled factories and moved them to the far north. They also carried a ten-year supply
of salt to the mountains.

On December 19, 1946, President Hồ Chí Minh read his “Call for Nationwide Resistance,” signaling
the beginning of Việt Nam’s two-month battle against the French siege of Hà Nội and announcing the
beginning of the Nationwide Resistance War Against France (the “French War”).

The French War had already begun in the Southern Region (Nam Kỳ, Cochin China) on September
23, 1945, when French troops invaded Sài Gòn. Thus, the dates for the French War are from September
23, 1945 until July 20, 1954 (the date of the signing of the Geneva Agreement).

[9] The mangrove swamps (bưng biền) were the site of a key Resistance base in the Southern
Region during the Resistance War Against France and the Resistance War Against the United States.

[10] Colette School is on Hồ Xuân Hương Street, District 3, Hồ Chí Minh City - Sài Gòn.

[11] Association of Women for National Salvation: The Communist Party founded the Việt
Minh in May 1941 to widen the revolutionary movement and include patriots who were not communists.
The Việt Minh established people’s associations for national salvation, including Women for National
Salvation, Youth for National Salvation, and Farmers for National Salvation, etc.
 [12] Đỗ Thị Duy Liên (1927-) was a revolutionary activist during the Resistance War Against
France and a member of the NLF (National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam) delegation at the Paris
Conference. She served as vice president of the Hồ Chí Minh City People’s Committee. Đỗ Thị Duy
Liên lives in Hồ Chí Minh City.

[13] Ngô Thị Huệ (1918-, a.k.a. Bảy Huệ or “Seventh Huệ”) came from Kiên Giang Province in
the Southern Region, joined the Party in 1936, and took part in the August Revolution. She was a
member of the National Assembly, Sessions I (1946-1960), II (1960-1964), III (1964-1971), and IV
(1971-1975). In addition, over the years, she held many Party positions. She is the author of Tiếng Sóng
Bủa Ghềnh (Sound of the Whirlpool, 2011).

[14] Nguyễn Văn Linh (1915-1998) came from Hưng Yên Province in the Northern Region,
joined the Revolutionary Youth in 1929, and was arrested and sent to Côn Đảo Prison Island in 1930. He
was released in 1936 during the French Popular Front. Upon his release, he joined the Indochinese
Communist Party (then the name of the current Vietnamese Communist Party) and organized in Hải
Phòng and Hà Nội before shifting to Sài Gòn in 1939. Nguyễn Văn Linh served as general secretary of
the Vietnamese Communist Party from 1986 until 1991; he oversaw the first stages of Đổi Mới
(Renovation or Renewal).

[15] Hoàng Quốc Tân (1919-), a Paris-trained lawyer, was a French Communist Party member
and active in the French workers’ movement during World War II and particularly active with the
Vietnamese who had been moved from Việt Nam to work as laborers in France during the war. Hoàng
Quốc Tân returned to Việt Nam after President Hồ Chí Minh’s June 1946 appeal to patriotic
Vietnamese living in France to return home and help build the new nation.

[16] Bùi Thị Cẩm (1912-?) came from Sa Đéc Province (now Đồng Tháp) in the Southern
Region, studied in French schools, and secured her doctorate in law in France in 1941. She became Việt
Nam’s first woman to achieve that academic level. In 1954, she regrouped to the North, where she
served as vice president of the Executive Committee of the National Women’s Union and as one of five
vice presidents for the IInd term (1956-1961), including the period Mme. Bình was Mười Thập’s
secretary. Bùi Thị Cẩm was a representative in the National Assembly, Sessions II (1960-1964), III
(1964-1971), IV (1971-1975), and V (1975-1976).

[17] Vietnamese pronouns: The Vietnamese language uses dozens of pronouns for the simple
“you” and “I” of English, with the choice of pronoun dependent on sex, age, status, and intimacy.
Speakers elevate the addressee and lower themselves. Thus, Mme. Bình’s choice of “older sister”
reflects greater intimacy instead of formality. See also Chapter 3, “I’m a Happy Person,” footnote 1, p.
53.
 [18] Party introduction: Introductions are important in every culture, but even now, introductions
carry extra weight in Việt Nam. This more serious focus in Việt Nam originates with the security
dangers for activists during the Resistance, when an imprudent Party introduction could result in arrest,
torture, imprisonment, and perhaps even the execution of other activists.

[19] Hồ Thị Chí (1925-) came from Tiền Giang (formerly Mỹ Tho) Province in the Southern
Region. She later served as deputy minister of light industry and was a representative in Việt Nam’s
National Assembly, Session VI (1976-1981).

[20] Hà Huy Giáp (1908-1995), from Hà Tĩnh Province in the Central Region, was arrested in
1933 and sentenced to Côn Đảo Prison Island, where he was active in using the prison as a school for
detainees. Hà Huy Giáp was an alternate member of the Central Committee of the Vietnamese
Workers’ Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party) for Session II (1951-1960) and a full member
for Session III (1961-1976).

[21] Fontainebleau Conference: On March 6, 1946, President Hồ Chí Minh and French
negotiator Jean Sainteny signed the March 6 Agreement about the relationship between the newly
formed Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN) and France, with subsequent talks to take place in
France. President Hồ and Vice-Premier Phạm Văn Đồng, head of the DRVN negotiating team, left for
Fontainebleau, France that May to negotiate details. Formal talks collapsed when French High
Commissioner d’Argenlieu called his own conference to determine the fate of the Southern Region
(Nam Kỳ, Cochin China).

[22] Nguyễn Bình Thanh (1937-2004, a.k.a. Phạm Thanh Vân) played many roles while at the
Paris Conference on Việt Nam (1968-1973). During the 1990s, she served as Việt Nam’s counsellor at
the United Nations.

[23] Marie Curie School on Nam Kỳ Khởi Nghĩa Street in District 3 was established by the
French government in 1918 in honor of Mme. Curie, a naturalized French citizen, who was the first
woman to win a Nobel prize (physics, 1903; then chemistry, 1911). Marie Curie School is among the
oldest and most famous high schools in Hồ Chí Minh City and the only one to retain its French name.
Originally a French-language girls’ school, Marie Curie became a public co-ed school in 1997. A
number of famous women activists in the French War and the American War had studied at Marie
Curie.

[24] Dương Quỳnh Hoa (1930-2006), who came from a scholarly Sài Gòn family, received her
medical degree in pediatrics in France and returned to Việt Nam in 1957. She was a representative in
the VIth National Assembly (1976-1981) and headed a pediatric hospital in Hồ Chí Minh City. While Dr.
Hoa was an undercover organizer in Sài Gòn, she was known in the foreign community for her charm
and exquisite French. Always undercover, she attended diplomatic receptions hosted by successive
American ambassadors.

[25] Nguyễn Hữu Thọ (1910-1996) came from Chợ Lớn - Long An in the Southern Region,
received his degree from the Law School in Aix-en-Provence, France, and returned to Việt Nam in
1933. He was an early advocate for legal rights and became a wealthy, activist lawyer in Sài Gòn. He
was arrested in 1954 and exiled to the port city of Hải Phòng, which was still under French control in
the Northern Region. Nguyễn Hữu Thọ was sent back to the South in 1955 and kept under house arrest
in Tuy Hoà, Phú Yên Province until 1961, when local residents helped him escape to the Liberated
Zone. Nguyễn Hữu Thọ was elected president of the NLF’s Central-Level Committee (1961-1969) and
later president of the PRG Council (June 1969 - April 25, 1976). After formal re-unification, Nguyễn
Hữu Thọ served as vice president of Việt Nam (1976-1992) and as president of the National Assembly
(1981-1987).

[26] Tám Lựu (1909-1988, a.k.a. Nguyễn Thị Lựu, given name: Đỗ Thị Thưởng) was born in Sa
Đéc in the Mekong Delta. She was an early revolutionary, who worked as an underground liaison agent.
The French imprisoned her from 1931 until the French Popular Front’s greater openness in 1936. Tám
Lựu was an organizer in the Southern Region and later served as a representative in the National
Assembly, Sessions II (1960-1964), III (1964-1971), and IV (1971-1975).

[27] The Southern Uprising: See Chapter 2, “Childhood,” footnote 3, p. 45.

[28] Dr. Phạm Ngọc Thạch (1909-1968) came from Bình Định Province in the Central Region,
was orphaned when he was very young and raised by relatives, who emphasized learning. He studied at
the Hà Nội Medical School and then received his medical degree in Paris in 1934. He returned to Việt
Nam in 1936, was an activist in Sài Gòn, and joined the Party in March 1945. Dr. Phạm Ngọc Thạch
served as president of the Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn Resistance Administrative Committee, as the minister of
health for the Provisional Government of Việt Nam (1945), and as minister of health for the Democratic
Republic of Việt Nam (1959-1968).

[29] Huỳnh Tấn Phát (1913-1989) came from Mỹ Tho Province in the Southern Region. He
graduated from the Indochina Fine Arts College with a degree in architecture in 1938 and was the first
Vietnamese architect to open an office in Sài Gòn (1940). He was a social activist and joined the Party
in March 1945. Huỳnh Tấn Phát served as president of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of
the Republic of South Việt Nam from its establishment in 1969 to its incorporation with the DRVN in
1976. He then served as the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam’s deputy prime minister (1976-1986) and as
vice president of the State Council (1982-1989).
 [30] Pétrus Ký School was named after Pétrus Trương Vĩnh Ký (1857-1889), a famous
Vietnamese scholar, who knew twenty-seven languages and wrote more than a hundred works of
literature, history, and geography. Pétrus Ký School was established in 1927 in Sài Gòn. Now called Lê
Hồng Phong School for the Gifted, it ranks among the best of Việt Nam’s high schools. The school is at
235 Nguyễn Văn Cừ Street, Ward 4, District 5.

[31] Trần Văn Hữu (1895-1985) came from Vĩnh Long in the Southern Region. He earned a
degree in agricultural engineering in France. Trần Văn Hữu joined the French-backed Vietnamese
administration in September 1945 and was both deputy premier and foreign minister of the French-and-
US-supported Republic of Việt Nam (ROVN) from May 1950 until June 1952. During his tenure, the
ROVN joined the French Union and received official recognition from Great Britain and the United
States. Trần Văn Hữu left Việt Nam for France in 1955. In 1969, he attended the Paris funeral service
honoring Hồ Chí Minh.

[32] Trần Văn Ơn was born in 1931 in Bến Tre Province in the Mekong Delta (Southern Region).

[33] Tôn Thọ Tường School is now the Ernst Thälmann School at 8 Trần Hưng Đạo Street,
District 1 in Hồ Chí Minh City.

[34] Phạm Huy Thông (1916-1988) came from Hà Nội and studied in France, where he earned
a doctorate in law and a master’s degree in geography. He assisted Hồ Chí Minh during President Hồ’s
time in France for the Fontainebleau talks. Phạm Huy Thông joined the French Communist Party in
1949 and was the key organizer for overseas Vietnamese. The French sent him back to Việt Nam and
placed him under house arrest. Phạm Huy Thông joined the Vietnamese Workers’ Party (now the
Vietnamese Communist Party) in 1953. He was rector of the Hà Nội Pedagogical School from 1956
until 1966 and a member of the National Assembly, Sessions II (1960-1964) and III (1964-1971).

[35] The red flag with a gold star was the flag of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam, with
its government at that point in the mountains of Việt Nam’s far north, as well as the flag of Việt Minh
Resistance in the Southern Region and in areas temporarily occupied by the French in the Northern and
Central Regions.

[36] Nguyễn Hữu Thọ was arrested by the French in June 1950 and imprisoned in Lai Châu and
then in Sơn Tây (a province due west of Hà Nội) until November 1952, when he was released. He
returned to Sài Gòn and to his organizing work.

[37] Trần Bội Cơ (1932-1950), a student activist, was arrested in 1950, when she was eighteen.
She died in prison from torture.
 [38] 1950 Border Campaign: The People’s Army had been formed in December 1944 with
thirty-four troops. Faced with the French re-invasion of the Northern Region in November 1946, the
DRVN government withdrew to the mountains north of Hà Nội. For several years, the People’s Army
fought from within a French siege. No foreign country recognized the DRVN until January 1950, when
both China and the Soviet Union established formal relations. Hồ Chí Minh met with Mao Zedong and
Joseph Stalin in Moscow in February 1950 and secured assistance with military materiel.

At this time, the French had a series of posts on Route 4, a one-lane road running along the
Vietnamese-Chinese border. In September, the People’s Army attacked posts in two key district towns,
cutting the French supply route from the sea to the highland provincial capital of Cao Bằng, which the
French controlled. In three weeks, the People’s Army secured complete control of Route 4, including
Cao Bằng Provincial Capital. As General Võ Nguyên Giáp wrote in Đường tới Điện Biên Phủ (The
Road to Điện Biên Phủ, 1999, p. 88), “Now, a huge area of the Northeast had no enemy soldiers. And
then on beyond the Vietnamese-Chinese border lay an endless rearguard stretching from Asia to
Europe.”

[39] The Việt Nam Women’s Union was founded in 1930, the same year as the Vietnamese
Communist Party, as a mass organization to mobilize women for the Revolution. Today, the Việt Nam
Women’s Union has thirteen million members, with offices on the national level, in every province or
city, every district, every commune or village (the lowest governmental administrative level), and even in
every hamlet.

[40] Mười Thập (1908-1996, a.k.a. Nguyễn Thị Thập) came from Châu Thành District, Tiền
Giang (formerly Mỹ Tho) Province. She was elected to the Southern Region Party Committee in 1935
and participated in the Southern Uprising (1940). Her husband, who had been arrested in 1930 and
recently released from Côn Đảo Prison Island, also took part in the Southern Uprising. Mười Thập
served as a representative in the National Assembly, Sessions I (1946-1960), II (1960-1964), III (1964-
1971), IV (1971-1975), V (1975-1976), and VI (1976-1981). Mười Thập was president of the Women’s
Union of Việt Nam in the South. After the Geneva Agreement (1954), Mười Thập regrouped to the
North, where she served as president of the National Women’s Union for the IInd (1956-1961) and IIIrd
(1961-1974) terms. Mười Thập, a mentor for Mme. Bình when she had recently arrived in Hà Nội,
appears later in the narrative.

[41] Lê Thị Riêng (1925-1968) came from Bạc Liêu Province in the Southern Region. She
joined the Revolution in 1945 and was head of the Committee for Agitation and Propaganda Among
Women in Sài Gòn - Gia Định. She was arrested by soldiers from the US-supported Sài Gòn army
during the 1968 Tết Offensive and executed at Bà Hòa, a small post in Chợ Lớn - Sài Gòn. She used
her body to shield another prisoner, Phùng Ngọc Anh, who survived.
 [42] Northern Liberated Zone: When the French re-invaded the Northern Region in November
1946, the DRVN government withdrew from Hà Nội to the northern mountainous provinces. The
government spread its offices over a wide area known as “ATK” (An Toàn Khu - Secure Zone) along
the border between Tuyên Quang and Thái Nguyên Provinces. The success of the 1950 Border
Campaign added a large area to the Northern Liberated Zone, which is known in Vietnamese as “Việt
Bắc” (literally, “Việt” and “North”).

[43] Lê Duẩn (1907-1986, a.k.a. “Third Older Brother,” given name: Lê Văn Nhuận) came from
Quảng Trị Province in the Central Region but south of the Bến Hải River, the dividing line in 1954
between North Việt Nam and South Việt Nam. His father was a worker; his mother, a farmer. Family
financial difficulties kept Lê Duẩn from studying beyond middle school. In 1926, he began working as a
railway flagman. This brought him in touch with labor issues and the movements that were the
predecessor to establishment of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1930. The French arrested Lê
Duẩn in 1931 and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He was released from Côn Đảo Prison
Island in 1945 after the success of the August Revolution. Lê Duẩn was elected to the Politburo in
1951. He served as general secretary of the Party from 1960 until his death on July 10, 1986.

[44] Lê Đức Thọ (1911-1990, a.k.a. “Sixth Hammer”) came from Hà Nam Province in the Red
River Delta of the Northern Region. While a student, he was an organizer of a demonstration
commemorating the death of Mme. Bình's grandfather, scholar-patriot Phan Châu Trinh. The French
imprisoned Lê Đức Thọ from 1930 until 1936 and from 1939 to 1944. In October 1948, as a member of
the Standing Committee of the Party Central Committee, Lê Đức Thọ left the Việt Bắc Northern
Liberated Zone to work in the Southern Region. He was added to the Politburo for the IInd Term (1951-
1960) at the end of 1955. He served as the Politburo’s special advisor to the DRVN delegation at the
Paris Conference on Việt Nam (1968-1973), while Nguyễn Thị Bình was deputy head of the NLF
delegation and then head of the PRG delegation.

[45] Phạm Hùng (1912-1988, given name: Phạm Văn Thiện) came from Vĩnh Long Province in
the Mekong Delta of the Southern Region. He began his revolutionary activities when he was sixteen
and joined the Communist Party in 1930. He was arrested in 1930 with a double death sentence, to
which he objected eloquently in court. The French held Phạm Hùng on Côn Đảo Prison Island for
fourteen years. He was released with the August 1945 Revolution and immediately appointed
Provisional Party Secretary for the Southern Region. Phạm Hùng served as head of the Party for the
South and then as a member of the Politburo beginning in 1956 and as Party general secretary from
1956 to 1958. He was prime minister from 1987 until his death in 1988.

[46] Nguyễn Kiệm (1912-1951) came from a family of Confucian scholars in Nghệ An Province
in the Central Region. He studied the classics, including Hán ideographic Chinese, and then attended
Quốc Học (National School) in Vinh. There, he came in contact with organizers for Tân Việt (New
Việt) Revolutionary Party, which evolved into one of the three groups Hồ Chí Minh drew together in
1930 to form the Vietnamese Communist Party. In 1940, Nguyễn Kiệm went to Sài Gòn, where he was
an active organizer with the labor unions and then, in 1943, elected as a member of the Executive
Committee of the Union of Trade Unions in the South. He was a representative of the Southern Region
at the IInd Party Congress held in Việt Bắc Liberated Zone, February 11-19, 1951. He returned to the
Southern Region, was arrested in the middle of 1951, and tortured to death.

[47] Đoàn Văn Bơ (1917-1958, a.k.a. Cao Hoài Đông) came from Bến Tre Province in the
Southern Region. He went to Sài Gòn to study and then became a worker at Ba Son Ship-Building
Factory. He joined the Revolution on March 9, 1945, when the Japanese assumed full administrative
control of Việt Nam from the French. He joined the military Resistance when the French War broke out
in the Southern Region on September 23, 1945. Đoàn Văn Bơ returned to Ba Son as an undercover
organizer in late 1946. He was exposed in 1952 and slipped away to the Resistance Zone but came
back again as an underground organizer in Sài Gòn in 1954. Đoàn Văn Bơ was arrested in 1958. He
died in Hàng Keo Prison, Gia Định (now part of Hồ Chí Minh City).

[48] Nguyễn Thọ Chân (1922-), originally from one of modern-day Hà Nội’s outlying districts,
was active in the Indochinese Democratic Front, a quasi-Party organization during the French Popular
Front. He joined the Party in 1939, the year of French repression following the openness of the French
Popular Front. In 1946, the Party sent Nguyễn Thọ Chân to Sài Gòn, where he served as head of the
Party Committee for Sài Gòn until he was succeeded by Nguyễn Văn Linh. Beginning in 1956, Nguyễn
Thọ Chân held administrative positions in Hà Nội. He served as Việt Nam’s ambassador to the Soviet
Union (1967-1971) and, at the same time, as ambassador to Sweden (1969-1971). Mme. Bình met
Nguyễn Thọ Chân in Moscow and Stockholm during visits she made while with the NLF-PRG
delegation at the Paris Conference.

[49] Catinat Police Station (Bót Catinat) is now the office of the Hồ Chí Minh City
Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism at 164 Đồng Khởi in District 1. The Catinat Police Center
was created through renovations begun in 1917 and completed in 1937. It is said that the basement of
the current building still has original cells. That area is not open to the public.

[50] Battle of Điện Biên Phủ: The People’s Army of Việt Nam (PAVN) under the guidance of
the Politburo staged its Winter-Spring 1953-1954 Campaign with many coordinated battles across the
country and in Laos and Cambodia to disperse the forces of French General Henri Navarre, who sought
an “honorable end to the war.” The Campaign culminated with the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ in the far
northwest of Việt Nam. The battle between the PAVN and the French Far-East Expeditionary Corps
raged for fifty-five days and nights, from March 13 through May 7, 1954.
 The United States supplied equipment and more than 75 percent of the financing for the French
side; American pilots flew supply missions. At one point, the United States considered using nuclear
weapons and B-29 bombers. The Chinese provided advisors and materiel for the Vietnamese side,
including not only small arms but also artillery and anti-aircraft guns. Thousands of porters carried rice
and ammunition for the Vietnamese side. The Vietnamese were victorious on May 7, 1954, the day
before the opening of the Geneva Conference on Indochina.

[51] Nguyễn Văn Tố (1889-1947) was a patriotic Confucian scholar from Hà Nội, who had
studied in France. He was among the leaders of the Association for the Promulgation of Quốc Ngữ (the
Romanized Vietnamese script), which helped make the Literacy Campaign possible. Although not a
communist, Nguyễn Văn Tố was minister of social affairs in the Provisional Government and president
of the Ist National Assembly. When the French re-invaded in November 1946, Nguyễn Văn Tố
withdrew with other governmental officials to the Secure Zone in Việt Bắc Northern Liberated Zone. In
October 1947, the French staged their blitzkrieg, multi-prong Operation Léa to besiege the DRVN
government. In particular, the French wanted to capture Hồ Chí Minh. Unbeknownst to the French, they
did ensnare Party Secretary Trường Chinh and Army Chief-of-Staff Hoàng Văn Thái, but both escaped
unnoticed. The French captured Nguyễn Văn Tố and executed him because they mistook him for Hồ
Chí Minh.

[52] Geneva Agreement: The Geneva Agreement signed between France and the DRVN on
July 20, 1954 provided for a ceasefire and divided Việt Nam into “North Việt Nam” and “South Việt
Nam” at the 17th parallel, with elections re-uniting the country to be held in 1956. Việt Minh combatants
and activists in South Việt Nam were to regroup to North Việt Nam, while French-allied combatants and
activists in the North were to regroup to the South. The United States was not a signatory to the
Geneva Agreement; it was not intended that the United States should be a signatory.

However, the regime sponsored by the United States in South Việt Nam refused to allow elections.
In Mandate for Change (1963, p. 372), President Eisenhower wrote, “I have never talked or
corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections
been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the
Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bảo Đại.”

[53] Trịnh Đình Thảo (1901-1986) came from Hà Đông, now part of Hà Nội. He studied in
France between 1919 and 1928 and earned multiple degrees, including in law. Trịnh Đình Thảo was
minister of justice in the short-lived Trần Trọng Kim government, which the Japanese instituted after
toppling the Vichy French administration in Việt Nam on March 9, 1945. In 1946, Trịnh Đình Thảo went
to Sài Gòn, where he served on the French-backed Vietnamese government’s Supreme Court.
However, in 1950, Trịnh Đình Thảo participated in the demonstration honoring martyr Trần Văn Ơn,
which Mme. Bình has described. Trịnh Đình Thảo became an increasingly outspoken opponent of US
involvement. He was president of the Vietnamese Union of Nationalist, Democratic, and Peace Forces
and vice president of the Council of Advisors to the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam (1969-1976). Trịnh Đình Thảo was a member of the National Assembly,
Session VI (1976-1981).

[54] Nguyễn Văn Dưỡng (1923-1958) came from Gia Định, now a district of Hồ Chí Minh City.
He studied between 1949 and 1953 in Paris, where he earned degrees in law, political science, and
international relations. He then returned home and taught at the Sài Gòn Law School. After Nguyễn
Văn Dưỡng and the two other key peace-movement organizers were sent out to Hải Phòng (which was
then in French hands), there was such citizen pressure that US-backed Premier Ngô Đình Diệm was
forced to bring the three back to Sài Gòn, where they were arrested again. Nguyễn Văn Dưỡng’s health
deteriorated in prison. The prison authorities moved him to Tuy Hòa Hospital, but it was too late. He
died on July 21, 1958, four years after the Geneva Agreement, which he had tried to explain to the
populace.

[55] The three people arrested immediately after the Geneva Agreement were key leaders in
the Resistance Movement in the South: Nguyễn Hữu Thọ, lawyer and head of the Coordinating Council
of Organizational Representatives; Phạm Huy Thông, poet and professor in the French High-Level
Educational Council; and revolutionary activist Nguyễn Văn Dưỡng.

[56] Region 9 covered the Mekong Delta and included all the provinces south of Long An.

[57] Regrouped: See Chapter 3, “I Am a Happy Person,” footnote 3, p. 54.

[58] Lê Thị Kinh (1925-, a.k.a. Phan Thị Minh) is the daughter of Phan Thị Châu Liên, who was
the elder daughter of Phan Châu Trinh. Lê Thị Kinh served on the PRG delegation in Paris. She
continued her diplomatic career and became Việt Nam’s ambassador to Italy and Mediterranean
countries, then head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ International Organizations Department. In
1995, she joined the NGO delegation from Việt Nam to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing. Lê
Thị Kinh edited Phan Châu Trinh: Toàn Tập (Phan Châu Trinh: Collected Works, 3 volumes) (Đà
Nẵng: Đà Nẵng Publishing House, 2001). She remains active in the museum commemorating Phan
Châu Trinh and other patriots in Đà Nẵng. Mme. Kinh and Mme. Bình both appear in the large family
photograph taken when they were children. That photograph is in the back of this memoir.

[59] Marius Moutet (1876-1968), a French socialist, was minister of colonies four times: June 4,
1936 - January 18, 1938 during Léon Blum’s Popular Front government, March 13 - April 10, 1938,
January 26 - December 23, 1946, and January 22 - October 22, 1947. He became an advocate for Việt
Nam’s independence and developed a sympathetic attitude toward Hồ Chí Minh.
 [60] Jean Letourneau (1907-1986), a journalist with a degree in law, was French minister of
colonies from October 29, 1949 to July 3, 1950 and high-commissioner for Indochina (based in Hà Nội)
from April 1, 1952 to July 28, 1953.

[61] Alfred-Ernest Babut (1878-1962) first went to Việt Nam with the French military in 1899
and soon became an outspoken critic of colonialism. He learned Vietnamese, wrote about his concerns,
followed the 1908 demonstrations closely, and defended Phan Châu Trinh, helping to prevent execution
of the scholar-patriot. Babut returned to France in 1917 and continued his activism in Paris. Phan Châu
Trinh was in Paris at that time. In Paris, Babut was also acquainted with Nguyễn Ái Quốc (Hồ Chí
Minh).

[62] Deeds-Earned Benediction: This is a Buddhist concept, where good deeds in one’s life
can be passed on to the next life.
 5.

A Special Front Opposing the United States to

Save the Nation

At the Central-Level Women’s Union in Hà Nội, I worked as secretary to

Mme. Mười Thập,[1] the Union’s president. She was also the Party general
secretary of the Women’s Mobilization Unit, a member of the Party Central
Committee, and a member of the National Assembly. At first, this work was
difficult because I was more familiar with secret, illegal, local organizing. In
Hà Nội, everything was completely different because my work was open. My
tasks involved concentrating on each step, organizing the work myself, which
meant usually making my own decisions and taking personal responsibility
for those decisions.

I worked with State offices, the National Assembly, the ministries, and the
labor unions. All these offices were comfortably open. I was not acquainted
with any of this. The Sài Gòn authorities had recently released me from
prison, and my health was poor. Working in this new environment tested me,
but it also provided new experiences and many additional lessons, which I
learned quickly. I was fortunate, for my experiences during the years of
struggle in Sài Gòn had taught me to face every difficulty with a self-
confident, unflinching approach.
 All of us working at the National Women’s Union affectionately called
Mme. Mười Thập “Tenth Older Sister.”[2] In truth, Tenth Older Sister was
about my mother’s age, yet my relationship with Mười Thập was both that of
a secretary with the top leader and yet also that of a family member. Tenth
Older Sister both guided and supported me. When my son was still only a
few months old, she and I often had to work late into the evening, long after
the office crèche had closed. Tenth Older Sister would bring my son into the
office and look after him. Mười Thập passed away several decades ago, but
memories of her will remain forever in my heart. Many sisters working in the
National Women’s Union office, such as Hoàng Thị Ái,[3] Hà Thị Quế,[4]
my friends Nhan, Phương, Như, Thu, and others, left me with warm feelings I
can never forget.

One day in late 1954, a few months after I’d arrived in the North, Dr.
Phạm Ngọc Thạch[5] came to see me. I had met Dr. Thạch while he was
president of the Sài Gòn - Chợ Lớn Resistance Administrative Committee.
Dr. Thạch said, “Uncle Hồ[6] wants to meet you.” Dr. Thạch had told
President Hồ Chí Minh that a granddaughter of Elder Phan Châu Trinh was
working in Hà Nội. Hearing this, Uncle said he wanted to meet her.

I was very excited to receive an invitation to the Presidential Palace,

where Hồ Chí Minh worked. He lived nearby in a converted workers’ shed.
Uncle greeted me and said he had known my grandfather when they were
both in Paris and that he regarded Phan Châu Trinh as the older brother who
had helped him. I also knew that my grandfather and Elder Nguyễn Sinh Sắc,
Uncle Hồ’s father, had been scholarly colleagues and activists together
during the early days of the twentieth century. Later, I had many chances to
meet Hồ Chí Minh. Each time, I felt fortunate to receive Uncle’s Hồ’s
attention, concern, and encouragement.
 From 1957 until 1959, I studied in the first long-term course on theory and
debate at the Nguyễn Ái Quốc Academy.[7] For the most part, the students
were officials who had had no opportunity to study during the Resistance
War Against France. Like them, this was also my first chance to study theory
systematically. I approached the course contents, which were new and
intriguing, with great interest. At the same time, I was caring for my newborn
son. Meanwhile, Khang was working for the military in the Right Bank
Region of the Red River not too far from Hà Nội; he would return home to
visit us every few weeks. He and I had endured years of long and difficult
separation. We had so many questions we had never been able to discuss.
Now, at last, we could once again share confidences.

After I finished my studies at the Party school, I returned to the Central-

Level Women’s Union, where I was elected to its Party commission, with
responsibility for social welfare. Through this assignment, I visited many
northern localities and acquired a greater understanding of ordinary people’s
difficulties. Of course, I concentrated on women, who were the country’s
main productive force in addition to caring for their families and their
communities’ welfare.

During 1956 and 1957, the Sài Gòn authorities intensified their terror,
arresting those who had been active in the Resistance during the French War.
No one among our people wanted war to return. The Party Central Level
urged us to stay firmly committed to political struggle. We brothers and
sisters who had regrouped to the North were eagerly hoping for early
elections[8] to re-unite our country so we could also return home and re-
unite with our families in the Southern Region. However, we have a saying:
“Trees may wish for quiet, but their longing does not keep the wind from
blowing.” After two years, we were denied the elections as stipulated in the
Geneva Agreement. Indeed, the enemy’s oppression and terror grew crueler
every day.

We can reasonably call 1958 and 1959 the Years of White Terror. People
in every area of the South seethed with vindictive hatred as the US-backed
Sài Gòn administration waged a one-sided war against our people. Before
long, the Party had to shift its directive from political struggle exclusively to
political struggle coordinated with armed struggle.

On December 20, 1960, we established the National Liberation Front

(NLF) of South Việt Nam.[9] This news, like rain falling after a drought,
satisfied the people’s deep, expectant longing. The entire country burst forth
with determination to fight the Americans. In the North, a movement boiled
up among those of us southerners who had regrouped to the North. We asked
to return to the South in order to struggle directly alongside our compatriots.
During those days, the chance to “Go to B”[10] was every person’s greatest
wish and highest honor.

Sisters at the Central-Level Women’s Union prepared to leave on their

march to the South. Older Sisters Lê Đoan[11] and Phương[12] were both
journalists, whose husbands had stayed behind in the South. They received
first priority. Like them, I received ideological orientation from Older Sister
Mười Thập in order to return to the South. Then, at the beginning of 1961,
comrades from the Re-Unification Committee came to the Women’s Union
and asked to “borrow” me for six months to work for the NLF in foreign
affairs.

* *
 After the NLF’s formation, the people’s struggle in the South erupted with
vigor. In 1960 and 1961, the General Uprising[13] exploded in Bến Tre
Province, spread quickly to neighboring Mỹ Tho (Tiền Giang) and Đồng
Tháp Provinces, and then rippled across the entire South. We realized we
needed to develop a diplomatic front synchronized with the political and
military fronts.

A part of me wavered when I first heard the news that I had been assigned
to work in foreign affairs. It is true that I had skills in French, had been an
activist in Sài Gòn, and had worked directly with many different groups of
people. However, except for part of my childhood in Cambodia, I had never
left the country. Yet the South was my flesh and blood; I could not refuse any
task!

In the middle of 1961, I returned to the Re-Unification Committee, which

assigned me to its Foreign Affairs Section under Comrade Lê Toàn Thư,[14]
with Hoàng Bích Sơn[15] (also known as Hồ Liên) as chief-of-cabinet. I
served as deputy department head for Comrade Võ Đông Giang,[16] who,
several months later, became head of Department 1A, with responsibility for
NLF people-to-people diplomacy.[17] By this time, we had established
people’s mass organizations in the NLF. Using the NLF’s newly formalized
status, we sent delegations to participate in meetings organized by collegial
international organizations. Our Liberation Youth of the South became a
member organization of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (FMJD,
Fédération Mondiale de La Jeunesse Démocratique); our Union of Liberation
Trade Unions joined the Federation of World Trade Unions (FSM,
Fédération Syndicale Mondiale); and our Vietnamese Peace Committee took
part in the Committee for World Peace (CPM, Comité de Paix Mondiale).
 At the end of 1961, Việt Nam fielded its first delegations to international
events for peoples’ organizations. Older Brother Nguyễn Văn Tâm
(nicknamed Mười Ù, literally “Tenth Gain,” because he was a little heavy)
led a delegation to the World Congress of Trade Unions, while Nguyễn Văn
Hiếu[18] went to the World Peace Congress. Both organizations met in
Moscow. In June 1962, I joined the World Congress of Youth (UIE) in
Budapest and then, in July 1962, attended the World Congress of Democratic
Youth in Leningrad along with poet Thanh Hải[19] and Dr. Nguyễn Xuân
Thủy. At that time, I was thirty-seven and had to register my age as thirty-two
in order to qualify as a youth.

When I joined the Re-Unification Committee, we all changed our names in

order to maintain secrecy. Nguyễn Văn Đức, one of the comrades leading the
Re-Unification Committee, suggested I take the name of Bình since “bình”
means “peace.” Then, he said, whenever I went overseas, it would be easier
to create sympathy and, besides, Bình was also an easy name for foreigners
to say. At his suggestion, I changed my name from Yến Sa, my alias
throughout the Resistance War Against France, to Nguyễn Thị Bình.

The first two international congresses I joined were in two socialist

countries—the Soviet Union and Hungary, which supported us by covering
all costs for travel, housing, and food. Thus, our conditions for social action
were indeed favorable. For the first time, these conference participants met
colleagues from the South, that is to say, they met real “Việt Cộng.” Everyone
was delighted to see us; we were showered with affection and admiration.

“You Vietnamese are so small,” they would say. “How can you fight the
Americans so heroically?!” Some participants were confused and said, “The
United States is so rich. Why would the Americans invade Việt Nam?”
 Our mission was to explain to our friends the meaning and the principled
nature of our struggle.

We always had two delegations at such international meetings. One came

from the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (the DRVN or “North Việt Nam”)
and the other from the National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam (the NLF
or “Việt Cộng”). The conference presidium would always ask Việt Nam to
take the floor first. The DRVN delegation would then yield to the NLF
delegation. Whenever we climbed on stage, the entire audience would stand,
for our struggle had gained admiration from the world’s peace-loving,
progressive groups. We asserted that the people of South Việt Nam had no
alternative but to rise up against the invading enemy and no wish other than to
live in peace and enjoy normal lives like everyone else.

These words, which we conveyed with sincerity and simplicity, won the
participants’ hearts, minds, and empathy. Whenever I spoke, I was deeply
moved, for the sentiments I expressed came from my heart. I saw clearly that
I was trying to tell our friends from five continents about the profound
aspiration of the millions of my compatriots suffering and dying at that very
moment in an unbelievably arduous struggle.

* *

My six months “on loan” to work in foreign affairs had ended, but I could
not return to the Women’s Union. Every day, we in the NLF office needed to
expand and develop our diplomatic front in coordination with the military
and political fronts. Further, I had become a foreign-affairs staff person. Of
course, I never imagined that I would continue that work for fourteen years,
until 1976, when the South was completely liberated and our country was
formally re-united.

Those fourteen years brought many experiences, gave me a different

“forté,” and were an important life season.

Beginning in 1962, I was continuously active on the international front,

joining meetings and friendship visits and then participating in official
delegations. At the end of 1962, I traveled to Indonesia with Professor
Nguyễn Văn Hiếu, general secretary of the NLF Executive Committee. This
was the Front’s first official visit to a foreign country. At that time, the
Indonesian Communist Party had more than three million members plus ten
million youth members in Party mass organizations. The Party had a positive
influence on President Sukarno,[20] whom Indonesians regarded as the father
of Indonesian independence. Indonesia and Việt Nam shared close, analogous
points of history, for Việt Nam seized political power two days after
Indonesia, and then both countries faced long wars to achieve their
independence. The two Communist Parties of the two countries were close.
Indonesian Party General Secretary Dipa Nusantara Aidit[21] had great
respect and admiration for Uncle Hồ, whom he had met in Indonesia.

When we arrived in Jakarta, the Indonesian protocol staff wanted to know

the delegation members’ diplomatic ranks in order to prepare the appropriate
official welcoming ceremony. I did not know how to identify us. I said we
were from the National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam, which was like a
government, and so the members of our delegation were like the Front’s
ministers. After that, the Indonesians greeted our delegation according to the
exact protocol for a government and sometimes with even more ceremony.
 President Sukarno and many ministers of state wanted to meet with us.
The Communist Party and mass organizations, including the youth and the
women, organized gatherings to welcome us and expressed strong support for
the Vietnamese people’s struggle. The revolutionary fervor in Indonesia at
that time brought me great delight.

* *

One event early in my diplomatic life is something I can never forget.

Perhaps I can say that these were my first steps as a diplomat. The occasion
was my second visit to Indonesia in around 1964. Our task was to encourage
the Indonesian government to allow the NLF to open A representative-level
diplomatic office in Indonesia. I needed to meet President Sukarno, but I did
not know how to arrange such a meeting.

Comrade Aidit suggested I attend a gala, where I might meet the president.
I immediately agreed. The Indonesians’ organization for the gala was
monumental; all the elite Indonesians were present. Aidit whispered a few
words to President Sukarno. The president came up and invited me to be his
partner for the opening dance. I was terribly distressed because I did not
know how to dance! Yet my assignment was to speak with the president in
order to advance the Front’s request.

I summoned my courage and accepted his invitation. I took advantage of

the first few minutes to introduce myself and present the Front’s wish. But
after several dancing steps, I was totally confused. Comrade Aidit must have
perceived the awkward situation. He hurried up and accompanied me away
to a seat. By then, many people were on the dance floor. Perhaps the
president and his other guests forgot about my lack of sophistication. In truth,
my incompetence mortified me, but I reminded myself that at least I had
completed my responsibility to my country.

We also heard of General Suharto,[22] the infamous anti-communist based

in Bandung. Then, in 1965, a military coup raided the offices of the
Indonesian Communist Party and its affiliated organizations, shattering the
Party structure. A terrible massacre occurred; the army arrested and
assassinated many Party leaders. This news deeply saddened us. It was
especially painful because we could not help the friends who had
wholeheartedly done so much for us.

For a long while, I had no chance to visit Indonesia. Only in 1991, after
more than twenty years, was I able to join the delegation of President Võ Chí
Công[23] to the Non-Aligned Movement’s summit in Jakarta. Indonesia had
changed perceptibly, but I was sad not to meet our friends from years past.

* *

The most memorable event for me in 1963 was the third congress of the
Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Organization (AAPSO). It took place in
Tanzania in March. Việt Nam’s resounding victories were a major inspiration
for the national liberation movements of colonized peoples. In 1962, Algeria
had gained independence from French colonialism. Facing the turbulent
movement for national liberation, the British imperialists had granted
independence to many countries. The Non-Aligned Movement had been
established, implementing the Bandung spirit.[24]
 The Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Organization came into being within
that context. Tanzania, a country in East Central Africa, had just won its
independence from the British imperialists. People often said that the British
were more “fair” than the French. I had never been sure of that statement. In
fact, in Tanzania, I saw that the statement was inaccurate. Tanzania was such
a vast country with huge, dense forests, yet it had very poorly developed
agriculture. We drove several hundred kilometers along modern asphalt
roads. The land was empty and deserted. Now and then, we could see some
farmers poking with sticks, sprinkling a few corn seeds into the soil.

Africa is the “oldest” continent on earth and is considered the cradle of

humanity. When I first visited Tanzania, farming was still on a subsistence
level, as is still true in many areas of rural Việt Nam. The situation was the
same in the other African countries that I visited later, including Guinea,
Mali, Uganda, Angola, and Mozambique. As in Việt Nam, European
colonialism had kept the peoples of Africa uneducated, divided, and
uncertain about their abilities and their own intrinsic worth in comparison
with their white rulers.

Thankfully, that is changing.

The peoples of Africa are so beautiful—well-built, physically strong,

warm-hearted, good-natured, and genuine. We can hope that in the twenty-
first century this ancient continent, which was colonized for so long and often
with such devastating results, continues to develop according to priorities
and choices formulated by the countries’ citizens themselves. We can all
benefit as African nations increasingly take their rightful place on the world
stage. The Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization has contributed to
that much-needed change.
 This particular Afro-Asian Congress was organized in a lovely setting at
the foot of famous Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa’s highest and most beautiful
peak with a year-round cap of snow. I led the delegation from South Việt
Nam. Our delegation’s main issue was joining the Secretariat and achieving
permanent representation so we could speak and generate timely support for
our struggle.

Other countries, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, also

wished to join the Secretariat. We had support from the Soviet Union and
some other nations as well as ardent support from Ben Barka,[25] an
influential leader from the Moroccan movement. As a result, the NLF became
a member of the Secretariat. This was a great victory and a first in people-to-
people diplomacy for the NLF. Thereafter, we always had a representative
from the NLF at the AAPSO Secretariat in Cairo, Egypt. Indeed, from that
time onward, we could at last launch campaigns to secure support from Afro-
Asian and Latin American countries.

I cannot refrain from saying at least a few words about Ben Barka. He
was a true international combatant fighting with resilience for the rights of
working people, for national independence, and for the equality of nations.
The imperialist forces stalked him; he was found missing in 1965. AAPSO
has since dedicated a Ben Barka Medal to those who have made significant
contributions to the movement for Afro-Asian solidarity. In 1974, I was
privileged to receive this priceless honor.

* *
 I attended many international conferences on issues about women, legal
affairs, economics, and other topics. Some years, I would be abroad for
seven or eight months. In order to save on travel expenses, we would
sometimes stay in the Soviet Union or China between conferences. The first
few years, I kept a diary of our trips, but later on, extensive travel made it
impossible to keep track! Although we kept no records, I still have my
memories of the comrades who were side by side with me during those
challenging years of turmoil and complexity.

I remember Bình Thanh,[26] cherished as a younger sister of whom I was

very fond. Even now, my heart feels torn when mentioning Bình Thanh. I
knew her from the Sài Gòn student movement in the 1950s. An excellent
student and a great activist, she had beauty, a strong character, and a special
quality of mind and manners. She was someone whom everyone loved. Bình
Thanh was my secretary, since she excelled in both English and French. In
fact, she was more like an intimate companion sharing both sad and happy
moments as well as the trials and tribulations of our everyday life.

For a while after 1975, Bình Thanh was Việt Nam’s ambassador to
Germany. Then she was assigned to Việt Nam’s delegation at the United
Nations. Although she was a very talented woman, Bình Thanh’s private life
was not very happy. Her life ended in a tragic motorbike accident while on
her way to attend the funeral of Mme. Nguyễn Thị Chơn,[27] a mutual friend
and a colleague from our years together in Paris.

Ngọc Dung,[28] whose real name was Xuân, was my age and had been a
top student of Pétrus Ký School. She joined the Việt Nam Women’s Union in
the South as a journalist. Dung was also a member of our negotiating
delegation in Paris, so our international activities meant that our paths
crossed frequently. Ngọc Dung was spirited and bright, always coming up
with new initiatives; she was full of energy and an enthusiastic worker. Since
Dung and I fully understood each other, we worked well together, with every
task efficiently coordinated. Later on, she was Việt Nam’s ambassador to the
United Nations.

As for my fellow comrades, I feel special appreciation for Võ Đông

Giang, Hoàng Bích Sơn, Dương Đình Thảo,[29] Lê Phương,[30] and Lý Văn
Sáu.[31] All have left me with permanent memories. I have always had many
friends, with whom I could share thoughts and ideas as well as difficulties
and challenges. That closeness gave me greater self-confidence and strength.

* *

From 1963 to 1968, I participated in many international women’s

conferences, including meetings held in Moscow (Russia), Sofia (Bulgaria),
and Nimes (France). Women throughout the world strongly supported Việt
Nam’s struggle, but they did not always sympathize with all our claims. At
the International Women’s Executive Committee meeting in Salzburg
(Austria), Jeannette Vermeersch,[32] who had shown constant support,
nevertheless objected, saying, “Why do you emphasize the United States as
an imperialist aggressor? If you stopped calling the Americans ‘aggressors,’
then we could immediately support your statement!”

I smiled and replied, “Sister Jeannette, I think that we have condemned

them so little that our words have been to no avail. Perhaps that is the reason
we have failed to capture the Americans’ attention.”
 We laughed and hugged. Jeannette said: “All right then. We love the
people of Việt Nam, so we will ‘try it your way.’”

The conference passed a resolution strongly condemning the United

States. Our friends loved us not only because they affirmed our just cause but
also because they admired the determination and sacrifice coming from a
small nation standing up against a colossal empire. We were “ready to
sacrifice all and determined not to be enslaved.” Our narrative was like the
Biblical story of David against Goliath. The more we fought, the more we
were triumphant. We had to work so our friends from all continents would
understand that the United States was conducting a war of aggression in the
south of Việt Nam. We also had to state clearly that the NLF was the only true
representative of the southern people in the struggle against US aggressors.

This was not easy in the first few years. Our goal was to quash the Sài
Gòn administration’s claims as “nationalist” and “patriotic.” We persevered
even when some foreign sympathizers remained uncomfortable with what
they considered as our inflexible stance. We would explain our point of view
until we convinced them. Later on, after the 1968 Tết Offensive, when
lawyer Trịnh Đình Thảo[33] set up the Alliance of National, Democratic, and
Peace Forces, we no longer claimed that the NLF was the only true
representative of the south of Việt Nam. However, then we encountered
disagreement from the same friends. Now, they argued that even if other
patriotic forces joined us, we should still portray the Front as the only
worthy and true representative. To this, we repeated our point that the NLF’s
fundamental intent was to rally all forces in common struggle to build a
broad-based movement so that our friends would agree with us out of
comradeship and trust.
 Our role was difficult for governments. Even though the Soviet Union
supported our struggle, the Soviets were cautious and restrained when using
terms such as “American imperialism” or “aggression.” We would have long,
elaborate discussions in order to produce joint statements with the
governments of the countries we visited. Only through perseverance could
we reach agreement on terminology.

In most cases, our international colleagues would avoid mentioning the

United States by name, and they would use “interference” instead of
“invasion.” This demonstrated how powerful the United States was
internationally and how resilient and determined we were in the face of such
a formidable challenge.

One of our key objectives was to gather the support of antiwar and peace
groups in the United States. The first time I met representatives of the
American antiwar movement was at a two-day conference held in Bratislava
(now in the Republic of Slovakia) in 1967, with about forty attendees. I was
not impressed with these Americans at first sight. They were not dressed
tidily, and their way of speaking seemed overly casual.

Yet when I described the situation in Việt Nam, the American participants
listened attentively and asked many questions. I spoke especially about the
war in the South, including the American military’s crimes, and I expressed
our people’s aspirations for peace and independence. I also emphasized that
we had no ill intentions regarding US interests. The ambiance became
increasingly relaxed as the conference progressed and as the participants
came to feel closer to one another. By the end, we were shaking hands and
holding hands and promising to alert the public, especially in the United
States, so that the world would grasp the reality of what was happening in
Việt Nam. We asserted that, together, we would strengthen our solidarity to
end the war, a war the American public had never wanted.

I also joined two separate meetings with American women, one in Jakarta
(1965) and one in Paris (1967). These meetings were distinctive because the
women were inherently more open and tolerant than their male colleagues.
Many American friends could not hold back their tears when they heard
descriptions of the suffering of Vietnamese women and children. These
meetings were held mainly at the initiative of Women Strike for Peace. After
1975, I met again old friends, such as Cora Weiss[34] and Mary Clark[35]
from the United States. They had been active members of this movement,
women whom I regard as friends. I can never forget them, because they spent
a precious part of their lives fighting bravely for Việt Nam.

* *

Between 1963 and 1965, disagreements appeared within the international

revolutionary movement. These negatively affected the struggle in many
countries, including Việt Nam. At first, China launched a campaign criticizing
Yugoslavia’s revisionism, and then China launched a media campaign so that
the sharp, bitter Chinese arguments could easily persuade listeners. Then
China switched to attacking the Soviet Union directly and condemning Nikita
Khrushchev, the Soviet Union’s leader, as a pro-American revisionist. Our
policy through both the Resistance War Against France and the Resistance
War Against the United States had been to secure support from the Socialist
bloc and especially from the “two big brothers” (the Soviet Union and
China). We needed to build a strong foundation under our own struggle. We
tried to maintain our stance, but this was not always easy.
 In July 1963, a loud dispute erupted at the International Women’s
Congress in Moscow between the Chinese delegation and the Organizing
Committee. A Chinese representative grabbed the microphone to assert the
Chinese stance. Total confusion ensued, ending the conference. I was head of
the Vietnamese delegation. Although we were close to the Chinese
delegation, we did not approve of the delegation’s conflict with the
organizers. From that incident onward, the Chinese delegations were absent
from all conferences of international democratic organizations.[36]

Around the middle of 1964, Chairman Khrushchev held a large

welcoming reception at the Kremlin Meeting Hall during the Peace Congress
in Moscow. This event won the sympathy of representatives from many
countries. As head of the NLF delegation, I was wondering what to say when
I met Chairman Khrushchev, whose reputation had been challenged. Finally,
my turn came. I approached, shook hands with Chairman Khrushchev, and
introduced the NLF as representative for the people of the South who were
struggling against the United States. I thanked the people of the Soviet Union
for supporting our just struggle. I also expressed our hope that, along with
many other countries, the Soviet Union would support Việt Nam even more. I
was not sure if the interpreter repeated everything I said, but I did notice that
Chairman Khrushchev smiled and nodded. I sighed with relief, knowing that I
could not have stated our position more correctly!

The 1968 Tết General Offensive erupted when I was in Hà Nội to prepare
for a trip to France. The whole country watched as the People’s Liberation
Army attacked and besieged American buildings and bases. From this point
forward, people had more faith in the strength of our guerrilla forces. In
April 1968, I received an invitation to a women’s conference in Nimes
(France). Two important events occurred as I was traveling to Paris. First,
the French student movement protested the government’s education policy, a
protest that overlapped with many social groups’ dissatisfaction with the de
Gaulle government. Several of the large demonstrations in France interrupted
public life.

At the same time, Việt Nam opened communication between the DRVN
government represented by Minister Xuân Thủy[37] and the United States
government represented by Ambassador Averell Harriman[38] to explore the
prospect of political negotiations. As the Tết 1968 General Offensive spread
across the southern battlefield, the United States began to recognize the
impossibility of winning a war against a people so determined to fight for
independence, freedom, and their country’s re-unification. The need to de-
escalate the war became apparent to American leaders, forcing them to
consider a political solution to extract the United States from an increasingly
hopeless war. However, the United States also wanted to negotiate from
strength. We saw this as a timely opportunity to fight on two fronts with a
combined strategy—attack on the battlefield and negotiate at the conference
table.

When I met Xuân Thủy in Paris during that trip for the women’s
conference, I believed the diplomatic struggle would gain in importance.
However, I certainly did not expect to return to the magnificent capital of
France six months later with an assignment involving enormous
responsibility. That assignment would mark a turning point in my work and
life.
 [1] Mười Thập: See Chapter 4, “Forged in the Resistance,” footnote 40, p. 96.

[2] “Tenth Older Sister”: Nguyễn Thị Thập had come from the Southern Region, where people
are traditionally named according to birth order, beginning with “Second,” perhaps to prevent evil spirits
from snatching a first-born child. Thus, Nguyễn Thị Thập, as the ninth child, had the commonly used
name “Mười (Tenth) Thập.” By shortening the name to “Chị Mười” (literally, Tenth Older Sister), the
staff expressed both great respect and familial intimacy. Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình is the eldest child
among her siblings. In the final chapter, “Retired and Busy,” she appears as “Second Older Sister.”

[3] Hoàng Thị Ái: The Women’s Union’s first national congress, which was in Việt Bắc Northern
Liberated Zone between April 14 and 19, 1950, accepted the name Women’s Union of Việt Nam,
beginning with the organization’s 1st term (1950-1956). At that time, the Women’s Union had five million
members out of an estimated population of ten million women. The congress selected Lê Thị Xuyến as
president and Hoàng Thị Ái as one of three vice presidents. Hoàng Thị Ái also served as vice president
for the IInd term (1956-1961) and the IIIrd term (1961-1974). Hoàng Thị Ái was famous for her ability
to pull people together even though, like many if not most women during Confucian times, she could
write only her name. At age sixty, when retired, Hoàng Thị Ái taught herself to read. She lived to well
past a hundred.

[4] Hà Thị Quế (1921-2012, given name: Lương Thị Hồng) came from an educated, revolutionary
family in Ninh Bình Province in the Northern Region. She joined the Party in 1941, received weapons
training, and was responsible for two military units in Bắc Giang Province before the August 1945
Revolution. During the French War, she was on the Women’s Union Executive Committee. Hà Thị Quế
was vice president of the Women’s Union for the IInd (1956-1961) and IIIrd (1961-1974) terms and
then president for the IVth term (1974-1982). She was a member of the National Assembly, Sessions II
(1960-1964), III (1964-1971), IV (1971-1975), V (1975-1976), and VI (1976-1981).

[5] Dr. Phạm Ngọc Thạch: See Chapter 4, “Forged in the Resistance,” footnote 28, p. 85.

[6] Uncle Hồ: President Hồ Chí Minh. See Chapter 1, “My Homeland,” footnote 9, p. 37.

[7] The Nguyễn Ái Quốc Academy, now called the Hồ Chí Minh National Political Institute,
remains the place where senior-level government and Party officials go for extensive political training
(sometimes for as long as a year) before moving to a higher post. During his life, Hồ Chí Minh used
nearly two hundred pseudonyms and aliases. His best known alias is Nguyễn Ái Quốc (Nguyễn the
Patriot).
 [8] Elections: The Geneva Agreement of 1954 stipulated that national elections would be held in
July 1956 to re-unite the country.

[9] For the “[Ten-Point] Program of the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam,”
which was promulgated when the NLF was established on December 20, 1960, see
http://openrevolt.info/2011/12/20/program-of-the-nlf/.

[10] “Go to B”: In the commonly used slang of that time, “A” referred to the North; “B,” to the
South; and “C,” to Laos.

[11] Lê Đoan, originally from Bến Tre Province in the Mekong Delta of the Southern Region,
regrouped to the North in 1954, taking her two young children with her. Lê Đoan’s husband remained
behind in the South. She served as deputy editor of the Women’s Newspaper for the Central-Level
Women’s Union in Hà Nội before shifting her children to the care of family members and returning to
the South, where she worked for Women’s Liberation News. Lê Đoan was killed by an American
bomb in Đồng Tháp Province.

[12] Nguyễn Thị Kim Phương was working as a journalist and visiting a liberated area of Mỹ
Tho (now Tiền Giang) Province in the Mekong Delta when Sài Gòn soldiers rounded her up along with
villagers. The soldiers killed her immediately because they confused her with a famous local woman
organizer, whom she closely resembled.

[13] General Uprising, January 1960: The 1954 Geneva Agreement temporarily divided Việt
Nam into “North Việt Nam” and “South Việt Nam,” with elections scheduled for mid-1956 to re-unite
the country. In late 1954, in accordance with the Geneva Agreement, the men from the Việt Minh
Resistance Army fighting against the French regrouped to the North, leaving their wives behind. These
troops assumed they would return to their homes in the South after the elections in 1956. The US-
backed government of Ngô Đình Diệm in the South began to oppress the families of those who had
regrouped to the North. In 1956, Ngô Đình Diệm refused to allow the elections.

In July1959, the Politburo in North Việt Nam promulgated its Decision 15, shifting from political
action only, to both political and armed struggle and “revolutionary violence.” At that time, Mme.
Nguyễn Thị Định, a native of Bến Tre Province in the Mekong Delta of the Southern Region, was vice
chair of the Province Party Committee. Of course, she was working undercover in areas the US-
backed Army of the Republic of Việt Nam (ARVN) occupied. Women under the direction of Mme.
Định spread rumors in the “market mouth” that the Việt Minh soldiers had returned from the North and
were preparing to attack. This was purely rumor. The women’s husbands were still in the North. The
women had no weapons.
 At dusk on January 17, 1960, the women tied up their hair so that they looked like men and dressed
in “black pajamas,” the traditional dress for men in the Mekong Delta. Carrying “rifles” they had
fashioned from wood, the women circled the ARVN bases in Bến Tre’s Mỏ Cày District.
Simultaneously, they set off firecrackers. The combination of the rumors that had surged through the
“market mouth,” the explosions, and the besieging "armed" revolutionary troops running this way and
that through the firecracker smoke and dimming light created terror inside the ARVN bases. The
ARVN fled, abandoning their weapons. The women gathered up the war booty and armed themselves.

For the most part, these women did not know how to use weapons. However, not all the Resistance
troops had regrouped to the North. A few men with new identities had remained behind and undercover.
They taught the women and a new generation of young men how to use the newly secured US
ammunition and guns.

Nguyễn Thị Định reached the rank of general in the Liberation Army. From 1982 to 1992, she was
president of the nationwide Women’s Union based in Hà Nội. Mme. Định (sitting in a hammock)
appears in a wartime photograph with Mme. Bình at the back of this book. “Đồng Khởi” (General
Uprising) is now the name of the famous wartime Sài Gòn bar street known as Catinat during the
French War and as Tự Do during the American War. This street runs from the Sài Gòn River to the
cathedral; today, it is the address for some of Hồ Chí Minh City’s most luxurious hotels and some of its
most expensive shops.

[14] Lê Toàn Thư (1921-, given name: Nguyễn Tất Văn) came from Ninh Bình Province in the
Northern Region. He studied in Hà Nội and joined the Party in 1939 during the French repression
following the more open Popular Front. The French arrested him in 1942 and, in 1943, sent him to Côn
Đảo Prison Island south of Sài Gòn. He was freed during the August 1945 Revolution. In 1948, he was
assigned to organize in the Southern Region, where he served as assistant to Lê Đức Thọ and, after
1954, as assistant to Lê Duẩn. He went out to the North in 1960 and appears in the photograph with Hồ
Chí Minh in the back of this book, second row, third from the left. Lê Toàn Thư was a member of the
Standing Committee on Cochin China and head of the Central Committee for Re-Unification. He served
as representative of the NLF-PRG in Cuba. He retired in 1975.

[15] Hoàng Bích Sơn (1924-2000) came from Quảng Nam Province in the Central Region, south
of what later became the DMZ, which divided the country. He was an organizer and Party secretary in
Bình Thuận Province in the Southern Region before 1945. He appears in the photograph with Hồ Chí
Minh in the back of this book, second row, second from the right. Hoàng Bích Sơn was PRG deputy
foreign minister from 1969 until 1976, served on the NLF-PRG delegation in Paris, and in 1976 became
deputy foreign minister for re-united Việt Nam. He was a member of the Party Central Committee,
Session VI (1986-1991), and in charge of foreign affairs for the Party during that same period. He was
also a member of the National Assembly, Sessions VIII (1987-1992) and IX (1992-1997) and
responsible for foreign affairs for the National Assembly for Session IX.

[16] Võ Đông Giang (1923-1998, given name: Phan Bá) came from a family of scholars in Phú
Yên Province in Việt Nam’s Southern Region. He was among those seizing political power in Gia Lai
Province (Central Highlands) during the August 1945 Revolution and, afterwards, was interim Party
secretary for that province. In 1954, he moved over to foreign affairs. He appears in the photograph
with Hồ Chí Minh in the back of this book, second row, first on the left. Võ Đông Giang served on the
NLF-PRG delegation in Paris and, as a colonel, was deputy head of the PRG military team at Camp
David in Sài Gòn in 1973. After Việt Nam was re-united, Võ Đông Giang served as deputy foreign
minister (1977-1979) and minister of foreign economic affairs (1987).

[17] People-to-people diplomacy: Traditionally, dating from the great Vietnamese strategist-
humanist Nguyễn Trãi (1380-1442), Vietnamese foreign relations has relied on “three arrows”—political,
military, and diplomatic. People-to-people diplomacy works during peacetime to maintain and foster
peace by developing relationships with individuals and citizens’ organization of other countries. During
the American War, people-to-people diplomacy used the same process in conjunction with the Party’s
guidance, the People’s Army, and “people’s war” in the effort to affect the policies of other countries
and ultimately to affect US policy. At Paris, the goal of people-to-people diplomacy was to organize so
that peoples and countries across the world would support the NLF-PRG - DRVN cause.

[18] Nguyễn Văn Hiếu (1922-1991) was born in Cà Mau in the far south of the Southern Region
and took part in the August 1945 Revolution in Cà Mau. He joined the Communist Party in 1951 yet
retained his membership in the Democratic Party. He joined the National Liberation Front in 1960.
Nguyễn Văn Hiếu is standing next to President Hồ in the group photograph at the back of this book. He
was general secretary of the NLF’s Executive Committee and led the PRG delegation to the meetings
with the delegation from the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”) after the signing of the Paris
Agreement. After the formal re-unification of Việt Nam in July 1976, Nguyễn Văn Hiếu served as
minister of culture. In 1976, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education were particularly
important in addressing the challenges re-uniting the country after twenty years of division and war.
Nguyễn Văn Hiếu was minister of culture until his retirement in 1986.

[19] Thanh Hải (1930-1980) came from an educated family in Thừa-Thiên Huế Province in Việt
Nam’s Central Region, south of the DMZ, which later divided Việt Nam. He joined the Revolution when
he was seventeen. Thanh Hải was an underground organizer in Huế during the American War, with
tasks including responsibility for Liberation Flag (Cờ Giải Phóng) newspaper. He published five
volumes of poetry. In 2001, he received posthumously the State Prize for Literature and the Arts.
 [20] Sukarno (Kusno Sosrodihardjo, 1901-1970) came from an educated family and earned a
degree in engineering with a focus on architecture. He was a gifted linguist, knew several of the many
Indonesian languages as well as Arabic, Dutch, English, German, and Japanese. An avid reader, he
studied many facets of nationalism, eventually developing his own vision. Sukarno became the leader of
Indonesia’s independence movement and served as the country’s first president from 1945 until 1967,
when he was placed under house arrest following a military coup.

[21] Dipa Nusantara Aidit (1923-1965) received his education in the Dutch colonial system. He
became a revolutionary leader of the Indonesian Communist Party, which grew into the third largest
communist party in the world, following the Soviet Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party.

[22] Suharto (1921-2008) came from a family of farmers with a sufficiently high economic level
that he was able to study at local schools, but he had little contact with Dutch colonialism and foreign
languages until his induction into the Dutch army in 1940. He rose to power after the military coup that
toppled President Sukarno and served as the second president of Indonesia, from 1968 until his
resignation in 1998.

[23] Võ Chí Công (1912-2011) came from Quảng Nam Province in Việt Nam’s Central Region
south of the DMZ, which later divided Việt Nam. He was active in communist organizations in the early
1930s, joined the Party in 1935, and was a leader of the movement in the center of Việt Nam and south
of the DMZ during the Resistance War Against the United States. He was elected to the Politburo in
1976 and served as deputy premier from 1976 to 1982. He served as president of Việt Nam from 1987
until his retirement in 1992.

[24] The Bandung Conference, Indonesia (April 18-24, 1955) was organized by Burma
(Myanmar), Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Indonesia, and Pakistan and coordinated by the Indonesian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. It brought together high-level representatives from twenty-five African and Asian
countries in search of a common platform for future cooperation. Participants issued joint communiqués
against colonialism and asserted a neutral stance between the international political blocs led by the
former Soviet Union and by the United States with its allies. The conference was a precursor of the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

[25] Mehdi Ben Barka (1920-1965) came from an educated family and earned a degree in
mathematics. He founded the Moroccan left-wing National Union of Popular Forces in 1959. A
Moroccan revolutionary and an international revolutionary, he was abducted in Paris in 1965 and never
seen again.
 [26] Bình Thanh: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,” footnote 22, p.
82.

[27] Nguyễn Thị Chơn (?-2004, given name: Tôn Thị Hưởng) came from Đồng Tháp Mười
Province in Việt Nam’s Southern Region. She was the wife of journalist-researcher-writer Trần Bạch
Đằng. Nguyễn Thị Chơn was deputy secretary of the Women’s Mobilization City Unit in 1965, together
with Mme. Lê Thị Riêng. In 1967, she was arrested with Lê Thị Riêng. Nguyễn Thị Chơn’s years at the
Paris Conference are described in the subsequent chapter. In later years she was chief of the Court of
Appeals in Hồ Chí Minh City and deputy minister of justice.

[28] Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung (1927-2013) was a young woman when her older sister took
temporary custody of Ngọc Dung’s two-year-old daughter so that Ngọc Dung could attend a training
course in the Resistance Zone in Mỹ Tho (now Tiền Giang) Province. One assignment led to another,
including the Paris Conference, and then assignment (in the role of an army major) to the military
commission at Camp David in Sài Gòn in 1973. Ngọc Dung and her daughter first met again in May
1975. By then, Ngọc Dung’s daughter was the mother of a two-year-old. Ngọc Dung was Việt Nam’s
representative to the United Nations and, in that role, became the first Vietnamese to serve on a United
Nations commission—the Commission to End Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). She
continued her activism after retirement and, with others, founded one of the very first Vietnamese
NGOs, which concentrated on the needs of children, particularly girls.

[29] Dương Đình Thảo (1924-) joined the Resistance War Against France and was a member of
the Hồ Chí Minh City Party Steering Committee. He appears in the photograph with Hồ Chí Minh in the
back of this book, top row, second from the right. Dương Đình Thảo served as the first press
spokesperson for the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam at the
Paris Peace Conference on Việt Nam.

[30] Lê Phương (1926-2010), who came from Nha Trang in Việt Nam’s Southern Region, was
the NLF representative in Budapest, Prague, and Cairo and then director of the NLF press bureau in
Stockholm. Subsequently, he was general secretary of UNESCO in Việt Nam and represented Việt
Nam at UNESCO in Paris. Later, he edited the French-language Vietnamese weekly, Le Courier.
After he retired, Lê Phương was an enthusiastic writing partner and co-translator with American and
European colleagues.

[31] Lý Văn Sáu (1924-2012, given name: Nguyễn Bá Đàn) came from a family of patriotic
scholars in Nghệ An Province in the Central Region, north of the DMZ, which later divided Việt Nam.
He studied at Quốc Học (National School) in Huế. He was a Việt Minh organizer for the August 1945
Revolution in Phú Yên Province and fought in the Nha Trang Battle (1945). As a journalist, in 1949, he
headed Liberation Radio in Region V. He regrouped to the North in 1954. From 1957 to 1960, he studied
at the Party Central-Level School in Moscow and then returned home to continue his work in Party-
level journalism. After returning from Paris, from 1977 to 1990, he was simultaneously deputy head of
Việt Nam Television, deputy editor for Việt Nam Radio, and deputy general editor for Việt Nam News
Service.

[32] Jeannette Vermeersch (1910-2001), a French politician, was an active communist, a co-
founder of the Union of French Women, and a member of the French Communist Party’s Politburo. Her
husband was Maurice Thorez, at one time the general secretary of the French Communist Party.

[33] Trịnh Đình Thảo: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance War Against France,
footnote 53, p. 108.

[34] Cora Weiss (1934-) was a co-founder of Women Strike for Peace, which initially worked to
end nuclear testing and then was among the first organizations active in opposing US policy in Việt
Nam. She has worked for many years in a variety of peace organizations, for which she has received
many awards.

[35] Mary Clark, who was active with Women Strike for Peace, went to the Jakarta Conference
in 1965 and visited Hà Nội in 1967.

[36] “International democratic organizations” is a phrase commonly used to describe

international networks of mass (people’s) organizations from socialist/communist countries.

[37] Xuân Thủy (1912-1985, given name: Nguyễn Trọng Nhâm) came from what is now an
outlying district of Hà Nội and began his revolutionary activism in 1932, joined the Party in 1941, and
was arrested several times between 1938 and 1944. A poet, linguist, translator, and diplomat, he was
editor of Cứu Quốc (National Salvation) newspaper from 1944 until 1955, DRVN foreign minister from
1963 until 1975, and then head of the Party External Relations Department before leading the delegation
from the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN, “North Việt Nam”) at the Paris Conference from
the beginning (1968) to the end (1973).

[38] William Averell Harriman (1891-1986), a politician and diplomat, was born in New York
City to a wealthy family with substantial assets in railroads. He graduated from Yale University and
subsequently received the largest inheritance on record in the United States at that time. Harriman set
up a bank, then a firm on Wall Street, and then bought several companies. As a diplomat, Harriman
served US presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, all of whom were Democrats.
 6.

The Longest Peace Negotiation in History

In the middle of July 1968, the Committee for Re-Unification invited

Comrades Dương Đình Thảo,[1] Lý Văn Sáu,[2] Ngọc Dung,[3] several
others, and myself to a briefing on the Party’s directive for its new strategy
—“attack on the battlefield and negotiate at the conference table.” We
understood that it was not yet the right time to resolve the issues between the
United States and the National Liberation Front; instead, we would undertake
a new form of struggle.

On the battlefield, we had to fight even more vigorously so the US - Sài

Gòn administration would realize that its cruelty could not overcome us and
that the war had reached a decisive point. At the same time, the situation
created the chance for us to open a widespread diplomatic front. We could
help the world understand even more clearly the schemes and cruelty of the
United States in Việt Nam. We needed to highlight the US intention to force
its domination over our small, poor nation, which wanted only peace and
freedom and which couldn’t possibly hamper American interests.

This new diplomatic front could enhance our influence on international

and US public opinion, isolate the forces of aggression, and provide
effective support for the battlefield. Of course, we also believed that
eventually the war would end and the two parties would sign a peace
agreement at the negotiating table.

After almost six years of diplomatic activities for the National Liberation
Front (NLF, “the Front,” or the “Việt Cộng”) of South Việt Nam, I had
accumulated some knowledge and experience in diplomatic and political
struggle. However, I never guessed I would have the good fortune to receive
this challenging, complex, and important assignment—to help represent my
country at the historic negotiations in Paris with the goal of ending the war
and restoring peace. Those negotiations, which may have been the longest in
world history, began in November 1968 and ended on January 27, 1973, with
diplomatic follow-up in Paris lasting until that June. When I left Hà Nội at
the end of October 1968, I never expected the negotiations to last so long.

Before leaving, I phoned Khang at the Military Engineering School in Bắc

Giang Province and arranged to see him. I felt perplexed because I did not
know how to tell my husband the news, and I did not know what to say to my
children, who were too young to understand that I might be away for an
indefinite time. Khang understood that I needed to undertake an important
task. He didn’t ask for specifics but only encouraged me. “You have a
mission you must fulfill,” he said. “Leave for your assignment with peace of
mind. The children have me and your father to care for them.” I loved Khang
even more dearly at that moment and was endlessly grateful to him.

I left home with so many feelings, yet I constantly reminded myself that I
must work to the limit of my strength to complete my responsibility. Our
leaders had placed their confidence in me; I had to live up to that confidence.
I took with me the principles of the National Liberation Front of South Việt
Nam, several documents with guidance for the struggle, and President Hồ’s
“Valuable Advice,”[4] which comrades at the Re-Unification Committee had
reproduced.

During the struggle, it was crucial always to hold to this central,

underlying norm: “Retain immutable principles during myriad changes.”[5] I
think our two Vietnamese delegations (from the Democratic Republic of Việt
Nam and the National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam) carried out these
directives precisely.

* *

Comrades Dương Đình Thảo, Bình Thanh,[6] Phan Bá,[7] Nguyễn Văn
Khai, and I were the members of the first NLF delegation to depart for the
preparatory meetings. We flew by way of Beijing and Moscow. We told
everyone the reason for our trip was a “mission to Cuba.” At around 2:00
p.m. on November 2, 1968, we landed at Le Bourget Airport north of Paris
just as the weather in France was beginning to turn chilly. From the airplane,
we could see crowds of people waiting to greet us. Such excitement,
emotion, and joy!

We encouraged each other to look dignified and smile, just as Comrade

Xuân Thủy[8] had gently reminded us. That day, I was wearing a dark pink
Vietnamese áo dài, our traditional dress, over which I wore a grey coat and a
flower-adorned black scarf. As soon as we entered the terminal, many
journalists and photographers surrounded us, even though hefty Vietnamese
and French security guards escorted us. With all the jostling, I barely escaped
falling. Bình Thanh, my secretary and official interpreter,[9] and I stayed
close together the entire time.

Our mission was to state clearly the purpose and significance of the NLF
delegation at the Paris Conference. I tried to speak loudly but with dignity;
Bình Thanh interpreted in such a clear and coherent style that many praised
her, saying she spoke French extremely well, like a native French speaker.
Many people crowded in to see, hear, and photograph the delegation. The
chaos made it seem as if the furniture were splintering and the windows were
cracking!

We were taken to Villa Thevenet, the site that our comrades in the
delegation from the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN or “North Việt
Nam”) had arranged for us. We were startled to see the journalists and
photographers following us. Some were climbing over the villa’s walls,
while others poked their cameras through slits in the gate to snap a few shots
of the “Việt Cộng.” We had a good laugh and reassured each other, saying,
“We came here to disseminate information about our Front and affect public
opinion. Why should we flinch from these journalists? On the contrary, we
should welcome them!”

Of course, first we needed a meaningful plan. Two days later, we held a

large press conference with over four hundred reporters from the
international press. This was my first exposure to so many journalists. I
spoke, presenting the Front’s legitimate position and our good will in seeking
a peaceful solution. The journalists competed to ask their questions. I hid my
worry and fear that I would say something to expose a weakness the
journalists could exploit. Outwardly, I remained calm and poised. The
articles the journalists wrote after that press conference were all
sympathetic. No one “picked holes.” After all, a gentle, petite woman from a
land where war raged had stood before them, speaking with reason and
feeling. Indeed, our first steps had created sympathy among the press.

During the following days, many journalists and television companies

requested separate interviews; some days, we even had several press
sessions. The work was nerve-racking, particularly with those TV lights
shining in my face. The brothers and sisters in the delegation encouraged me,
saying, “So! They’re paying lots of attention to the NLF delegation! That’s
exactly what we wanted!”

* *

The four-party preparatory meetings began on November 6, 1968, but the

United States pointed out that the representatives from the Sài Gòn
administration had not yet arrived. Another reason to delay was procedural,
including the question of the shape of the negotiating table. World diplomatic
history had never seen negotiations begin with an extended struggle over the
negotiating table’s shape.

Although many people joke about that stage, there were important reasons
for this extended discussion because the shape and seating arrangements at
the main table symbolized the political and legal characteristics of the four
sides.

From May until October 1968, the discussions between Comrade Xuân
Thủy (head of the DRVN delegation) and US Ambassador Averell Harriman
had been very heated about the role of the National Liberation Front. On our
side, we made it clear that the Front was the representative of the southern
people who opposed the United States. Thus, the NLF must be one of the
negotiating parties. Ho wever, the United States held that the Front was
composed of “people from the North,” meaning “communists,” who wanted
to overthrow the “nationalists,” whom the United States supported in the
South. We asserted in response that the United States had chosen and
established the Sài Gòn administration, which was therefore clearly
composed of American hirelings.

Thus, the struggle over whether the table would present “four sides or two
sides” had important political significance. We requested a square table for
its four equal sides or a round table divided into four equal sectors. The
United States insisted on a rectangular table for two sides or a round table
divided into two. Here is a little known detail: Comrade Xuân Thủy’s
delegation received many table designs from world-famous furniture
companies. Ambassador Harriman’s delegation probably received just as
many brochures. In the end, Comrade Xuân Thủy and Ambassador Harriman
reached unity, deciding on a large round table eight meters in diameter and
covered with a green cloth. Their plan divided the table into halves. The four
sides had dividing lines, which were clearly defined by the reserved staff
space behind each delegation. In this way, everyone could interpret the
table’s design as two-sided or four-sided depending on his or her point of
view.

The delegations from the United States and the Sài Gòn administration sat
close together as if they were one. However, on our side, the Front and the
DRVN sat as two separate delegations. The seating arrangement was not
advantageous for the Americans and the Sài Gòn administration, since people
could clearly see that the Sài Gòn authorities were little more than lackeys of
the Americans. Given that configuration, how could the Sài Gòn
administration claim to represent the people of the South?

The preparatory meeting began on November 27, 1968. It was a simple

meeting primarily to decide technical issues, such as the number of official
participants and the order of presentations. The formal, four-sided
conference did not begin until January 25 of the following year. Comrade
Trần Bửu Kiếm[10] served as head of the NLF delegation, while Comrade
Trần Hoài Nam and I served as deputy heads. Our having two delegations—
the DRVN and the NLF—is a special case, unique in the history of
international diplomatic relations.

I believe I should speak clearly about this point:

We presented our two delegations as representatives of one struggle under

the unified leadership of the Vietnamese Workers’ Party (now the Vietnamese
Communist Party). In terms of foreign political presentation, we had
established a unified position: “Although two, we are one; although one, we
are two.” The two delegations with two different populations—the NLF in
the South and the DRVN in the North—reinforced each other’s strength. As a
result, our foreign-affairs front was expansive and lively. We could
contribute to victory in our shared struggle to oppose American aggression,
seize independence, and re-unite our country.

We all know these historical truths: The Vietnamese Workers’ Party and
the DRVN government led our country’s War of Resistance Against France.
They seized the resounding Vietnamese victory at Điện Biên Phủ and forced
France to sign the Geneva Agreement in 1954. After that, France and other
nations accepted Việt Nam’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial
integrity. Nevertheless, the United States did not sign the Joint Statement at
Geneva. Given the international conditions during the middle of 1954, we
Vietnamese had to accept the temporary division of our country into two
sectors, with re-unification expected to follow a nationwide general election
two years later. However, the ink on the Agreements had not yet dried when
the United States intervened in Việt Nam, replacing France.[11] The United
States discarded the 1954 Geneva Agreement, adopted a scheme to keep our
country divided for a long time, and intended to turn South Việt Nam into a
new American colony.

On December 20, 1960, after four years of intense but unsuccessful

political struggle, the people of South Việt Nam established the National
Liberation Front of South Việt Nam, a movement uniting people from all
strata of society. Our goal was to lift aloft the banner of continued struggle
against the invaders and to demand independence and re-unification of our
country. The NLF announced its peaceful and neutral stand in a policy
appropriate to the situation, emphasizing the aspirations of the people of the
South and taking advantage of wide support from the peoples of the world.
The Front’s membership included a wide variety of people, among them
progressive revolutionary forces; activists from religious, peace, and social
groups; various political parties; and people who did not favor socialism and
who even “feared communists.” For nearly sixteen years, the NLF’s blue and
red flag with its five-pointed gold star flew on five continents as a true
symbol of the people’s struggle in the South.

At the four-party conference in Paris, the NLF, as representative of the

southern people directly involved in the war, presented political solutions
aimed at ending the war and restoring peace. We used flexibility, responding
to every change in the armed struggle with initiatives to expand and clarify
our good will, take advantage of public opinion, and push our opponents into
increasing embarrassment. These were our “diplomatic offensives!”

The DRVN, as representative of the people of the North and as the

rearguard for our military struggle in the South, consistently heightened the
Front’s role and supported every solution we presented. Even now, in my
memory, I can still hear Comrade Xuân Thủy’s composed, calm, self-
possessed voice every time I announced a new initiative.

“I completely agree with Mme. Bình,” he would say.

That was our external presence. However, internally, we closely

coordinated the two delegations through one source of flexible, precise
guidance, which came from inside our country.[12]

* *

The negotiations’ opening gambit about seating forced the United States to
recognize the existence of the National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam.
This marked an important early stage of the negotiations and a major US
defeat. The arguments at the conference table were lengthy, for the NLF and
DRVN delegations openly and publicly criticized and denounced the United
States. The American delegation would sidestep and push the Sài Gòn
delegation into long-winded responses.

After five months of meetings, on August 8, 1969, US President Nixon

announced his “Vietnamization” policy for the war. His idea—use
Vietnamese to fight Vietnamese—caused international journalists to describe
the policy as “changing the color of the corpses’ skin.”
 *

* *

The French Kléber International Conference Center was located on

Kléber Avenue about a hundred meters away from the Arc de Triomphe in
the center of Paris, the capital of France. Although the building was not large,
its architecture was majestic. A drawing room led to a large meeting hall
surrounded by rooms for small meetings. The meeting hall had two main
doors. The US and Sài Gòn delegations used one door, while the DRVN and
NLF delegations used the other.

The first session was an important event. The entire world turned its
attention on Kléber Center in hopes that the conference would find an early
solution to end the war, which had already caused a decade of extensive
suffering. Journalists arrived in large numbers. The people of Paris, in
particular our overseas Vietnamese compatriots, held aloft red DRVN flags
with gold stars and blue-and-red NLF flags with gold stars to welcome our
two delegations. Here and there were several three-striped red and yellow
flags representing the Sài Gòn administration.

It is hard to describe the feelings of our overseas Vietnamese kin when

they saw the flags of our Homeland and the National Liberation Front flying
in the middle of Paris. This was particularly true on the opening day of the
Paris Conference, an important event tied to our people’s heroic and painful
struggle. Uncountable lives had been lost under those two glorious flags. One
elderly overseas Vietnamese expressed his deep emotion. “For so many
years,” he said, “we haven’t been allowed to display our flag. Some have
been imprisoned just for holding aloft our flag. Now, we see our people
raising high our country’s flag, and we see the French police escorting our
representatives through Paris. We could not be happier!”

As for us, we had the honor to arrive in Paris as representatives for the
people of Việt Nam’s sectors. The people of the North and of the South were
engaged in a long war against those who would deny us independence. We
understood that even though our mission presented us with many difficulties,
our challenges could never compare with the martyrdom of our warriors in
the battlefields.

We knew that we stood on a diplomatic front line, which strove to

contribute to victory on the battlefield. Every Thursday for four years, our
two delegations arrived at the Kléber International Conference Center to
accomplish our primary responsibility: Through public discussion, we would
expose to the world the American scheme of invasion and thus clarify our
just cause for the independence, freedom, and re-unification of our people.

It is worth noting that three delegations at the conference did not include
any women. The delegation from the Sài Gòn administration did have Mme.
Nguyễn Thị Vui at the beginning, but then we never saw her again. Only the
NLF-PRG delegation had “long-haired warriors” from the South in Paris.

There is also the interesting question of technical equipment. The DRVN

and NLF delegations had only one small tape deck to record each
delegation’s speeches, whereas the US side had every type of modern
equipment and could consult directly with Washington. In truth, the “disparity
of forces” at Paris was rather unequal.

However, we were not lacking in argumentation, particularly when

everyone could see Comrade Xuân Thủy’s firm, composed, self-possessed
demeanor.

In June 1969, after formation of the Provisional Revolutionary

Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt Nam, Trần Bửu Kiếm, the
NLF’s head-of-delegation, returned to serve as minister for our Office of
Government. I received the heavy responsibility of replacing him. Xuân Thủy
and I served as delegation leaders until the conclusion of the conference.

During the five years of the Paris Conference, the head of the US
delegation changed five times (Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge, Philip
Habib, David K. E. Bruce, and William J. Porter).[13] Many commentators
joked: “The Việt Cộng will definitely win because they are so steady!” This
disparity in management of personnel illustrated our iron will.

At the conference table, I usually paid close attention to the two opposing
delegations, particularly to the delegation from the Sài Gòn administration,
which Phạm Đăng Lâm[14] headed for many years. As I looked at them, I
would ask myself, “What are they thinking about the future of the country and
themselves?” In truth, Mr. Lâm and many people on the delegation of the Sài
Gòn administration did not face us with an attitude of enmity. Later, I learned
that Phạm Đăng Lâm’s homeland was in Bến Tre Province[15] and that he
had many friends within the ranks of the NLF.

For Tết, the Lunar New Year of the Rooster (1969), the overseas
Vietnamese in Paris organized splendid festivities to welcome the DRVN and
NLF delegations. One large meeting at the Mutualité Meeting Hall gathered
together several thousand overseas Vietnamese compatriots and friends from
France and other nations. The elderly, the brothers and sisters who were
laborers, and those who were intellectuals grasped our hands, reluctant to
part.

A formally dressed man of about thirty came up to me. “Do you remember
me?” he said. “I was your student at Nam Việt School. Now, I have a
doctorate.” Truly, my time as a teacher had been a long time before. During
1954-1955, Duy Liên and I taught at Nam Việt School, which was headed by
Professor Phạm Huy Thông.[16] So much water had flowed under the bridge
since that time. I regret that I did not have time to ask my former student for
his name; I was delighted that he had valued our teaching.

In April 1969, I visited England. During the war in Việt Nam, Great
Britain—the closest US ally in Europe—supported the US policy of
aggression. Therefore, members of NLF mass organizations could not secure
visas to England. But by 1969, the United States sat at the same table with the
National Liberation Front at the Paris Conference. Great Britain no longer
had any reason to hinder us. My visit to England was an event. British friends
were delighted and organized an enthusiastic welcome. Many organizations
in England supported our struggle, but for many reasons, these activists could
not coordinate their activities.

Nevertheless, a forest of people congregated at Trafalgar Square, the

largest public square in London. The participants paraded with banners
announcing, “Solidarity with Vietnam!” and “Stop the War!” Our British
friends led me up to the base of the statue, the highest place in the square, so I
could speak. Before, whenever the representatives of the various
organizations spoke, people in the audience erupted into heated discussions
among themselves, creating a turbulent atmosphere. Yet when the MC
introduced a representative of Việt Nam, everyone became quiet. Each
person strained to hear. At first, standing up there so high, I felt rather
nervous, but after a few minutes facing the sympathetic attitude and respect
emanating from the audience, I became forceful.

At the end of the rally, my friends and the organizing committee

accompanied me in a march, where I was flanked by two rows of tall, stout
security guards. Indeed, it was true that in the imperialist countries the
government’s policy and the people’s wishes were opposite. The people of
every country value justice; their deep wish is always tied directly to a
peaceful life and friendly relationships. During that visit, I also had the
chance to meet directly with members from the Labor Party in the British
Parliament. I described for them the Vietnamese situation and our position.

During the mid and late 1960s and early 1970s, many remarkable events
occurred in the US antiwar movement: Norman Morrison immolated himself
at the Pentagon; the student movement erupted on college campuses; national
guardsmen killed four students during a demonstration at Kent State
University; and there were massive vigils in Washington and other cities.

Late in April 1969, I returned to Hà Nội to receive new directives. I

visited my father in the Soviet-Vietnamese Friendship Hospital, where he
had been hospitalized for several months. That was the last time I saw my
father. At the end of May, while in Paris, I received the news of his death. I
was in immense pain, reproaching myself that I had not been at his side
during his last moments.

During that same trip back home, Uncle Hồ invited me to visit and share a
meal. He inquired about the work of the negotiations in Paris and about the
overseas Vietnamese compatriots in France and England. Uncle Hồ reminded
me about the importance of taking part in the campaigns of people from
different countries, since these ordinary people were the ones who truly
valued justice and peace. I did not realize that this would be the last time I
would meet with Uncle Hồ.

I brought back with me to the conference the Front’s Ten-Point Solution.

[17] Comrade Trần Bửu Kiếm, head of the NLF delegation, announced this
position in the meeting at Kléber Center on May 8, 1969. The impact of the
Ten Points was huge, especially on American public opinion. These points
explained the forceful actions that had such a decisive effect in the United
States at that time.

Then in early September came the event that brought us relentless sorrow:
Uncle Hồ, the esteemed father of our nation, passed away when the efforts of
our people reached a decisive phase.

On September 2, Comrade Xuân Thủy and I returned to Hà Nội in

mourning for Uncle Hồ. The whole country was in deep sorrow.

* *

Although I have mentioned the shift from the NLF to the PRG before, I feel
a fuller explanation might be useful.

The National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam, which had been
established eight years before with “good weather, favorable terrain, and
concord among the people,”[18] had grown like Phù Đổng.[19] We had
established NLF committees in each area of the South, including in areas the
enemy temporarily occupied. Other countries, including many socialist
countries and other friendly nations, had officially recognized the NLF as a
government, even though we still used the “Front” in our name.

However, we had reached the point where we needed to establish a

government in order to manage the increase in our liberated areas and to
have an official voice for the people of the South in the international arena.
On June 6, 1969, we formally established the Provisional Revolutionary
Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt Nam with twelve domestic
and foreign policies.[20] Here was a new development in our Resistance
Movement against the United States in South Việt Nam. The government had
an Advisory Council with lawyer Nguyễn Hữu Thọ[21] as president, Lawyer
Trịnh Đình Thảo[22] as vice president, and with the participation of many
other patriotic intellectuals. The head of government was architect Huỳnh
Tấn Phát.[23]

At the time, I was in Paris. The newly formed government in the South
selected me as foreign minister and simultaneously as head of our PRG
delegation at the four-party Paris Conference. I succeeded Comrade Trần
Bửu Kiếm, who returned to Việt Nam to serve as minister of the Office of
Government. To be honest, I was not pleased to hear about my appointment
as foreign minister, for I saw that my responsibilities would be far heavier.

The announcement of the foundation of the PRG was an important event.

People inside the country were delighted. Sài Gòn was in an uproar, and
international public opinion paid close attention. We predicted several
possibilities when we announced at the negotiations that I would be
replacing Comrade Trần Bửu Kiếm as our delegation’s head and when we
simultaneously announced that we would be taking part in the meetings as the
newly established Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of
South Việt Nam. For example, the US representatives might have objected
and stopped the talks. We certainly did not expect to hear the American head
of delegation gasp in surprise and then say, “Your choice of representative is
your internal affair.”

For our two delegations, those celebratory days in Paris were like a
festival. I received many flowers and congratulatory cards and was
constantly meeting delegations. The DRVN delegation led by Comrade Lê
Đức Thọ[24] and Comrade Xuân Thủy arrived first. Then the Soviet,
Chinese, and Cuban ambassadors to France arrived to present their
congratulations and announce their governments’ formal diplomatic
recognition of the PRG. Then the Association of Overseas Vietnamese in
France, the French Communist Party, and representatives of mass
organizations of women, youth, and laborers arrived in turn.

International journalists quickly announced the news. Within a short time,

twenty countries announced their official diplomatic recognition of the PRG.
These included Cuba and Algeria, two special friends of Việt Nam; most of
these other nations were also in the socialist camp.

With these steps, our representation of the South at the conference table
became even more articulate, tenacious, and dignified.

Our delegation’s composition did not change significantly. I replaced

Comrade Trần Bửu Kiếm as delegation head. Comrades Đinh Bá Thi[25] and
Nguyễn Văn Tiến[26] became deputy delegation heads. Sister Duy Liên[27]
returned home, but Sister Nguyễn Thị Chơn[28] joined us, and then the
following year, Sister Phan Thị Minh[29] arrived.
 *

* *

Our delegation in Paris was based mainly at Verrieres-le-Buisson

(Cambaceres Road), with part of the group at Massy, five or six kilometers
away in a working-class area. Our whole delegation had thirty people,
including officials and support personnel. Only ten of us—myself, Bình
Thanh, several protocol officials, and security personnel—lived at
Verrieres-le-Buisson in an old, scenic villa atop a broad hill overlooking a
lake with swans. Indeed, it was a poetic setting.

Behind the villa was a small garden with a dozen cherry trees. In the
afternoon, we women in the delegation would often pick cherries and chat.
The comrades responsible for cooking our meals planted a small vegetable
garden and raised chickens in the yard between the villa’s kitchen and the
row of neighboring houses. After our nerve-racking work sessions, we
diplomats would water the vegetables and feed the chickens as a diversion.
We lived at the Verrieres-le-Buisson villa for five years, five years of the
swans’ life on the lake, and five years history can never forget.

The French government provided a police escort whenever the delegation

traveled in an official capacity. A police car led the procession, while the
car with the head of delegation had four motorcycle escorts, with two on
each side. Whenever the entire delegation went to a meeting at Kléber
Conference Center, we became a cavalcade led by a police car and eight
accompanying police officers on motorcycles.

The French Communist Party was the organization most helpful to the
delegation. We had only a few security officers from Việt Nam. The French
Communist Party supplied all the other security officials and the vehicle
drivers as a contribution.

Most members of our PRG delegation were political officials from many
different local areas and different State branches; we had only one military
official. We worked together amidst great unity, for we shared deep feelings
about our parentage and heritage in the South. We constantly thought of our
loved ones struggling in our ancestral villages and felt we must execute our
responsibilities to the very best of our abilities. Bình Thanh, my secretary,
was a very sensitive person. She would often say, “Ours is an endearing
community.” We seldom went out just for the fun of it, although we would
occasionally gather up the entire delegation and go to a park or to the forest
to gather mushrooms.

The house at Massy had two ping-pong tables. In the evenings, the
brothers and sisters there would play ping-pong or boules. The foreign press,
in particular the French, would compare our delegation with the one from the
Sài Gòn administration. With high salaries supported by the United States,
the Sài Gòn administration delegates had the means to visit many
entertainment sites in and around Paris. Some journalists wrote that our
office was like a “monastery” of men without their wives and a “convent” of
women without their husbands. We lived frugally, economizing whenever and
wherever we could. Some journalists wanted to film the daily living
conditions of the head of the “Việt Cộng” delegation, but we firmly declined,
offering the excuse that Vietnamese customs would not approve of
publicizing a woman’s private living quarters.

The truth is that we could hardly show anyone the room where Bình Thanh
and I lived. It was upstairs, directly under the mansard roof; the space was so
tight that our two beds were as close together as cots in a Vietnamese
hospital ward. Curious journalists sometimes asked where I went to have an
áo dài made, where I went to the hairdresser, and which beauty salon I used.
I would provide an elusive answer by way of an anecdote.

Some reporters would ask in a fault-finding tone, “Aren’t you a member

of the Communist Party?” I would smile and answer, “I’m a patriot. My party
is a patriotic party determined to struggle for our country’s independence and
freedom.” Then there were the journalists who commented, “Your name
means ‘peace,’ but you speak only of war.” How could I respond to that
challenge except by raising the question of the American war of aggression
and by speaking clearly about the meaning of our people’s determination to
achieve peace, independence, and freedom?

Those journalists had to conclude that we never wanted war. Rather, the
French colonizers and the American imperialists had forced our people to
stand up and defend themselves.

To sharpen our arguments at the negotiating table and to buttress wider

public discussion, we read books about world history and particularly about
our own country’s history. I especially liked to read about the period of Lê
Lợi[30] and Nguyễn Trãi[31] in the fifteenth century. Five hundred years
before us, our ancestors had organized a very skillful, coordinated struggle
on three fronts—political, military, and diplomatic. Nguyễn Trãi’s diplomatic
letters were unsurpassable—at times strong and at times conciliatory as he
pressured and persuaded his Chinese opponents to withdraw their troops
from our country. Nearly six centuries later, we were following our country’s
tradition of fighting the aggressors. Like our forefathers, we were using both
bravery and intelligence.
 *

* *

In addition to preparing for meetings at Kléber Conference Center, we had

to set aside considerable time to meet with the press. For me, there were
periods when it seemed like I was meeting daily with one or two television
companies or with journalists from newspapers in France, the United States,
Great Britain, and Japan. The list goes on. In general, the attitude of the press
was sympathetic toward the DRVN delegation and particularly toward the
PRG delegation. The brothers in the two delegations would tease us, saying,
“The Westerners fawn over you women!”

We faced highly sensitive issues. We would discuss them extensively to

reach unified, appropriate answers. The external-relations front was its own
battlefield. Perhaps we can say that we viewed our arguments presented at
any given point as also leading to our country’s victory.

Our opponents and the journalists would persist in asking whether

Northern Vietnamese troops were in the South. We had received a directive:
“You must not say Northern troops are in the South. You must not say
Northern troops are not in the South.” And so, I would answer, “The
Vietnamese people are one. The Vietnamese in the North, just like the
Vietnamese in the South, all have the same obligation toward society—to
fight against aggression.” The journalists would turn their questions this way
and turn them that way, but I would hold to that one approach whenever I
answered. In the end, the persistent journalists had to reconcile themselves to
accepting my response as stated.
 In 1969, we announced that our liberated area covered two thirds of the
South. Then, in 1971, we announced that we had “expanded” our liberated
area to three-quarters of the South. At that time, our main-force troops in the
battlefield faced many difficulties; the war had forced some of our troops to
slip over the border into Cambodia. The enemy bombed everywhere, even
the areas just outside Sài Gòn. We discussed with each other how to respond
to journalists.

“The United States is bombing everywhere,” I would say. “Most of the

places the United States has destroyed are in our liberated areas. If it is not
true that we control so much territory, then why is the United States bombing
everywhere?” This reasoning was so clear that it caused the journalists to
nod their heads in agreement.

I remember most of all a large meeting in the middle of 1971 with TV

journalists. French television had taken the initiative to organize a live,
simultaneous broadcast from two sites—one in Paris and one in Washington.
Twenty journalists took part. Ten, who were mostly Americans, would
protect the US position; ten others, who were mostly French, would be
neutral and objective. I was invited to take part, but I wavered. I kept
thinking I would be all by myself and stupefied in the midst of so many sharp-
tongued journalists. I had never met any of them, and I would have to debate
directly in French. Comrade Dương Đình Thảo, our press attaché, and the
other brothers and sisters in our delegation encouraged me. They said this
was a great opportunity to introduce the entire world to our just position and
to expose the US schemes and cruelty. And so, they said, I should make the
most of this opportunity.
 The broadcast was nearly two tension-filled hours under bright studio
lights. For the most part, the journalists focused on the usual positions of the
United States and Việt Nam at the negotiating table. Although my heart was
thumping, I tried to be calm and answer with composure and strength but also
with courteous affability. I explained our good intentions and our wish to find
a political solution to end our people’s pain and suffering. At the same time, I
expressed our determination to achieve inviolable freedom, independence,
and unification for our country. At the end of the meeting, I breathed a huge
sigh of relief because I had completed a very difficult assignment.

Comrade Xuân Thủy phoned me with praise. “You were courageous,” he

said.

Many French friends, especially the women, telephoned their

congratulations, saying the broadcast was an important success. Days later,
members of the press were still talking about that event.

We were always looking for new initiatives to expand our influence. One
action was very special: From Paris, we organized with our friends in New
York an antiwar meeting coordinated across the Atlantic Ocean. At the
appointed hour, our friends in New York phoned to inform us that everyone
had arrived at the meeting hall. They asked us to speak to the meeting by
telephone. I spoke, and Bình Thanh interpreted. The applause was
enthusiastic. We could not hear clearly when the Americans spoke, but we
could guess the contents. This innovation contributed to US understanding of
our position and created greater sympathy.

However, not every initiative was successful. We had noticed that more
than a few senators and representatives in the US Congress opposed the war.
I discussed with Older Brother Lý Văn Sáu the idea of writing a letter to the
US Congress in hopes that Congress would contemplate the American
tradition honoring freedom and think about the American youth who had died
in Việt Nam. The arguments presented in the letter carefully weighed the pros
and cons; they were mild-mannered and reasonable. A few days after sending
the letter, we learned that the US Congress had objected that the letter was
“not constructive” and that, by behaving this way, we were interfering in US
internal affairs. This was a small matter, but we did gain from it a greater
understanding of a large country’s self-conceit, and we learned a lesson in
international deportment.

The choice of Paris as the site of the negotiations was a large victory for
us. Perhaps the United States did not realize that even though Việt Nam had
fought with France, our nation had many close and supportive French friends
as well as huge community of patriotic overseas Vietnamese. Paris, which at
that time was regarded as the center of Europe and the center of world public
opinion, provided us with a favorable location for sending news
internationally. We could distribute many important news stories very fast
from our delegations in Paris to the rest of the world.

Those stories included US expansion of the war to Laos and Cambodia,

the US escalation of the war to the North, the US destruction in the North, and
the US army’s massacres at Mỹ Lai (Sơn Mỹ) and other sites. Within a day,
people in many countries would take to the streets to oppose the United
States and support Việt Nam. These news releases also quickly opposed the
heavy-handed actions in the urban centers of South Việt Nam. Many
Vietnamese from the South who visited Paris told us that it was primarily
through the news from other countries that they could understand clearly the
situation in the South. In this way, they also came to understand the National
Liberation Front and, later, the Provisional Revolutionary Government.
Through daily press and television briefings, people could follow closely the
battles of Vietnamese regular troops and guerrillas against American
marines.

Politicians wanted to watch how the diplomatic arguments played out in

Paris between the two warring sides. One side in Paris was allied with
communism and socialism, with “representatives” connected to the North
Vietnamese Army and the Liberation Army of South Việt Nam. The other side
was allied with the Western imperialists led by the United States, with
“representatives” connected to the US Army and the ARVN (Army of the
Republic of Việt Nam). Along with the televised scenes of bloody battles and
deaths on the battlefield in Việt Nam, the maneuvering at the Paris
Conference involved complicated arguments between the sides as they
pursued complex, opposing national and individual interests.

Some people tried to use the Soviet Union and China, two of our major
allies, to pressure Việt Nam. Through quick-minded observation, we could
perceive these dynamics from both our adversaries’ public actions and their
clandestine behavior around the edges of the Paris Conference. We were
conscious of this situation and of the need for careful discipline in our public
statements. Indeed, at times we would say something in public, but then the
newspapers would unintentionally or sometimes with direct intention print
completely different contents. We constantly had to screen every point and
learn from experience.

We met many political leaders as well as journalists at various embassy

festivities for different countries’ national days. Guests would chat about the
news. We brothers and sisters were skillful in picking up information, which
gave us insight into the issues and the opinions of the various guests.
 The home of Mme. Geneviève Tabouis,[32] a politician and famous
French journalist, was a favorite gathering place. Many well-known French
political leaders, political activists, retired generals, and eminent journalists
came to discuss current affairs. Surely, the guests also included people
working in strategic intelligence. I was often invited to “Saturday afternoon
tea,” along with Comrade Nguyễn Minh Vỹ[33] and lawyer Trần Công
Tường[34] (both from the DRVN delegation).

From the discussions, we understood that the other guests really did want
to understand our intentions and to learn where we were headed and when
there would be real negotiations. Many people also made the observation
common in French political circles that “the United States will surely be
defeated because, before, the French were wiser in military strategy and
tactics but nevertheless met defeat.”

The French political authorities probably would have been willing to

serve as mediators between the United States and the DRVN-PRG. The
French sought clarity about whether the “peace cabinet” about to appear in
Sài Gòn would have people who were close to France. Individual French
people who knew us tried to sound out political issues involving a possible
new administration in the South, while they simultaneously tried to sound out
the US side. In general, though, the French government was respectful and
strove to maintain its neutral role as the “host country.”

During the negotiations, we had many methods to preserve our secrecy

and security. One aspect of our success was the political environment in
France. We managed to keep all our diplomatic offensives secret to the very
last moment, creating the element of surprise that perplexed and disconcerted
our opponents.
 *

* *

During our nearly five years in Paris, in addition to our work directly
relating to the negotiations, my comrades and I in the NLF-PRG delegation
would visit other countries to attend conferences and solidarity meetings. We
took advantage of any invitation from any organization in any country,
whether in France, Italy, Africa, or the Americas. Our goal was to maximize
the opportunities to explain our position and to mobilize the various strata of
people, political parties, and governments.

In France, ordinary people were very sympathetic with Việt Nam. The
French Communist Party had substantial political influence at that time and
was a solid support, helping in particular with the solidarity movement by
drawing in people from every segment of society. Especially important was
the support from a number of world-renown intellectuals. These included
writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre;[35] the famous mathematician,
Laurent Schwartz;[36] and the venerable lawyer, Joe Norman, the French
president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.[37] These
famous people held opposing political views and would often challenge one
another, but they agreed on the issue of Việt Nam. Each one spoke out in
strong support of Việt Nam’s struggle.

Việt Nam’s indomitable, heroic efforts were a source of inspiration for

many French writers and poets. There were those who said, “I wish, when
waking up in the morning, to be Vietnamese.”

The women in the Union of French Women (UFF)[38] were especially

constructive; they organized many initiatives in support of Việt Nam. These
sisters would joke with me. “Bình,” they would say, “the French people
know more about you than about our French president!” The General
Confederation of Workers (CGT)[39] was also enthusiastic.

I think we need to help our Vietnamese people understand everything our

friends did to help us before and afterwards and especially during the time of
the negotiations in Paris. To them we owe a huge debt of gratitude, which we
must never forget.

Traveling from France to Italy required very little effort. The Italian
people’s movement supporting Việt Nam was very strong, particularly among
the youth and trade-union members. Many communist activists and
representatives from other political parties in the Parliament spoke up in
support of us, demanding that the United States stop the war. We went many
times to Bologna, where the Italian Communist Party had a great deal of
influence. I was invited to the Parliament to speak about the war. A
movement developed to support the health of the Vietnamese by donating
blood. Whenever our delegations went to visit, we felt like special guests,
with the police escorting us as if we were heads of state. Comrades Trương
Tùng and Hà Đăng still refer to our “historic” visits to Bologna.

For me, the deepest and most emotional memories are from Sweden. The
Swedish people—in particular the youth—loved and supported Việt Nam.
Many youth called themselves “Swedish Việt Cộng.” One time we had just
landed at the airport when we saw two rows of Swedish youth with blue-
and-red NLF flags. They sang, “Liberate the South” in Swedish to welcome
us. Some young friends in the movement came from wealthy families. At first,
their parents were angry, but then they noticed that their children became
better behaved and more dignified through their political activities. In the
end, the parents shifted to supporting us and encouraging their children’s
work for Việt Nam.

Here is one special case: Some youth, who called themselves FNL (the
letters abbreviating the National Liberation Front in Swedish), had
established a “Việt Cộng Liberated Area” in an abandoned building in the
center of the capital. There, the FNL youth set up a printing press and
published a newsletter, which they distributed across the various strata of
Swedish society.

The two Swedes whom I especially esteemed were Prime Minister Olof
Palme[40] and writer Sara Lidman.[41] At the beginning of 1970, Prime
Minister Palme instructed Mr. Christophe öberg[42] to invite me to take part
in the Swedish Social Democratic Party Congress and to speak about the
American War in Việt Nam. I was the only foreign representative at the
congress. During that same visit, a huge demonstration had been organized in
Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, in support of the Vietnamese people’s
struggle. I joined the prime minister in leading that demonstration.

Writer Sara Lidman was famous in Northern Europe. She had written
many books protecting the interests of farmers in remote areas. Here was a
person with a heart of gold. She felt great admiration and sympathy for Việt
Nam, a small and impoverished nation standing up in heroic valor against the
United States, a colossal and imperialistic country. She viewed Việt Nam as
the symbol for ethical choices and as the heart of humanity. Perhaps there are
no words more beautiful than Sara Lidman’s to describe Việt Nam.

Sara Lidman visited Việt Nam in the midst of the war and became even
more admiring and sympathetic when she saw the women and children living
under the Americans’ cruel bombs. Yet she also saw that these people
remained calm and optimistic about the struggle, for they believed we would
be victorious in the end. Sara Lidman was also attentive to the relationship
between people within our families and our society.

“Older Sister Bình,” she said, “Việt Nam has a culture that is endlessly
precious. People live together with feeling and meaning in a beautiful way. In
Europe, we’ve become uncivilized and know only about living to please
ourselves. We’re bent on winning for ourselves at any cost…”

These days, in truth, the words of this dear Swedish friend are worth a
great deal of thought. Indeed, during those years of war, we Vietnamese truly
did live in a society, which was good and strong. I believe that we
Vietnamese today can draw from our wartime society a deep source of
strength, which we must always preserve. In truth, the return of peace brings
difficulties greater than in war! I know many close friends have worried
about us with respect to this very point. Sara Lidman was among them. She
was not a communist, and she did not speak about class struggle or
socialism. She had a soul, which was clear and noble, and so she placed a
high value on equality and compassion while hating injustice, oppression,
and exploitation. When I would share confidences with her about the
weaknesses that remained in our society, she would always find a way to
defend us and cover this up.

Sara passed away several years ago in her home village, a tranquil rural
area in the south of Sweden. She was a marvelous friend, whom we can
never forget.

I also often think of Algeria, a place where people would refer to Việt
Nam as their “older brother” and “older sister.” Việt Nam and Algeria were
close through a special, shared history. In 1954, we had just finished our War
of Resistance Against France with the glorious victory in the Battle of Điện
Biên Phủ when the Algerians began their military struggle, which lasted until
1962. Only then, after the Évian Agreement,[43] did Algeria secure
independence and freedom from the French colonialists. Algerians regarded
Việt Nam with gratitude and felt the Vietnamese people had opened the way
for Algeria’s struggle as well as for the world-wide national independence
movement. Starting from this special relationship, the Algerian government,
the Algerian FNL (Front for National Liberation) Party, and the Algerian
people continuously supported Việt Nam when we were forced to fight the
United States.

Paris and Algiers are not far apart. We had many chances to travel to
Algiers and discuss with our friends the situation of the struggle inside our
country and the negotiations in Paris. President Boumédiènne[44] and
Foreign Minister Bouteflika[45] considered me a close friend and reserved
for me in Algiers a private villa, which our friends called “Mme. Bình’s
villa.” At the time, Algeria played an important role in the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM)[46] and was central in helping the NLF- PRG take part.
Their help came at the time when the countries in NAM that had a strong
relationship with the United States and the Sài Gòn administration looked for
ways to hamper us.

In the middle of 1970, I went to visit Yugoslavia. As soon as I set foot

there, I remembered the books I had read during the beginning of my efforts
to oppose French colonialism. Those texts described the anti-fascist war and
Yugoslavia’s guerrilla movement, in which President Tito[47] was the iconic
image and for which he was subsequently honored as a national hero. After
World War II, Yugoslavia backed the Bandung spirit[48] and joined the Non-
Aligned Movement. Later, splits in the labor movement and in international
communism made it difficult for Yugoslavia; as a result, the country’s
international importance declined.

Nevertheless, President Tito and the Yugoslav government were

consistent in their warm support for the Vietnamese people’s struggle during
our two Wars of Resistance. After we had signed the Paris Agreement, I
visited Yugoslavia once again along with PRG President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ.
President Tito personally drove the car and took us to visit Bruny Island in
the Adriatic, where the blue of the sea has a special hue.

In the middle of 1970, the battlefield forces between the enemy and us
were relatively even. When the negotiations in Paris stalled, I took advantage
of the hiatus to visit other countries and attend international conferences.
Comrade Đinh Bá Thi, deputy head of our delegation, replaced me every
Thursday at the Kléber Conference Center.

In July, we paid an official visit to India at the invitation of Prime

Minister Indira Gandhi[49] and then traveled on to Sri Lanka at the invitation
of Prime Minister Bandaranaike.[50]

At this time, Delhi had two Vietnamese consulates, one for the DRVN and
one for the Sài Gòn administration. The Sài Gòn consul objected when he
heard about our delegation’s arrival; he left India for home. His action was a
defeat for the Sài Gòn administration because I had come through an official
invitation from the Indian government. The Indian government replied to his
objection, saying, “Whomever we invite is our right!”
 Indian political circles were divided. Traveling along the road, we could
see two kinds of signs, “Welcome Mme. Bình!” and “Mme. Bình, Go home!”

When journalists asked my impressions, I said, “The Indian people

support us, for which we are very thankful. After this visit, we’ll return
home.” India was very hot in July, but wherever we went, people poured out
onto the streets, particularly in Calcutta (now Kolkata). Many people
approached us to grasp our hands, while others kissed the hems of my áo dài.
At the time, the Indians had a famous slogan, “You are Việt Nam. I am Việt
Nam. We are Việt Nam!” Many people supported us, but some did not. In
quite a few places, Indians argued with each other about red flags or black
flags. We were pleased that there were always more red flags.

This visit was the first time I met Mme. Indira Gandhi, about whom I had
heard so much praise. She was the daughter of Elder Nehru,[51] the first
prime minister of India, a huge country, which had achieved independence
after nearly a hundred years of imperialist British domination. Mme. Indira
Gandhi had taken the name of her husband, Feroze Gandhi,[52] also a
politician and a famous journalist. When Indira Gandhi was young, she
accompanied her father, who conscientiously trained her to become a high-
level politician. She was proud to be a “niece of Uncle Hồ.”[53]

I had a deep and positive impression of Indira Gandhi not only because of
her dignified, serious appearance and her noble bearing but also from her
political acumen. During that visit to India, I came to understand more about
one of the oldest and greatest cultures in Asia. At the same time, I was deeply
impressed by the warm feelings of the Indian people toward Uncle Hồ and
Việt Nam.
 My visit to India created a positive effect on Indian public opinion, with
the result that, subsequently, the Indian government made an important
decision, which enhanced our prestige. Previously, India and Poland had
been two of the countries on the International Commission for Supervision
and Control of the Implementation of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Việt
Nam and Laos. To maintain neutrality, India had established a general
consulate in Hà Nội and another in Sài Gòn. Then in the beginning of 1972,
India established formal diplomatic relations with the DRVN and opened an
embassy in Hà Nội.

* *

On September 17, 1970, we at the Paris negotiations began another

“diplomatic offensive” with the PRG’s Eight Points.[54] We demanded that
the United States withdraw all its troops before June 30, 1971, set aside the
Thiệu-Kỳ-Khiêm administration, and establish a provisional coalition
government in the South. The Eight Points created reverberations, which
resounded throughout the urban areas of the South. Those points received
world-wide acclaim as part of a flexible and reasonable proposal.

In addition to my responsibilities as foreign minister and delegation head

at the Paris Conference, I had an assignment as traveling diplomatic
representative for the PRG State. My task was to encourage other
governments to establish official diplomatic relations with the PRG. By
1970, twenty-four governments had diplomatic relations with the Provisional
Revolutionary Government.
 Our official participation in the Non-Aligned Movement became a major
goal for expanding the PRG’s international position. At that time, the Non-
Aligned Movement included more than a hundred Third World member
nations from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. NAM’s guidelines were to
struggle for independence and non-alignment, that is, not to follow the side of
socialism but also not to follow the side of Western capitalism.

The NLF-PRG platform with its position regarding peaceful foreign

affairs and neutrality conformed appropriately to NAM’s guiding principles.
Although we had many friends in NAM, admission was not easy. In
September 1970, I received directions along with Comrades Ngọc Dung,
Bình Thanh, Lý Văn Sáu, and Lê Mai[55] to go to Lusaka, the capital of
Zambia, to lobby in this important campaign.

We arrived in Tanzania and expected to travel from there to Zambia, but

we couldn’t find any way to fly to Zambia from Tanzania’s largest city, Dar
es Salaam. The date for the meeting of NAM heads of state was imminent. It
was all very confusing. We were fortunate to meet Older Sister Maria, the
private secretary of Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere,[56] a major African
politician, who was sympathetic to Việt Nam’s struggle. Older Sister Maria
suggested we ask if we could travel on the president’s special airplane.

I went to see the president and presented our problem. He was delighted
to receive our request, and so, the five of us boarded the president’s special
plane. We were even more delighted that Ugandan President Obote[57]
traveled with us. While on the airplane, I sat between the two presidents. The
trip gave us time to talk. When our delegation landed at the airport, the
Zambians greeted me formally as if I were a head of state.
 The foreign ministers met first; the meeting of heads of state would
follow. At the foreign ministers’ meeting, comrades from Cuba and Algeria
suggested admitting the PRG. Hectic activity ensued. Some African countries
maintained close relations with the United States and the Sài Gòn
administration. They objected, while other countries had no position. In the
end, the meeting decided that, as a first step, the PRG could have observer
status. This was an important victory.

From that point forward, the PRG’s diplomatic status changed. I was
invited to speak at the meeting of heads of state. Everyone was attentive. The
next day, I went to give my greetings to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and to
President Nyerere to thank them for the support of India and Tanzania. Many
heads of state wanted to meet the Madame Foreign Minister of the
Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam.
Notable among them was President Bokassa[58] of the Central African
Republic. He had served as a French legionnaire in Việt Nam.

The head of state for Ethiopia, Emperor Haile Selassie,[59] was elegantly
dressed as would befit a royal personage. He moved forward in the midst of
a large and obsequious entourage of junior officials. The appearance of a
woman as the foreign minister from a struggling country, which was the
center of world attention, caused the emperor and his delegation to take
notice and even to show some sympathy.

During subsequent years, I always received support from Asian and

African delegations at international conferences. I worked in close
coordination with them, especially on matters related to Việt Nam, anti-
imperialism, and opposition to wars of aggression. Many foreign ministers
whom I knew during those years later became heads of state, for example, in
Algeria, Madagascar, and Mali. These leaders retain good feelings toward
Việt Nam and toward me personally.

In October 1970, I visited Bulgaria, the country of roses. Bulgaria is a

prosperous agricultural country, which produces flowers and fruits said to be
the best in Europe. Comrade Todor Zhivkov,[60] the general secretary of the
Bulgarian Communist Party, welcomed me with great enthusiasm. During a
consultative meeting with the Bulgarian foreign minister, we received news
of the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.[61] I returned to
Paris in order to represent the PRG at President de Gaulle’s state funeral.
This was a very solemn affair with many heads-of-state delegations from all
continents. After the funeral, I returned to Bulgaria.

In early 1971, I visited Cuba. Comrade Fidel Castro[62] called that year
the “Year of Solidarity with Việt Nam.” My visit opened with a huge rally in
José Marti Square. I had the feeling that all of Havana was present. There,
Comrade Fidel promulgated his famous, fiery slogan: “Cuba is ready to
dedicate all her blood for Việt Nam!” The atmosphere was intensely
emotional, with everyone shouting: “Việt Nam – Cuba!” and “Americans out
of Việt Nam!” Later, the Vietnamese embassy reported that it had received
thousands of letters from Cuban citizens volunteering to fight alongside their
comrades in Việt Nam. Solidarity with Việt Nam penetrated every family and
every Cuban from senior citizens to children. The children of Comrade Raúl
Castro[63] and Vilma Espín were young, about eleven or twelve years old.
The older son came with his mother to visit me. He was startled to see my
long hair.

He asked: “May I go to Việt Nam and fight?”

 I was so touched. “Aren’t you afraid of dying?” I asked.

“If I die,” he answered with pride, “I’ll be a martyr!”

In 1972, the foreign ministers from countries in the Non-Aligned

Movement met in Georgetown (Guyana). Comrade Hoàng Bích Sơn,[64] the
PRG deputy foreign minister, led our delegation to lobby for the PRG’s full
membership in the Non-Aligned Movement. The delegation’s efforts were
such that a majority of nations approved our application at the conference the
following year. In June 1973, at the meeting of heads of state in Algeria, the
Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam
was recognized as an official member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

* *

It would be a major oversight if I did not mention my visits to the Soviet

Union and China during the years of the Paris Conference.

I cannot remember how many official visits I made to the Soviet Union,
China, and most of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. The
governments and the people there consistently expressed tremendous good
will toward Việt Nam. The assistance from the Soviet and Chinese peoples
during our struggle was enormous. I attended rallies held by the Communist
Party, the State, and the people of China at Beijing’s Great Hall with tens of
thousands in attendance, and I joined solemn meetings with Soviet leaders at
the grand Kremlin Palace. Every time we returned from France to Việt Nam,
we stopped off in Moscow and Beijing. We felt safe and welcomed there, as
if we were at home. In those years, the empathy between us was deep and
sincere.

In 1971, the situation on the battlefield became very tense. The mental
battle at the conference table was also tense. By late 1971 and early 1972,
the balance of forces was precarious. The Paris Conference continued, but as
the journalists wrote, our discussions were like “verbal jousts between deaf
people.” Perhaps I can say that this was the worst time for us. At times, we
became especially homesick. I read and reread my daughter Mai’s squiggly
lines. By then, she was eleven years old. She wasn’t even eight when I left
for Paris.

She wrote, “When will you return to us children?”

My husband was still teaching at the Army Engineering School, but his
health had begun to decline. This added to my worries and left me feeling
helpless because I could not be nearby to care for him.

That was my personal mood. I knew that each person in our delegation
had his or her own personal challenges, anxieties, and mood swings.
However, through all this, we always held on to this special point: We never
thought Việt Nam could be defeated. We were determined to achieve victory.
The only question was “When?”

In February 1971, the United States launched an offensive on Route 9 in

Southern Laos to cut off the North-South supply route, thereby hoping to
isolate and encircle our Liberation Army. The Americans’ efforts ended in
miserable failure. From Paris, we sent our reports to Stockholm, Rome,
Montreal, and New York; we described clearly the US expansion of
aggression into Laos. The news spread immediately from those sites to other
countries. At meetings and demonstrations, countless participants condemned
the United States and demanded that the United States stop escalating the war.

During those days, our two delegations from the North and the South were
terribly busy. We quickly implemented what we called our “diplomacy
coordinated with the battlefield.” More than a month later, the American and
puppet troops were forced to withdraw from Southern Laos after they had
suffered huge military and political losses. Our position was visibly
strengthened. On reflection, I think perhaps it can be said that the “warriors”
in Paris at that time also contributed their small and indirect part to the
victory in Laos that year.

On July 1, 1971, the PRG delegation announced its Seven-Point Program.

[65] The points included withdrawal of all US troops in concert with the
release of political prisoners and the Sài Gòn administration’s acceptance of
a new administration ready to discuss with the PRG the establishment of a
National Reconciliation Government. In this way, we separated the
contentious aspects of US withdrawal from the political issues involving the
South. Here was another wise step.

Diplomacy can work that way. Flexibility can be an offensive. This

initiative had a huge effect by generating positive world opinion and support
from many governments. Washington searched for other schemes. Kissinger
and then Nixon visited Beijing. They wanted to make everyone think the
major powers would resolve the war among themselves; they hoped to drive
a wedge between the USSR and China.

Foreign media covered in detail the secret meetings in Shanghai[66]

between the United States and China as well as China’s public statement to
the effect of, “If you don’t touch us, then we won’t touch you.” I believe
history will remember this “unusual” secret meeting.

Yet nothing could deter our people in Việt Nam’s two sectors, the North
and the South. Indeed, our determination on the military, political, and
diplomatic fronts grew even stronger.

I returned to Hà Nội in the middle of 1971, when we had large floods in

the North. The army and the people struggled to combat the new US air war
and to protect the Red River dikes. The army had to destroy some
embankments protecting Hà Nội’s Gia Lâm District in order to keep the
center of Hà Nội from flooding.

In March 1972, our army and people began a large offensive in three
important directions—the eastern sector of the South, the Central Highlands,
and Quảng Tri - Thừa Thiên Provinces in the northern part of South Việt
Nam. The Quảng Trị Campaign, which lasted until September 1972, was
among the war’s fiercest battles.

By early 1972, I was back in Paris and continued attending the meetings at
Kléber Conference Center every Thursday morning. At this time, as before,
the battlefield was tense, while the conference table was also tense. Our
feelings of discontent continued. We did not know when we would overcome
the deadlock; nevertheless, we continued publicizing the deceptions and
endless cruelties of the US-Thiệu administration. We continued to demand
that the United States completely withdraw its troops.

On January 11, 1972, I received a directive to announce our Two

Points[67]—withdraw American troops and form in the South a National
Government of Concord drawn from three sectors—the PRG, the Sài Gòn
administration, and the Third Force.[68]

By this time, our army was launching a counter-offensive on the

battlefield, while the United States was in a presidential election year. The
American people were demanding that Nixon bring US troops home. I can
say that the PRG’s Seven-Point Plan along with the two additional points—
including the withdrawal of US troops so that the Vietnamese in the South
could solve their own internal issues—were both insightful and timely as
strategic policies. World public opinion and particularly US public opinion
supported this view, whereas our new initiative seemed to disconcert the Sài
Gòn administration. Internal conflict among the Sài Gòn authorities increased
as did the citizens’ hatred for them.

To deceive the American public before the election, the Nixon

administration arranged a so-called political solution for the war in Việt
Nam. The United States agreed with the DRVN to enter into “secret talks” in
Paris. The historic battle of wits between Lê Đức Thọ and Henry
Kissinger[69] began. It could be said that this was the decisive season on
two fronts—military and diplomatic.

Simultaneously, the American Air Force intended to bomb the Red River
dikes during the rainy season’s peak. At that time, the DRVN delegation
spoke out at the Paris Conference against the Americans’ cruel scheme. We
had invited many international delegations to visit and examine the sites.
During that time, Jane Fonda[70] visited the PRG delegation in Paris and
shared a meal with me before leaving for Việt Nam.
 Ramsey Clark[71] traveled with Jane Fonda to Hà Nội. He had resigned
his cabinet position as President Johnson’s attorney general in 1969 in
protest against the US war policy. After returning to the United States from
visiting Việt Nam in 1972, both Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark spoke with the
authority of those who could say, “Our eyes have seen, our ears have heard.”
They said clearly that the dikes protecting the Red River Delta were not
military emplacements, as the US government had deceptively said in the
public media. Mr. Raymond Aubrac,[72] a close friend of ours in France,
encouraged the Vatican and the United Nations to speak out and stop the
vicious US plan to bomb our protective dikes.

The war in our country reached a high point of intensity both in the North
and in the South. The United States bombed the Hồ Chí Minh Trail twenty-
four hours a day. The USA mined ports in the North and blocked our shipping
lanes.

In Paris, we followed the news from Quảng Trị hour by hour, particularly
the battle for the famous Quảng Trị Citadel. We did not receive specific and
timely news, but whatever was announced made our hearts pound. We knew
our warriors were very young, yet we also knew our troops understood that
taking “the land” at that site created the essential image of taking back
freedom and independence for our Homeland. For that, our soldiers were
willing to sacrifice their lives. After eighty-one destructive days and nights,
our troops could no longer hold the Quảng Trị Citadel, but our troops’
combat spirit showed Việt Nam’s unwavering determination. We in Paris
understood that this spirit was an important contribution to our struggle at the
conference table.
 During those days, many American groups—mothers, wives of pilots,
religious leaders, women, and young activists—visited our two delegations.
I remember in particular Martin Fenryder, the leader of a group with twenty-
four American youth. He presented me with a poem, which he had just
composed.

By the end of September 1972, only two months remained before the US
presidential elections, creating an opportunity for us to pressure the United
States into substantive negotiations. Comrade Lê Đức Thọ, special advisor to
the DRVN delegation, brought from home the Paris Draft Agreement on
Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Việt Nam. We announced the contents
of the Draft Agreement, which the Politburo in Hà Nội had carefully
examined.

* *

From the beginning of negotiations until September 1972, Việt Nam’s

stance had consistently stressed that any “whole-package” solution must
fulfill two basic requirements—complete and unconditional withdrawal of
all US troops from the South and the removal of the Sài Gòn administration
set up by the United States. These two requirements were inter-linked.
However, the Draft Agreement emphasized only the requirement for complete
withdrawal of US forces from the South but relaxed our demands about
political issues in the South.

After examining the Draft Agreement, some comrades in the PRG

delegation raised questions: If the political issues were left to the South,
would we be able to achieve complete liberation? Could we end the war?
Experience in Laos after the 1962 Geneva Agreement had shown that a multi-
sided coalition government led to civil war. Would that same dynamic play
out in Việt Nam? What would happen to the tens of thousands of our brothers
and sisters who were political prisoners? Could we guarantee their safe
release? What would be the appearance and situation in the South after the
American troops left?

We spent several days in discussions. Yet ultimately we all agreed that

total American withdrawal from the South was the crucial issue.

For more than two months, DRVN Adviser Lê Đức Thọ and Minister
Xuân Thủy engaged in “fiery” debates with Henry Kissinger, President
Nixon’s national security adviser, regarding the Draft Paris Agreement. At
that time, international public opinion, especially in Paris, described
National Security Adviser Kissinger as a wise diplomat with experience in
political negotiations. People often ask if I ever met with Kissinger. The truth
is that I met him many times but only “indirectly” during the debate between
the two special advisers (Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ) in reference to the
PRG’s positions. Kissinger and I spoke directly with each other only once,
after the Paris Agreement had been signed. We lifted our champagne glasses
and toasted each other, celebrating peace!

By early October 1972, the two sides (the DRVN and the United States)
had agreed on a basic draft. They set October 30 as the date for signing the
Paris Peace Agreement on Ending the War. Our two delegations were
frantically busy during those days. Our delegation from the South increased
its external relations and press releases in order to clarify our position and
foil the enemy’s diehard efforts to prolong the war. Representatives from
many countries were anxious to know the outcome of the “secret” talks. We
were both excited and worried.

As anticipated, in early November 1972, Nixon won the election. In

successive, deceitful moves, he demanded changes to the Agreement’s
content. In an effort to force Việt Nam to accept his changes, Nixon instigated
vicious bombing of Hà Nội and Hải Phòng for twelve days and nights, from
December 18 until December 29, 1972.[73]

We were terribly worried when we heard the Americans were using B-52
strategic bombers in raids against our capital and our major cities. The B-
52s were the Americans’ most modern carpet bombers. They flew at a height
of ten kilometers and in the company of a phalanx of fighter jets. Their radar-
jamming equipment made them difficult to detect and, therefore, made it
harder for our missiles to hit their targets. Our friends in France and other
countries all worried about us. They wondered: This time, could we resist?
This was the Americans’ most decisive and treacherous thrashing. On
December 21, in protest, we announced cessation of the negotiations.

Those were incredibly stressful days.

We followed the situation at home very closely. We heard that our troops
had shot down a B-52 at Hải Phòng, and then we heard they had shot one
down at Hà Nội, and then the list continued: Our soldiers shot down one,
two, three, and more B-52s. We were beside ourselves with joy. We were
convinced our courageous army and people would defeat the enemy’s savage
bombardment.

In addition to our general anxiety, all of us in the delegation, particularly

the women, followed the Americans’ assault ever so closely to know the
sites where the enemy poured its B-52 bombs. Did the bombs hit our loved
ones? Were our children still alive? I was beside myself with anxiety when I
heard the Americans had bombed Hưng Yên, a provincial capital about thirty
kilometers from Hà Nội. Had my children survived? I was so fortunate.
Several days later, comrades inside the country informed me that my children
were safe. I breathed a deep sigh of relief!

When I first left Hà Nội for Paris to take part in the negotiations, my
daughter was eight years old, while my son was eleven. I missed them so
much. Every now and then, someone would arrive from home, and I would
receive letters from Khang and our children. Every one of the letters from
Mai, my daughter, would ask, “Mother, when are you coming home?” So
many families were separated during the nine years of evacuation of Việt
Nam’s cities to avoid losses to civilians from US bombs. The deepest wish
of Vietnamese children during that time was to live with their fathers and
mothers.

I was called home on urgent business. En route, arriving in China, I met

Chairman Mao Zedong and a number of other Chinese leaders. Chairman
Mao said: “Why do you Vietnamese comrades react so strongly? At some
point, the Americans will leave.” Since I did not quite understand Chairman
Mao’s point, I made no comment.

In the middle of the night of December 30, I arrived in Hà Nội and heard
the news that the United States had stopped the bombing.

The Americans were bitter when they saw that even all their B-52s could
not dampen our people’s will. The bombing was a US military defeat with
heavy losses of B-52 airplanes, but the political disaster for the United States
was even greater. The whole world condemned the United States. Even the
British government, the closest US ally in Europe, issued a statement about
British “regret” in the face of this US action.

Years later, I learned that in the 1960s President Hồ Chí Minh had said:
“Experience from the Korean War teaches us that the United States will
eventually use their B-52s to threaten us.”[74] From that point, our military
under the direction of the Ministry of Defense, began to research ways to
shoot down B-52s. Indeed, Uncle Hồ was forward looking, and our army
was truly courageous and smart.

On January 21, 1973, I returned to Paris, where the weather was brisk,
sunny, and beautiful. On January 23, 1973, Comrade Lê Đức Thọ and Henry
Kissinger initialed the text of the Agreement. And then, several days later, on
January 27, we four foreign ministers signed the Paris Agreement. The
Americans’ initial demands—“both sides would withdraw their troops,” that
is, American troops and troops from the North would withdraw in what the
Americans called “reciprocity”—met defeat. The United States was forced
to sign a peace agreement with the Provisional Revolutionary Government of
the Republic of South Việt Nam. It was clear that the United States had no
other alternative. We had achieved a momentous victory. The United States
had to withdraw completely, while Vietnamese troops remained on
Vietnamese land.

I had a deep feeling of ferocity alongside an equally deep feeling of

serenity, for I assumed that whatever must occur would occur.

* *
 The day of the Paris Agreement signing, January 27, 1973, holds great
historic significance for our nation. Each member of our delegation can never
forget that day.

All the world’s newspapers placed this major event on their first pages.
Across the world, people who loved peace and justice were in a festive
mood as if they were the victors.

On the night of January 26, no one in our two delegations could sleep. We
were all preparing for the work we would do the next day.

On the morning of January 27, 1973, the Kléber conference room was
bright with lights. Outside, thousands of people—our overseas Vietnamese
compatriots, French friends, and friends from other countries—stood waiting
amidst a forest of flags. I felt apprehensive as I walked into the conference
room. At exactly at 10 o’clock, four foreign ministers sat down at the table.
We were the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam
[75]
(Nguyễn Duy Trinh), the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam (Nguyễn Thị Bình), the United States of America
(William P. Rogers),[76] and the Republic of Việt Nam (Trần Văn Lắm).[77]
Each of us signed the thirty-two documents in the Paris Agreement.[78]

I felt deeply moved as I added my signature to the historic Agreement. It

was as if I represented the southern revolutionary people and warriors who
had accepted responsibility for struggling on the front lines and in the prisons
to raise our flag in dazzling victory. I felt immeasurably honored. I do not
have enough words to describe the endless gratitude I was feeling for our
compatriots and our warriors from North to South. They had endured every
courageous sacrifice in the struggle so that we could achieve victory that day.
 I was remembering Uncle Hồ and feeling thankful to comrades from the
Party leadership, from the National Liberation Front, and from the
Provisional Revolutionary Government. They had believed they could count
on me for this difficult and honorable responsibility. I was feeling
particularly grateful to our Vietnamese cousins in France and neighboring
countries as well as to our international friends, who gave their full hearts to
our struggle. I was feeling indebted to the brothers and sisters in both our
negotiating delegations and to our office-and-support personnel in Paris.
And, yes, as I signed those thirty-two documents, I was thinking about my
family—about my husband and my children.

* *

In truth, things did not flow perfectly after we signed the Agreement. The
United States still refused to accept defeat. As soon as the American
secretary of state affixed his signature, the United States embarked on its next
scheme. We knew and expected this. Nevertheless, for us, the signed Paris
Agreement was a great victory, a decisive step toward the ultimate victory
that would return to us our re-united nation. The Agreement reinforced and
enhanced the PRG’s prestige among other nations in the international
community.

A month later, on March 2, 1973, an international conference held at

Kléber International Conference Center affirmed the legality of the Paris
Agreement on Việt Nam.

The DRVN and American delegations organizing the International

Conference had argued about the venue. Should the conference be in Paris,
New York, or Geneva? Who would attend? What would be the conference
formalities? Some of those meetings ran until the wee hours of the morning.
In the end, the two sides reached this consensus:

The International Conference on Việt Nam would have twelve

participating government delegations led by their foreign ministers, with UN
Secretary General Kurt Waldheim[79] as an invited guest. Among the twelve
delegations, our side invited representatives of Hungary and Poland, while
the United States invited Canada and Indonesia. The two sides—the United
States and the DRVN—jointly invited China, France, the USSR, and the
United Kingdom.

A few days before the international conference, I received news that Mr.
Kurt Waldheim, on his own initiative, was traveling to Paris to meet the
DRVN and PRG delegations. He wanted to have an important role as an
individual both at the International Conference on Việt Nam and
subsequently. Our comrades in the DRVN delegation let it be known that this
issue was a decision for the PRG delegation. And so, Mr. Waldheim came to
meet me at our delegation’s headquarters in Verrières-le-Buisson.

During our discussion, Mr. Waldheim told me that the United Nations
recognized the reality in Việt Nam of three governments—the Democratic
Republic of Việt Nam, the Republic of Việt Nam, and the Provisional
Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Việt Nam. He suggested that,
afterwards, the DRVN and the PRG could perhaps request observer status
like that of the Sài Gòn administration at the United Nations. He wanted to
know if the United Nations could perhaps assist Việt Nam in rebuilding the
country.
 We knew the secretary general of the United Nations had sided with the
United States during the American War in Việt Nam. Surely, his intentions
were not simple. Given that context, we could not possibly accept the United
Nations as a member of the International Conference on Việt Nam or agree to
allow the UN secretary general to serve as the meeting’s chairperson. Yet to
reassure the United Nations, our two delegations agreed to invite Mr.
Waldheim as a special guest at the conference.

When I spoke at the International Conference on Việt Nam, I thanked the

French government for hosting the four-party conference on Việt Nam and,
now, for hosting the International Conference on Việt Nam. With that, I
challenged the American-puppet regime for not seriously implementing the
ceasefire we had signed a month before and for pushing its forces to occupy
our liberated areas. (At that time, we had a great deal of information about
the Sài Gòn army’s plan “to flood territory.”)

Many delegations spoke in agreement. There was one short discussion

about a suggestion from the Sài Gòn administration’s representative to
include his speech as an official conference document, but everyone cast that
idea aside. In the end, the twelve foreign ministers were unanimous in their
agreement to sign the Act on the International Conference on Việt Nam, which
provided international affirmation of the Paris Agreement.

A month before, immediately after signing the Paris Agreement, our PRG
delegation sent Comrade Đặng Văn Thu[80] and Comrade Lê Mai to Sài Gòn
to join the PRG military delegation in the bilateral and quadrilateral Joint
Military Commissions at Tân Sơn Nhất Airport. This step was in direct
accordance with the road map for implementing the Agreement’s military
provisions.
 A week after signing the Paris Agreement, we joined the Paris overseas
Vietnamese community in greeting Tết, the Year of the Water Buffalo, for our
delegations’ fifth and last Tết in France. It is impossible to describe
everyone’s joy and pleasure.

Immediately after the International Conference on Việt Nam, in

accordance with Article 12 of the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and
Restoring Peace in Việt Nam, the two sides from the South agreed to “meet to
discuss and sign an agreement on the internal affairs of the South.” Trần Văn
Lắm, foreign minister of the Sài Gòn administration, and I met to prepare for
that consultative conference between the two sides. The first bi-lateral
consultative meeting opened on March 19, 1974 at La Celle-Saint-Cloud
Palace southwest of Paris. Professor and Minister Nguyễn Văn Hiếu led the
PRG delegation, while Deputy Prime Minister Nguyễn Lưu Viên[81] led the
Sài Gòn administration’s delegation.

Those bilateral talks lasted until their dissolution in April 1974. At the
same time, a fierce war continued between the Liberation Armed Forces and
the Army of the Republic of Việt Nam (ARVN). Bombs continued their death
blows; blood continued to flow. Initially, the enemy occupied quite a few of
our liberated areas, but after a while, we were able to counter-attack. We had
anticipated the enemy’s offensive strategy in Region 9.[82] We retained our
battlefield position and fought with valor. When I returned home from Paris
and went to visit a number of localities and units, the comrades in the South
would tease me: “You comrades signed the Peace Agreement. We’re
delighted with the ‘shreds’!”

During those years in Paris, in addition to other tasks, we—in particular,

Sister Nguyễn Thị Chơn and Brother Phan Nhẫn[83]—received directives to
mobilize the overseas Vietnamese in surrounding countries and the people
who had come from the South to visit France. Brothers and sisters belonging
to organizations of patriotic overseas Vietnamese in Germany, Canada,
Belgium, Italy, etc., met with the DRVN and PRG delegations to secure
reports on the situation in their Homeland and to help mobilize their friends.
We placed great importance on this work.

These days, now and then in my free time, I read my notebooks from that
period, when I kept brief notes on the activities of the NLF-PRG negotiating
delegation in Paris. Unfortunately, I cannot decipher some words written in
my own shorthand and other words written in haste. Still, I am amazed at the
enormous volume of work we accomplished during those years!

Our delegation held regular meetings with Comrades Lê Đức Thọ and
Xuân Thủy, when we would hear briefings about the military and political
situation at home as well as appraisals of the world situation. We would also
hear new directives from our leaders at home. We were always having
discussions between our two delegations about the direction of our specific
struggle and the content of the presentations we would make at the negotiating
table. We would try to predict our opponents’ responses and formulate our
responses in turn. Of course, we heard reports on our opponents’ moves and
accounts of public opinion in the media, particularly in the American and
Western press. Then we would divide the tasks for joining various activities
of solidarity with Việt Nam in the wider community. We would attend
international conferences, visit other countries, meet with foreign
delegations, host Vietnamese overseas, plan our interviews with journalists
from newspapers and television, and keep supportive international
organizations informed.
 Looking back, I find it extraordinary how such a small group of highly
motivated people working closely together managed to accomplish all these
assigned tasks. I increasingly understand the importance of diplomatic action.
Perhaps a wise diplomatic policy had assisted and expanded the battlefield’s
victories in a way that was most advantageous to our country.

* *

I left Paris and returned home in early April 1973. The farewell gathering
at Le Bourget Airport, the same airport where I had landed more than four
years before, was an emotional occasion. Overseas Vietnamese, French
friends, the French press, and representatives of countries with which we had
close relationships arrived in great numbers. The UFF French women
embraced me with emotion: “Bình, we’ll miss you,” they said. “From now
on, we won’t be able to see you standing there every Thursday in front of the
journalists at the Kléber International Conference Center. We won’t be able
to call out, ‘Mme. Bình, smile!’”

Surely these friends also knew that I would miss France and my dear
friends. I would miss so many people, in particular the French comrades—
Pierre, Toto, Alain, and others—who were our French security guards and
drivers. The French Communist Party had assigned them to care for our
delegation through all those years of negotiations. I would miss the overseas
Vietnamese who did not spare their efforts and precious time to improve our
situation, people like Uncle Ty, Uncle Khải, Sister Hoàng Anh, and Dr. Phan.
The list could go on and on.
 On my way home, I stopped off in Moscow, where three of the Soviet
Union’s highest placed comrades—Podgorny,[84] Suslov,[85] and
Brezhnev[86]—hosted me with great warmth. They conferred on me their
Peace Medal, the Soviet Union’s noblest accolade. Then I stopped over in
China, where I was also received with great consideration. Prime Minister
Zhou Enlai[87] and other Chinese comrades convened a congratulatory
banquet.

At last, our delegation’s greatest happiness was to return home to our

compatriots and comrades. Comrades Lê Duẩn,[88] Phạm Văn Đồng,[89] and
others congratulated us on the successful completion of our mission. Finally,
I could return to my smallest and most intimate group. Once again, I could be
with my husband and children amid feelings of indescribable joy.

[1] Dương Đình Thảo: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front,” footnote 29, p. 140.

[2] Lý Văn Sáu: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front,” footnote 31, p. 140.

[3] Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Dung: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front,” footnote 28, p. 139.

[4] “Valuable Advice” contains brief comments Hồ Chí Minh made when speaking with medical
personnel on February 27, 1955. President Hồ emphasized the importance of unity, the responsibility of
service, and the need to build an organizational structure appropriate for the Vietnamese people.

[5] “Retain immutable principles during myriad changes”: Elder Huỳnh Thúc Kháng served
as acting president of the DRVN while President Hồ was in France in 1946 in an effort to secure
membership for the DRVN as a fully independent nation within the French Union. This quotation, which
comes from President Hồ’s parting advice to Elder Kháng, is so famous that Vietnamese often do not
quote the second line: “Take the people’s will as your will.”
 [6] Nguyễn Bình Thanh: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,”
footnote 22, p. 82.

[7] Phan Bá (Võ Đông Giang): See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to
Save the Nation,” footnote 16, p. 126.

[8] Xuân Thủy: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the Nation,”
footnote 37, p. 147.

[9] Official interpreter: Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình is fluent in French. However, it is common
practice for diplomats fluent in a language to use an interpreter for official situations.

[10] Trần Bửu Kiếm (1921-) was born in Cần Thơ in the deep south of the Southern Region and
trained as a lawyer in Hà Nội. He participated in the seizure of power in Sài Gòn during the August
1945 Revolution. Trần Bửu Kiếm was a member of both the Communist Party and the Democratic
Party. He took part in the establishment of the NLF in 1969, represented the NLF at Paris, and then
returned to South Việt Nam in 1969 to serve as a minister in the newly formed Provisional
Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam. He held senior leadership positions in the
Fatherland Front (umbrella organization for Party mass organizations) until his retirement in 1988.

[11] US intervention in Việt Nam: As intended, only France and Việt Nam were signatories to
the Geneva Agreement. However, before the signing, the United States facilitated the return of Ngô
Đình Diệm from three years in the United States to serve as prime minister of South Việt Nam. On the
military side, again before the signing, US General John W. (“Iron Mike”) O’Daniel supervised
importation of large shipments of military materiel and took over the training of the South Vietnamese
Army (ARVN).

[12] “One source inside the country” refers to the senior leadership of the Vietnamese
Workers’ Party, that is, to the Politburo and its chair, Party General Secretary Lê Duẩn.

[13] US heads of delegation at the Paris Conference: Averell Harriman (1891-1986) from
May 10, 1968 to January 1969; Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (1902-1985) from January to November 1969;
Philip Habib (1920-1992), acting head from November 1969 to July 1970; David Kirkpatrick Este Bruce
(1898-1977) from July 1970 to July 1971; William J. Porter (1914-1988) from September 1971 to
February 2, 1973.

[14] Phạm Đăng Lâm (1918-1975), who came from Bến Tre in the Southern Region, had been
foreign minister in the cabinet established by Premier Trần Văn Hương on November 4, 1964 after the
murder of Ngô Đình Diệm. When Phạm Đăng Lâm first represented the ROVN at the Paris
Conference, Nguyễn Cao Kỳ (1930-2011) joined him as special advisor. After the Paris Conference,
Phạm Đăng Lâm served as ambassador from the Republic of Việt Nam to Great Britain and the
Netherlands. In that role, Phạm Đăng Lâm occasionally met Võ Văn Sung, the DRVN ambassador in
Paris, at official gatherings in Holland. The two ambassadors were in phone contact on April 30, 1975.

[15] Bến Tre Province is famous as the origin of the 1960 Uprising described in Chapter 5, “A
Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the Nation,” footnote 13, p. 124.

[16] Phạm Huy Thông: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance War Against France,”
footnote 34, p. 89.

[17] The National Liberation Front’s Ten-Point Solution: A scan of the Vietnamese version
of “The Complete Ten-Point Solution of the National Liberation Front Regarding a Political Solution to
the South Vietnam Question” with a hand-written date of May 8, 1969 is available on the web page of
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., at this address:
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114436. That site includes the following summary in
English: “Announcement of the National Liberation Front’s delegate at the 16th session of the Paris
Conference: The Americans had to unconditionally withdraw their army, military personnel, weapons,
etc. and destroy their bases in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese would choose their political system
through a general election without foreign intervention. In the meantime, a provisional government
including members of all political groups would be formed. The North and the South would then
reestablish normal relations and negotiate reunification peacefully without foreign intervention. Both
would refrain from having military alliances and foreign military presence in their territories. The North
and the South would discuss the release of POWs. The Americans would have to bear all
responsibilities for the damage incurred in Vietnam during the war.”

[18] “Good weather…”: These are the three elements that, according to Confucian philosophy,
are required for success.

[19] Phù Đổng (Thanh Gióng) is a legendary figure born about 2000 BCE in a village outside
Hà Nội. For three years, he could neither sit nor stand, could neither speak nor smile. Then he heard the
king’s herald announce that the Ân Chinese were invading. Phù Đổng sat up and ate and ate, growing to
a prodigious size. The king outfitted him with an iron horse, iron armor, and an iron staff. When the iron
staff broke, Phù Đổng used a copse of bamboo to defeat the invaders and then flew off into the sky on
his iron horse.

[20]
Twelve domestic and foreign policies: The PRG was officially neutral. Unlike the
DRVN, which was clearly allied with the socialist bloc, the officially neutral PRG was eligible for
membership in the Non-Aligned Movement. A scan of “The Action Agenda of the Provisional
Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam” with a hand-written date of June 10, 1969
is available on the web page of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington,
D.C., at this address: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114437. The site includes the
following summary in English: “The Twelve-Point Action Agenda of the Provisional Revolutionary
Government of the Republic of South Vietnam. The points include continuing the war against the
Americans and forcing the US to withdraw from Vietnam, eliminating the government of South
Vietnam, creating an inclusive provisional government with the participation of other political groups,
guaranteeing human rights and equality, improving workers’ lives, guaranteeing the rights of students,
intellectuals, businesses, increasing production, improving cultural life and education, granting amnesty
for people working for the former regime, alleviating the consequences of war, reestablishing normal
relations with the North, negotiating reunification peacefully, establishing diplomatic relations with all
countries, refraining from having military alliances, supporting the independence movement in Asia,
Africa and Latin America.”

[21] Nguyễn Hữu Thọ: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance Against France,”
footnote 25, p. 84.

[22] Trịnh Đình Thảo: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance Against France,” footnote
53, p. 108.

[23] Huỳnh Tấn Phát: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance Against France,” footnote
29, p. 85.

[24] Lê Đức Thọ: See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance Against France,” footnote 44,
p. 98.

[25] Đinh Bá Thi (1921-1978, given name: Hồ Đản) came from the Central Region’s Quảng
Nam Province, which was later part of South Việt Nam. He became an active revolutionary before the
August 1945 Revolution and regrouped to the North in 1954 in accordance with the Geneva Agreement.
Đinh Bá Thi began working in the NLF diplomatic corps in 1962. He was deputy head of the PRG
delegation and, later, Việt Nam’s first ambassador to the United Nations.

[26] Nguyễn Văn Tiến was deputy head of the NLF delegation that met with President Hồ Chí
Minh on December 19, 1966. At Paris, he took responsibility for the “meet-and-greet” group within the
NFL-PRG delegation. That group did the day-to-day work in people-to-people diplomacy, meeting with
individuals and organizations in an effort to draw the international community behind Việt Nam’s cause.
Nguyễn Văn Tiến is in the group photograph taken with President Hồ Chí Minh on October 20, 1962,
third row, second from the right. That photo appears in the back of this book.
 [27] Đổ Thị Duy Liên: See Chapter 4, “Forged In the Resistance,” footnote 12, p. 77.

[28] Nguyễn Thị Chơn: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front,” footnote 27, p. 138.

[29] Phan Thị Minh (Lê Thị Kinh): See Chapter 4, “Forged During the Resistance Against
France, footnote 58, p. 111.

[30] Lê Lợi (King Lê Thái Tổ, life: 1385-1433; reign: 1428-1433): In 1418, Lê Lợi and others,
including Nguyễn Trãi, organized a rebellion to liberate Việt Nam from the Ming Chinese invaders. The
struggle lasted ten years until Lê Lợi and his troops achieved victory. Lê Lợi named his newly liberated
country Đại Việt (Great Việt, where “Việt” was the name for the land’s largest ethnic group) and
promulgated his “Proclamation of Victory over the Ngô,” which Nguyễn Trãi had drafted.

[31] Nguyễn Trãi (1380-1442) is among Việt Nam’s most famous poet strategists. His
“Proclamation of Victory over the Ngô (Ming Chinese),” which Lê Lợi promulgated, is considered one
of Việt Nam’s most important historical documents on political, military, and diplomatic strategy.

[32] Mme. Geneviève Tabouis (1892-1985) started out as a historian and archeological
researcher. A journalist and newspaper columnist, she moved in the highest social circles of Great
Britain and France.

[33] Nguyễn Minh Vỹ (1914-2002), initially a member of the DRVN delegation and later one of
the deputy heads of the DRVN delegation, studied in Vinh, was expelled for taking part in student
demonstrations, and then was sent by his family to Qui Nhơn on the southern coast to study. There, he
joined up with the Revolutionary Youth in the 1930s. He took part in the August 1945 Revolution and
was selected as chair of the People’s Committee of Khánh Hòa Province in the Southern Region. He
regrouped to the North after the 1954 Geneva Agreements.

[34] Trần Công Tường (1915-1990) came from what is now Tiền Giang Province in the
Mekong Delta of the Southern Region. In Sài Gòn, he was consistently at the top of his class. In 1936,
Trần Công Tường went out to Hà Nội, where he studied law in the same class with Võ Nguyên Giáp,
later commander-in-chief of the People’s Army. Võ Nguyên Giáp gradually introduced Trần Công
Tường to Party activities. Both men wrote for the communist newspaper, Le Travail. Trần Công Tường
studied law in Paris and then returned in 1940 to defend revolutionaries in the southern courts. Trần
Công Tường was deputy minister of justice in the DRVN’s first full government. He was a member of
the DRVN delegation to the 1954 Geneva Conference and a member of the DRVN delegation to the
Paris Conference. He retired in 1980.
 [35] Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a famous French writer and philosopher, whose topics of
specialty included Marxism but who is probably best known in philosophy for his theories about
existentialism.

[36] Laurent Schwartz (1915-2002) was a famous French mathematician. Initially a follower of
Trotsky, he shifted later in his life toward democratic socialism.

[37] The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, a left-leaning organization, was

founded in Paris in 1946. It has members in fifty nations and territories.

[38] The Union of French Women (l’Union des femmes françaises) is a communist-based
organization established in 1944 out of the French Resistance to advocate for women’s rights and
solidarity.

[39] General Confederation of Workers (Confédération générale du travail), founded in 1895,

was a major organizing force for the May 1968 labor demonstrations in France.

[40] Sven Olof Joachim Palme (1927-1986), Swedish prime minister from 1969 to 1976 and
from 1982 to 1986, pursued a policy of non-alignment during the Cold War and was often critical of both
the United States and the Soviet Union as well as critical of the apartheid regime in South Africa. He
was murdered on a street in Stockholm.

[41] Sara Lidman (1923-2004), a Swedish novelist, described the lives of the workers and
impoverished families in southern Sweden. She traveled to North Việt Nam during the war and
participated in the Bertrand Russell Tribunal.

[42] Jean-Christophe Öberg (1935-1992) was a writer, diplomat, and Swedish ambassador to
many countries, including North Việt Nam (1972-1974), Singapore, Algeria, and Poland.

[43] The Évian Agreement was signed in March 1962 and took effect four months later, when
the French gave the power of control over Algeria to Algerians, creating conditions for the
establishment of the Republic of Algeria.

[44] Houari Boumédiènne (1932–1978) from the National Liberation Front Party served as
president of the Republic of Algeria from June 19, 1965 until his death on December 27, 1978.

[45] Abdelaziz Bouteflika (1937-) from the National Liberation Front Party has been president
of the Republic of Algeria since 1999.
 [46] The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) formed in 1961 largely through the efforts of
Yugoslavian President Josip Bzor Tito. The Movement was well-known during the 1960s, when many
former colonies were achieving independence. NAM now has 120 members.

[47] Josip Bzor Tito (1892-1980) was the president of Yugoslavia from 1953 to 1980.

[48] The Bandung Conference: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to
Save the Nation,” footnote 24, p. 134.

[49] Indira Priyadarshini Gandhi (1917-1984) was the daughter of revolutionary Jawaharlal
Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India. She was the third prime minister of the Republic of
India, from 1966 to 1977 and again from 1980 to 1984.

[50] Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike (1916-2000) was the first woman to lead a
government. She was premier of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) from 1960 to 1965, from 1970 to 1977, and from
1994 to 2000.

[51] Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) was a key leader of the Indian independence movement and
served as the country’s first prime minister from 1947 to 1964.

[52] Feroze Gandhi (1912-1960) was a journalist, newspaper publisher, politician, and member of
the lower house of the Indian Parliament.

[53] Indira Gandhi, “niece of Uncle Hồ”: After the Vietnamese victory over the French at
Điện Biên Phủ, the DRVN government returned to Hà Nội. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
and his daughter, Indira, were the first official visitors hosted by the DRVN government in Hà Nội. At
that time, President Hồ Chí Minh “adopted” Indira Gandhi as his “niece.”

[54] The PRG’s Eight Points: A scan of the Vietnamese version of the “Eight Points” with a
handwritten date of September 17, 1970 is available on the web page of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., at this address:
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114438. The site includes this summary in English: “Eight
points of clarification put forward by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South
Vietnam in the 84th session of the Paris Conference: The US had to withdraw unconditionally from
Vietnam. If the US withdrew by June 30, 1971, the revolutionary forces would not attack American and
Allies’ forces and negotiations on guaranteeing safety for the withdrawing forces and the release of
POWs would be commenced immediately. The Provisional Revolutionary Government would talk to a
new government without Thieu-Ky-Khiem (the three leaders of the government of South Vietnam)
about a political solution in South Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam would choose their political
regime through a general election without foreign intervention. The South and the North would then
reestablish normal relations and negotiate reunification peacefully.”

[55] Lê Mai: (1940-1996), a delegate at the Paris Peace Conference, later played an active role
in the process of normalizing relations between Việt Nam and the United States and served as deputy
minister of foreign affairs.

[56] Julius Kambarage Nyerere (1922-1999) was the first president of Tanzania, from 1961 to
1985.

[57] Apolo Milton Obote (1925-2005) led the people of Uganda to independence from Great
Britain in 1962. He served as Uganda’s prime minister from 1962 to 1966 and then as president from
1966 to 1971 and from 1980 to 1985.

[58] Jean-Bédel Bokassa (1921-1996) was the head of state for Central African Republic from
1966 to 1979.

[59] Haile Selassie I (1892-1975) was emperor of the kingdom of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974.

[60] Todor Zhivkov (1911-1988) was general secretary of the Bulgarian Communist Party from
1954 until 1989.

[61] General Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970), as provisional president of France, visited the
United States for a state visit with US President Truman in August 1945, several days after the Việt
Minh had seized political power in Hà Nội. Accompanied by US military brass and his own senior
military officers, de Gaulle traveled to the US Naval Academy in Annapolis and then to the US Military
Academy at West Point and then was honored in New York City with a ticker-tape parade. According
to US State Department documents, de Gaulle’s first priority for his visit was Indochina. During the visit,
de Gaulle cemented the political-military partnerships that assured US support for the French re-invasion
of Việt Nam’s Southern Region a month later (September 23, 1945) and the French re-invasion of the
Northern Region a year later (November 1946). The de Gaulle - Truman visit in August 1945 led to US
political-military support for the French War (1945-1954), with financing greater than 75 percent of that
war’s costs by its end in July 1954.

[62] Fidel Castro (1926-) led the Cuban communist revolution, which overthrew Fulgencio
Batista in 1959. He served as first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party from July 1961 until April
2011.
 [63] Raúl Castro (1931-, full name: Raúl Modesto Castro Ruz), Fidel Castro’s younger brother, is
first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party, president of the Cuban State Council, president of the
Cuban Council of Ministers, and commander-in-chief of the Cuban Armed Forces. Vilma Éspin (1930-
2007) was a Cuban revolutionary and feminist, whose academic expertise was in chemical engineering.

[64] Hoàng Bích Sơn: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 15, p. 125.

[65] The PRG’s Seven-Point Program: A scan of the Vietnamese version of the “Seven-Point
Declaration of the Provisional Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam” with the date written by
hand as July 1, 1971 is available on the web page of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars in Washington, D.C. at this address: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114440.
This site includes the following summary in English: “Statement by the Provisional Revolutionary
Government of the Republic of South Vietnam at the 119th session of the Paris Conference: The US
had to set a specific date for troop withdrawal from Vietnam. If the US planned to finish complete
withdrawal within 1971, troop withdrawal and the release of POWs would be started and ended on the
same dates. The Americans had to stop supporting the Thieu administration. A new government would
be formed which supported peace, independence, neutrality and democracy. The Provisional
Revolutionary Government would talk to this new government about creating a National Conciliatory
Government to carry out a general election. The North and the South would then peacefully negotiate
reunification. South Vietnam would be neutral and establish relations with all countries. The US would
bear all responsibilities for damages incurred in Vietnam.”

[66] The Shanghai Talks between US President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai
ran from February 21 to 28, 1972. Most of the US memoranda from the meetings are now open (with
some sections excised) and available through the National Security Archive, a non-profit institute, which
uses the US Freedom of Information Act and legal pressure to open closed US government documents.
See: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/kissinger/nixzhou/. The “Joint Statement”
(“Shanghai Communique”) is available at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-
76v17/d203.

[67] The PRG’s Two Points: A scan of the Vietnamese version of “Clarification of Two Pivotal
Points in the Seven-Point Declaration of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Việt Nam”
with the date written by hand as February 2, 1972 is on the web page of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. at this address:
http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/114444. The site includes the following summary in
English: “The Provisional Revolutionary Government clarified two points in the Seven-Point Declaration:
First, the US had to set a definite date to withdraw unconditionally all of their forces in South Vietnam.
That would also be the date when all POWs and detained civilians (including the captured American
pilots in North Vietnam) would be released. Second, Nguyen Van Thieu (President of South Vietnam)
had to step down immediately. The government of South Vietnam had to stop the pacification policy,
disband the concentration camps, release people detained for political reasons, etc.”

[68] “Third Force” in this context refers to individual nationalists and nationalistic groups
opposed to the US-backed Sài Gòn administration yet not directly allied with the NLF-PRG.

[69] Henry Kissinger (1923-) served as national security advisor for US President Nixon,
beginning when President Nixon took office on January 20, 1969, and then Henry Kissinger served as
secretary of state from September 22, 1973 until the end of President Ford’s term on January 20, 1977.
(President Nixon had resigned on August 9, 1974 rather than face impeachment because of the
Watergate Scandal. Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded him.) Mr. Kissinger was the key US
negotiator for the private (“secret”) talks between the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (“North Việt
Nam”) and the United States at the Paris Conference.

[70] Jane Fonda (1937-) is an American actor, writer, and activist.

[71] Ramsey Clark (1927-), a lawyer and US attorney general from 1967 to 1969, contributed to
many of the domestic human-rights milestones during the Johnson administration. In October 2012, he
visited Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình in Hà Nội and returned to Hà Nội in January 2013 for the fortieth
anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Agreement.

[72] Raymond Aubrac (1914-2012) is famous in France for his daring exploits in the French
Resistance during World War II. In Việt Nam, he is famous for hosting Hồ Chí Minh in 1946, when
President Hồ traveled to France for the Fontainebleau Talks.

[73] The bombing for twelve days and nights: By late 1972, Hồ Chí Minh had been deceased
for three years. However, in 1962, President Hồ had alerted the commander of Việt Nam’s Air Defense
to the dangers of B-52s. Through President Hồ’s guidance, Việt Nam’s Air Defense evacuated children
and non-essential workers from Hà Nội to the countryside, where they lived for nine years. Everyone
remaining in the city had access to three bomb shelters—one at home, man-hole shelters on the streets,
and a shelter at work. In July 1966, President Hồ predicted the United States would send B-52s to bomb
Hà Nội and Hải Phòng. US bombing of Hà Nội (but not yet with B-52s) began a few months later, in
December 1966.

Việt Nam’s Air Defense built missile sites with Soviet equipment and developed its own “Red
Handbook” from experiences downing B-52s near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The twelve days and
nights (December 18-29, 1972) is known in the United States as Linebacker II or more colloquially as
the “Christmas Bombing.” The campaign began after colleges and universities had closed for winter
break. Students had dispersed, leaving few anti-war activists to organize campus protests. Nevertheless,
world-wide outrage ensued. The Vietnamese Air Defense – Air Force shot down or disabled a
substantial percentage of the US B-52 fleet plus many of the accompanying fighter and reconnaissance
planes. Thus, the Vietnamese regard the “Christmas Bombing” as one of their victories during the
American War. Their name, which resonates with Việt Nam’s culminating victory during the French
War, is “Điện Biên Phủ in the Air.”

[74] “…use their B52s to threaten us:” In 1962, General Phùng Thế Tài (1920-), who had just
been chosen as Air Defense (AD) commander, had a congratulatory meeting with President Hồ Chí
Minh. President Hồ said, “Tài, have you heard of B-52s? Our current anti-aircraft can’t touch B-52s.
They fly too high. Starting now, as Air Defense commander, you must concentrate on B-52s.”

“I was stupefied,” General Tài says. “B-52s! I didn’t know what Uncle was talking about.”

Subsequently, General Tài had many conversations with Hồ Chí Minh. In early 1968, shortly after
the Tết Offensive, President Hồ said to General Tài, “Sooner or later, the American imperialists will
send their B-52s to strike Hà Nội. Only when we have defeated the Americans in that battle will the
United States accept defeat.”

[75] Nguyễn Duy Trinh (1910-1985) came from the Central Region’s Nghệ An Province, which
later was north of what became the DMZ dividing the country. He joined Tân Việt (New Việt)
Revolutionary Party, which evolved into one of the three parties that Hồ Chí Minh drew together to
form the Vietnamese Communist Party. At age eighteen, assigned to organize for Tân Việt in the
Southern Region, Nguyễn Duy Trinh arrived in Sài Gòn and, suitcase still in hand, was caught in the
French round-up following the Barbier Affair (1928). He spent the next eighteen years in prison,
including several years on Côn Đảo Prison Island. Nguyễn Duy Trinh served as the DRVN foreign
minister from 1965 until early 1980 and, in that role, was one of the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

[76] William P. Rogers (1913-2001), a lawyer, had served as attorney general during the
Eisenhower presidency. He was secretary of state from January 22, 1969 to September 3, 1973 during
the Nixon presidency. As US secretary of state (equivalent to foreign minister in most other countries),
he was one of the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

[77] Trần Văn Lắm (1913- 2001, a.k.a. Charles Trần Văn Lắm) came from a wealthy ethnic
Chinese family in Chợ Lớn (Big Market), now part of Hồ Chí Minh City. He studied pharmacy at Hà
Nội University and was fluent in French and English. Trần Văn Lắm was elected to leadership posts in
the National Assembly of the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”) and served as that
government’s ambassador to Australia and New Zealand during the regime of Ngô Đình Diệm. He was
foreign minister for the Republic of Việt Nam at the time of the Paris Conference and, in that role, was
one of the signatories to the Paris Agreement. He left Việt Nam in 1975 and lived in Australia until his
death.

[78] Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam: For the text of the
Agreement, see: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/treaty.htm.

[79] Kurt Josef Waldheim (1918-2007), an Austrian politician, was secretary general of the
United Nations from 1972 to 1981.

[80] Đặng Văn Thu (1925-, a.k.a. Đoàn Huyên) came from Quảng Nam Province in Việt Nam’s
Central Region south of the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam after 1954. He was active as a student
revolutionary during the August 1945 Revolution in Huế. He regrouped to the North after the 1954
Geneva Agreement and served in the army. His 52nd Missile Battalion near Hải Phòng shot down an
A4 Skyhawk attack plane in 1967 and an A7 Corsair II light attack airplane, also near Hải Phòng that
same year. Đặng Văn Thu was the military attaché to the NLF-PRG delegation at the Paris
Conference. He retired with the rank of major general.

[81] Nguyễn Lưu Viên, a medical student in Hà Nội at the time of the French re-invasion,
completed his medical studies during the French War. He was one of the “Caravelle Eighteen,” whose
“Caravelle Declaration” objected to policies of Ngô Đình Diệm. Nguyễn Lưu Viên lives in Virginia,
USA.

[82] Region 9 covered the Mekong Delta and included all the provinces south of Long An.

[83] Phan Nhẫn had taken responsibility for relationships with overseas Vietnamese while he was
a member of the NLF-PRG delegation at the Paris Conference.

[84] Nikolai Viktorovich Podgorny (1903-1983) was president of the Presidium of the Supreme
Soviet from 1965 to 1977.

[85] Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (1902-1982) was second secretary of the Soviet Communist
Party.

[86] Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (1906-1982) was general secretary of the Soviet Communist
Party.
 [87] Zhou Enlai (1898-1986) had known Hồ Chí Minh in Paris during the early 1920s and in
Canton during the late 1920s. He was foreign minister (and also premier) of China from 1949 to 1958
and, in the role of foreign minister, represented China at the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indochina.
Zhou Enlai served as premier of China from 1949 to 1976.

[88] Lê Duẩn: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance War Against France,” footnote 43,
p. 98.

[89] Phạm Văn Đồng (1906-2000) came from Quảng Ngãi Province in the Central Region south
of the DMZ, which divided Việt Nam in 1954. He studied in the third of Hồ Chí Minh’s training classes
for revolutionaries in Canton during the late 1920s, returned to Việt Nam, was arrested and sent to Côn
Đảo Prison Island. He was released in 1936 during the French Popular Front. Phạm Văn Đồng went
secretly with Võ Nguyên Giáp to Kunming, where they met Hồ Chí Minh in 1940. All three returned to
Việt Nam in early 1941. Phạm Văn Đồng was minister of finance in the provisional government (August
1945) and vice minister of finance in the first government (March 1946). He was Việt Nam’s prime
minister from 1955 to 1987.
 7.

Total Victory

The war raged on, even though the four parties had signed the Paris Peace
Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam. The
National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Việt Nam continued its work but in
a different way.[1] I returned to Hà Nội to continue my assignment as the
PRG’s foreign minister.

Throughout the war, the South was the primary battlefield, while the North
was a huge rearguard. Some years before, Hà Nội had established CP72[2]
to manage and expand the foreign-relations front for the NLF and particularly
to do this after we had established the Provisional Revolutionary
Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt Nam.

By the time I returned to Hà Nội, the CP72 office had ten units with more
than two hundred officials and support staff. I was appointed to serve as the
Party general secretary for the staff. We had three comrades as the deputy
foreign ministers: Hoàng Bích Sơn,[3] Võ Đông Giang,[4] and Lê Quang
Chánh.[5] These capable and efficient colleagues were also dear friends.

The National Liberation Front was located at COSVN (Central Office in

South Việt Nam), our official headquarters at Lộc Ninh.[6] However, we
continued to do the major part of our diplomatic work in the liberated area of
Quảng Trị Province at Cam Lộ, which is ten kilometers north of the Hiền
Lương Bridge over the Bến Hải River (the center of the former Demilitarized
Zone dividing “North Việt Nam” and “South Việt Nam”). Thus, the
headquarters of the PRG Foreign Ministry was only ten kilometers as the
birds fly from the enemy’s military outposts. Were it not for the occasional,
reverberating gunfire, no one would know that we were right there alongside
the enemy. Our military brothers would remind us that we had nothing to fear.
They pointed out that, since we were within the enemy’s artillery range, the
enemy was also within our range.

We built our Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a two-hectare piece of land.

The building, which had been fashioned from painted plywood, had three
rooms in the layout of a traditional Vietnamese house in the countryside. We
used the middle room, the largest, for meeting visitors and receiving the
diplomatic credentials of official guests. To the left of the ministry building
was our “hotel,” where we had housing for guests.

President of the PRG Government Advisory Council, Nguyễn Hữu Thọ,

held official meetings at our Foreign Ministry in Cam Lộ. He met
representatives of the governments that came to present their credentials as
well as other important delegations, among them a delegation led by
Comrade Fidel Castro and another led by Georges Marchais,[7] general
secretary of the French Communist Party.

My colleagues and I in CP72 were very busy with diplomatic work.

Depending on the situation, we would issue statements exposing the
American schemes designed to help the Sài Gòn administration violate the
Paris Agreement. We would use either the name of the National Liberation
Front or the Provisional Revolutionary Government when we described the
cruel effect of these schemes on our people. In addition, we sent delegations
from our mass organizations to take part in international conferences, where
we could mobilize other countries to support the Vietnamese people and
demand that the United States strictly follow the Paris Agreement. We
organized large receptions with performance troups on anniversaries, in
particular on December 20 (the founding of the NLF) and on June 6 (the
founding of the PRG). Our goal was to see that all who visited the liberated
area of Quảng Trị Province received a good impression of our country and
people. Even though our officials and the local people were very poor, they
were rich in personal warmth and delighted in hosting guests.

My primary work was mobilizing other governments to grant the PRG

formal diplomatic recognition. Before the Paris Agreement, the NLF-PRG
had established diplomatic relations with many governments. By the end of
1973, thirty-two countries had formal diplomatic relations with the PRG.

We were extremely active in our efforts to achieve diplomatic recognition

of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Việt
Nam, but we also concentrated on supporting recognition of governments
recently established through their own people’s struggle for independence.

In January 1972, the government of the Republic of Bangladesh was

formed under the leadership of the great Bangladeshi patriot, Premier
Mujibur Rahman.[8] In January 1973, our Provisional Government
announced its diplomatic recognition and established formal diplomat
relations with the Republic of Bangladesh. Simultaneously, the government of
Bangladesh also recognized and established relations with the Democratic
Republic of Việt Nam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government. In
June 1973, the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Việt Nam opened
an embassy in Dacca. The people of Bangladesh were appreciative of our
attitude.

At Sài Gòn’s Tân Sơn Nhất Airport in an area called “Camp David,” the
united military delegation of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of
South Việt Nam under the command of Lieutenant General Trần Văn Trà[9]
and, after him, under Major General Hoàng Anh Tuấn[10] engaged
vigorously with our opponents for two full years, until the day of Sài Gòn’s
liberation.

Our brothers and sisters in the united military delegation at Camp David
struggled endlessly to oppose the Sài Gòn authorities’ military violations of
the Paris Agreement. With equal or even greater difficulty, our comrades
(among them my friend Ngọc Dung, by now an army major in order to carry
out her tasks) also had to struggle to their wits’ end to secure the release of
our captured soldiers and two hundred thousand political prisoners.

In July 1973, the president of our Government Advisory Council, Nguyễn

Hữu Thọ, participated in the Non-Aligned Movement’s IVth summit in
Algiers. I joined the delegation along with several other ministers and deputy
ministers. The summit formally accepted the PRG as an official member of
the Non-Aligned Movement. Many leaders—including Cuban President Fidel
Castro, Algerian President Boumédiènne, Indian Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi, Cambodian King Norodom Sihanouk,[11] and other heads of state—
came to congratulate President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ. Representatives from many
other countries also expressed their pleasure in Việt Nam’s victory. They
reiterated their demand that the Paris Agreement be strictly followed, and
they affirmed their continued strong support for our struggle.
 After the Algiers conference, President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ and I visited
Senegal, Egypt, and Tanzania to thank our friends for their support during our
struggle. President Thọ received a sincere and warm welcome wherever he
went. At that time, travel conditions for our delegation were particularly
favorable because China had lent us a special airplane.

During our visit to Tanzania, we experienced a minor but amusing faux

pas. When we arrived at the airport, the Tanzanian military band had
intended to welcome our delegation with our national anthem. However, by
mistake, the band played Lưu Hữu Phước’s “Youth Military March,”[12]
which had become the Sài Gòn administration’s “national anthem.” Our
friends were mortified and apologetic. Tanzania and Việt Nam were so far in
physical distance from each other that our friends did not know which nation
used which national anthem. The next day we visited Zanzibar, a small island
off Tanzania. To “rectify” the earlier situation, our friends organized a
military parade. The band played “Liberate South Việt Nam” with great
fanfare.

* *

In early 1974, a startling and major incident took place. On January 19,
China sent warships and aircraft to occupy the Hoàng Sa (Paracel) Islands,
which lie within the sovereign territory of Việt Nam and which at that time
were under the jurisdiction of the Sài Gòn administration. Fierce battles
broke out. The forces were unequal, with the United States as a silent
accomplice to the Chinese. In the end, the Chinese occupied the islands.[13]
 On January 26, 1974, the PRG issued a three-point statement, in which we
affirmed Việt Nam’s national sovereignty over Hoàng Sa, asserting that any
maritime territorial disputes must be solved through negotiations. We
reaffirmed our position on February 14. We agreed to discuss the issue with
all concerned stakeholders. Here was the beginning of a complex dispute
between China and Việt Nam over sovereignty in the East Sea. The dispute
continues even today.

* *

In June 1974, I received an invitation to attend the Afro-Asian Conference

in Cairo. While en route, I stopped off in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, to
lobby for official diplomatic recognition of the PRG. Today, the entire world
knows about the tragedies that have occurred in Afghanistan during recent
years, but by 1974 very few delegations from Việt Nam had visited Kabul.
Afghanistan, a country in central Asia, is located between Russia, Pakistan,
and Iran. It has vast mountains, with even the capital situated on hilltops.

Afghanistan had just become a republic under President Mohamed Daoud.

[14] The Afghan Foreign Ministry gave me and my two PRG comrades a
warm welcome. We were delighted to find that our Afghan friends had
closely followed the situation in Việt Nam; they knew we had signed the
Paris Agreement the previous year. I explained our wish to establish
diplomatic relations with Afghanistan. Our discussions revealed no
difficulties, but our friends explained that the Afghan National Assembly had
to affirm formal diplomatic recognition. They were sure the National
Assembly would make an affirmative decision, but nevertheless this was a
formality, which they could not overlook.
 I entreated, emphasizing that we needed positive and timely support. Our
friends were sympathetic but unable to meet the delegation’s request
immediately.

Nevertheless, I did leave with our friends’ promise that they would work
for an early decision. At the end of June 1974, the government of Afghanistan
announced its official recognition of the PRG.

* *

Around September 1974, Defense Minister Trần Nam Trung[15] and I

were members of a PRG delegation, headed by PRG President of
Government Huỳnh Tấn Phát, on a visit to the Kingdom of Cambodia. Our
CP72 Division also sent Comrades Trường Tùng (a journalist), Lương Xuân
Tâm (a documentary filmmaker), and Dr. Nhung (who was responsible for
our health). Even though traveling to the South was much easier than before
because the United States was no longer bombing ceaselessly, the trip
nevertheless took twelve days by military jeep. We drove at night and rested
during the day. For me, traveling the famous Hồ Chí Minh Trail was a
historic and emotional event. I was so moved to see at the start of the Trail a
huge inscription—“Carve a route through the Trường Sơn Mountain Range to
save our country.”

Indeed, building that system of tracks and roads had been a monumental
achievement, requiring that engineers and laborers cut down mountains and
fill in valleys. Only the extraordinary level of our people’s patriotism could
have achieved such a heroic feat! I have no idea how many forests,
mountains, and streams we crossed during our twelve days and nights on the
legendary Trail.

During that journey, I was most deeply impressed by the volunteer youth.
Each unit had several hundred young women. After the terrible bombing
attacks, these volunteer regiments repaired the dirt tracks, filled in the bomb
craters, and removed bombing debris so that transport trucks and other
military vehicles could keep moving. My heart went out to those roughly clad
young women in their twenties. They chatted and laughed as they dug and
hauled dirt, seemingly unaware of their great danger. Only later did I learn
that most of these young women were middle-aged by the time they returned
from the war. Many had no other skills to support themselves and were
beyond marriageable age. Those brave, anonymous young women made an
extraordinary contribution to our country. Their plight is still heart-rending.
How many sacrifices like theirs went unnoticed during years of intense
resistance and hardship? Indeed, until now, we have not fully recognized
their contribution. We have left many of them deprived of deserved support
and recognition.

At times while on the Hồ Chí Minh Trail, we would travel half a day
without seeing anyone. We had two jeeps. Sometimes, the track was so rough
we had to stop. I kept asking whether we’d lost our way. However, each day,
we would eventually reach our destination, even on time. The comrades at
each transit camp received us warmly. They would provide a drum of water
for bathing and a meal of rice with meat from wild game and vegetables they
had grown at the camp. At night, we would drink a cup of tonic made from
alaliacea (a kind of Vietnamese ginseng) mixed with sugar. Weary, we would
quickly fall into a delicious sleep.
 One night we had to cross a river, but the enemy had destroyed the
makeshift bridge, causing huge traffic jams on both banks. The military
engineering corps arrived; some troops worked underwater, while others
carried materials, all of them working without a pause. I felt overwhelmed
with affection for these warriors. They were so young. Without war, they
would surely have been students, workers, or farmers studying or working in
their ancestral villages.

Near Bù Đốp, now a district adjacent to Lộc Ninh, I met with a logistics
unit at the front. I was amazed and delighted to see orchids blooming
everywhere and to realize that, in the midst of such a fierce war, our soldiers
took pleasure in growing flowers. Yet I will remember always that a number
of the comrades I met at that time died the following year, during the Spring
1975 Campaign.

The Kingdom of Cambodia was both a neighbor and a familial country.

Our two peoples had cooperated in fighting French colonialism and then US
imperialism. Each nation had provided the other with valuable assistance
and support. Even though Cambodia shares a border with Việt Nam, the road
leading to the offices of the Cambodian Government was torturous. That leg
of the trip took a day and a night through deserted rubber forests. Eventually,
we reached a post crowded with Cambodian guards and were taken to a
spacious guesthouse made of wood.

Before leaving for Cambodia, we knew that our signing the Paris
Agreement on Việt Nam had raised questions among our Cambodian friends,
who worried that the Agreement would work against the Cambodian struggle.
Our mission’s purpose was to clarify issues in the relationship between our
two countries. During the Paris negotiations, the United States had wanted to
combine Cambodian questions with Vietnamese issues, but Việt Nam was
resolute in refusing. We held firm to our position that the Cambodian people
must decide any issues regarding Cambodia. Our delegation traveling to
Cambodia wanted to state clearly that we felt the Paris Agreement created
favorable conditions for Cambodia. In truth, Việt Nam made concrete
contributions to Cambodia’s liberation, which occurred on April 17, 1975,
even before the liberation of South Việt Nam on April 30, 1975.

As soon as we set foot in Cambodia, we sensed we were receiving a

rather cool reception, which made us feel uneasy. Later, I learned that
Cambodian leaders had already begun to adopt a position opposing Việt
Nam. The tragic events that ensued after 1975 made this all too clear.
Already, we were experiencing disturbing symptoms in our own country’s
southwest flank.[16]

After spending a short time in the Central Office of the South (COSVN), in
early 1975, I received urgent orders to return to the North for an overseas
mission. This time, the journey back to the North was much quicker, although
the Sài Gòn administration’s airplanes shot at us twice. The Hồ Chí Minh
Trail was much busier. Day and night, armored vehicles and trucks carrying
ammunition poured down the Trail. Waves of army units followed one
another. Young soldiers from northern provinces marched to the battlefield as
if in a procession. Preparations were underway for the 1975 Spring
Campaign, the final battle of the American War, which by then had lasted
twenty-one years, counting from the division of our country in 1954.

* *
 The balance of forces on the battlefield rapidly tilted in our favor. On our
side, the PRG stepped up its political forces inside the zones the Sài Gòn
administration temporarily occupied. We concentrated on the middle-class
intelligentsia and religious groups and even included those close to the Sài
Gòn administration in order to expand our nationwide solidarity and divide
our opponents. After the Paris Agreement, many Sài Gòn politicians,
including a number of retired ministers of state, used the name “Third Force”
for zealous activities. By appropriating that term, they sought to insert
themselves into the non-partisan third group defined by the Paris Agreement
and, thereby, undermine the clause, “The United States must withdraw all
troops and set up a Council of National Reconciliation and Concord with
three components.”

The military and political situation in the country was tilting in our favor.

Reactionaries in the United States faced the Sài Gòn army’s consecutive
defeats on various fronts. They advocated sending American troops back to
Việt Nam to rescue the Sài Gòn administration. We had to denounce these
deceitful intentions and the Sài Gòn administration’s concomitant refusal to
implement the Paris Agreement. The United States continued providing
assistance, thereby prolonging the war.

For us, mobilizing world opinion was crucial. I left the South and traveled
the Trail back out to Hà Nội in February 1975. I immediately received an
assignment along with three other comrades to visit European and African
countries and explain our views.

At that time, we could not know for sure the Nixon administration’s
scheme. I knew only that, in accordance with our leaders’ directive, I must
update the loyal friends who had supported our struggle for so long. I needed
to ask them to watch the situation carefully and speak out immediately if the
Americans intervened.

Through documents now open and particularly through Larry Berman’s No

Peace, No Honor,[17] we know that the Nixon administration intended to
deploy B-52 bombers against the North to rescue the Sài Gòn army, which
was disintegrating. However, the Nixon administration did not carry out its
plan. Instead, the Watergate scandal[18] threw the White House into turmoil.
Even more important, the majority of Americans expressed their opposition
through the representatives they had elected to the US Congress. Many
senators insisted the United States abandon the failed war, which the entire
world condemned and which had been so costly in human and material
losses.

I arrived in France, where I met with a number of journalists. While in

France, I contacted friends in the United States, Canada, Sweden, and other
countries. Then I went on to Algeria, where I met with friends, who were
exuberant because our Spring Offensive had begun and our Liberation Army
was advancing with irresistible, unconquerable force. Our friends said they
had seen maps showing how our Liberation Army liberated a new province
every day. Progress was so rapid our friends could not keep track!

Our army launched the 1975 Spring Campaign by attacking Buôn Ma

Thuột. I knew the Politburo had set its goal of liberating South Việt Nam
within two years (1975 and 1976). However, after the victory of Phước
Long[19] and particularly following the liberation of Buôn Ma Thuột,[20] the
Politburo decided to seize its opportunity. In early 1975, the Politburo
formally opened the General Offensive to liberate the South.
 On the diplomatic front, the PRG continued achieving major victories.
Other governments watching our army’s massive victories saw that our
struggle would soon end in victory. They quickly announced diplomatic
recognition of the PRG. By the time the North and South were re-united in
July 1976, sixty-five countries had recognized the Provisional Revolutionary
Government.

As a result of our visit to Algeria in early 1975, we knew the summit for
the Organization of African Unity (OUA)[21] was about to begin in Tanzania.
We flew there and asked our friends if I might speak to the assembly and
inform the membership about an important situation. However, the OUA
statutes allowed only representatives of African countries to speak; in
addition, speakers could address only issues about Africa.

I entreated our friends in Tanzania, the host country. In the end, the
conference organizers agreed to give me fifteen minutes at the end of the
conference, once the members had completed their program.

Lê Mai and I sat from 6 p.m. until 5 a.m. without eating or drinking,
waiting to speak. When my turn came, my throat felt dry. I worried I could
not utter a word. But we achieved our goal. We described the situation
developing in Việt Nam and called on the international community to prevent
the United States from sending troops back to Việt Nam.

On April 15, Hà Nội cabled us to return immediately. We had no money to

buy air tickets, and Tanzania did not have a Vietnamese Embassy. We
decided to ask for help from the Chinese Embassy, which provided
assistance at once.
 By the time I returned to Hà Nội, we had liberated Đà Nẵng. Our armed
forces were advancing toward Sài Gòn. I received orders to go to Đà Nẵng,
where Government Council President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ and many other PRG
officials had already gathered.

During that period, the PRG issued important statements and received
foreign delegations as well as journalists. Since our troops had just liberated
Đà Nẵng, people from Quảng Trị, Thừa Thiên, and Quảng Ngãi Provinces
were converging on the city, but we established order within only a few
days. Our new administrative system began to take effect.

* *

On the evening of April 29, 1975, I was hosting American historians

Gabriel and Joyce Kolko[22] when we heard Liberation Radio broadcast an
appeal to the Sài Gòn administration and the Sài Gòn military to surrender.
This deeply stirring news moved the American historians and me to tears. We
held hands.

The next day, on April 30, what had to happen did finally, at long last,
happen. Sài Gòn was liberated! This news brought boundless joy! Radio
stations and other international media announced this news: “Sài Gòn has
collapsed! The ‘Việt Cộng’ are victorious!” People across our country
poured into the streets, embracing one another and weeping but with tears of
joy!

The common endeavor and sacrifice of all our people had brought about
the inevitable. So many people working overtly and covertly had contributed
—from the armed forces to political forces; from the children who had
directed us along local paths to our compatriots from all strata of society;
from the heroes whose names are known, to the millions upon millions of
heroes whose names we do not know. No one can say, “Your contribution
was this, mine was that.”

At that moment, I thought of our large rear area in the socialist North. This
was our rearguard but also our vanguard. I remembered once when I had
visited Palestinian friends in refugee camps and when I’d met the Palestinian
leader, Yasser Arafat.[23] Everyone asked us where and how Việt Nam had
drawn its strength for struggle and victory. We answered: “There are three
factors: We have Hồ Chí Minh, an outstanding Vietnamese leader, who gave
his entire life in service to our struggle for independence and freedom. We
have our people’s intense, strong solidarity. And we have the North, the
socialist half of our country as our huge, stable rearguard.” Our Palestinian
friends compared our situation with theirs and saw that, unfortunately, they
did not have our strong points.

Việt Nam’s final victory, which had been achieved in the end with such
speed, astounded and elated the world. As I understood the situation, even
the Soviet Union and China—two of Việt Nam’s staunchest friends—were
somewhat taken aback. China had persistently advised us to “prolong
guerrilla ambush attacks” because the enemy was too powerful. The Soviet
Union worried we were not strong enough to win and feared the war would
spread, complicating the world situation. The Vietnamese people’s tenacity
and heroism and our final victory enhanced the position of the socialist camp
in the international arena.
 We were also proud that we had boosted the confidence and determination
of people in other countries fighting against imperialism (particularly against
US imperialism) and struggling for peace, independence, and social
progress. We can never forget that behind Việt Nam’s great victory stood the
immense, invaluable, and essential contribution of the people in socialist
countries as well as the world’s people who esteem peace and justice. Since
we had been able to begin and conduct the war courageously and cleverly,
we knew we could also conclude it properly.

[1] On-going role of the NLF after formation of the PRG: After formation of the Provisional
Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet Nam in June 1969, the National Liberation
Front of South Việt Nam no longer played a quasi-governmental role but continued to function as a
coordinating body for people’s mass organizations. The National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam
and the Fatherland Front of North Việt Nam (the coordinating body for mass organizations) were
formally united into the Vietnamese Fatherland Front on July 31, 1977.

[2] “CP72” was a code name for the PRG Foreign Ministry.

[3] Hoàng Bích Sơn: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 15, p. 125.

[4] Võ Đông Giang: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 16, p. 126.

[5] Lê Quang Chánh headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department in Hồ Chí Minh City
from 1977 to 1981. He also served as vice president of the Hồ Chí Minh City People’s Committee and
was a member of the city’s Party Committee. He appears in the photograph of the NLF delegation
taken with President Hồ Chí Minh on October 20, 1962, in the back of this book. Lê Quang Chánh is
standing in the top middle, between the two diplomats at the very top of the photo.
 [6] Lộc Ninh District in Bình Phước Province is 135 kilometers due north of Sài Gòn and about
twenty kilometers from the Cambodian border. It was the site of the military headquarters for the
Provisional Revolutionary Government’s Liberation Army and a crucial endpoint of the Hồ Chí Minh
Trail. After the signing of the Paris Agreement, Lộc Ninh became the seat of government for the PRG.

[7] Georges Marchais (1920-1997) was general secretary of the French Communist Party from
1972 until 1994.

[8] Mujibur Rahman (1920-1975) was president of Bangladesh from April 11, 1972 to January
12, 1972 and from January 25, 1975 until August 5, 1975. In between those tenures, he served as the
premier of Bangladesh.

[9] Trần Văn Trà (1919-1996) came from Quảng Ngãi Province in the Central Region south of
the DMZ, which later divided Việt Nam. He joined the Communist Party in 1938. From early on, he held
military command positions in many regions of the South and was deputy minister of defense from 1978
until 1982.

[10] Hoàng Anh Tuấn later served as Việt Nam’s ambassador to India.

[11] Norodom Sihanouk (1922-2012) was the ruler of Cambodia until 1970, when the US-
backed coup led by Lon Nol toppled the Cambodian monarchy while Sihanouk was in Beijing.

[12] Although Lưu Hữu Phước’s song was used for the national anthem of the Republic of
Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”), he was actually an activist in the PRG-DRVN Resistance. A few years
after this incident, Lưu Hữu Phước was a member of the first National Assembly of re-united Việt
Nam. See Chapter 2, “Childhood,” footnote 8, p. 49.

[13] Battle for Hoàng Sa, January 19-20, 1974: US State Department documents in the
Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS, Vietnam) revealed what the Vietnamese consider as
the beginning of collusion and barter between US President Nixon and China regarding Việt Nam,
dating from the Shanghai Communique in February 1972. Following Chinese military actions against
Hoàng Sa (the Paracels) in March 1972, the United States sent the Chinese government an undated
cable: “In the interest of U.S.–Chinese relations the U.S. side has issued instructions that henceforth a
distance of at least twelve nautical miles should be maintained from the Paracel Islands. This is without
prejudice to the U.S. positions either on the territorial sea question or the various claims to the Paracel
Islands.”
 Although the cable’s second sentence is clear, some Vietnamese perceive that cable as the first step
on a slippery slope of US-Chinese collusion regarding the Hoàng Sa Islands.

Then, on January 19, 1974, China achieved an early step in what by 2009 would become the Nine-
Point Line (the “Cow’s Tongue”) through the Battle for the Hoàng Sa Islands (then territory under the
Sài Gòn administration). The United States did not take sides in defense of its ally, the Sài Gòn army.
Again, according to FRUS, on January 25, 1974 in “Minutes of Washington Special Actions Group,”
Admiral Thomas Moorer (chair, US joint chiefs-of-staff) responded to questions from Henry Kissinger
(by then secretary of state): “We (the U.S.) have stayed far clear of the matter. … That whole area is a
problem. … We have given orders to stay clear of the area.”

For many Vietnamese, that step in 1974 signaled further US-Chinese collusion.

[14] Mohamed Daoud Khan (1909-1978) was prime minister of Afghanistan from 1953 to 1965
and president of Afghanistan from 1973 to 1978.

[15] Trần Nam Trung (1912-2009), who came from Quảng Ngãi Province in the Central Region
south of what later became the DMZ, joined the Communist Party in 1931 and, just after the August
1945 Revolution, was elected to the Party Committee for Việt Nam’s Central Region, with responsibility
for military affairs. When the Provisional Revolutionary Government was established in June 1969, Trần
Nam Trung was selected to serve as minister of defense.

[16] Disturbing symptoms in our country’s southwest flank: At this time, the genocidal
Khmer Rouge, which was later politically supported by the United States and actively supported by
China, was already staging repeated incursions into the southwest of Việt Nam. Their strikes included
massacres of Vietnamese civilians. By United Nations estimates, the Khmer Rouge subsequently killed
between one and three million people, that is, between 10 and 30 percent of Cambodia’s population.

[17] Larry Berman, No peace, No honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 2001).

[18] Watergate scandal: On June 17, 1972, during the run-up to the US presidential election, four
men broke into the Democratic Party’s headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C.
Investigations uncovered both the involvement of President Nixon’s senior staff in the break-in and their
attempts as well as President Nixon’s to cover up the involvement. President Nixon resigned on August
9, 1974 rather than face impeachment.

[19] The Battle of Phước Long, a district north of Sài Gòn and near the Cambodian border in
what is now Bình Phước Province, lasted from December 13, 1974 until January 6, 1975 and set the
groundwork for the opening of the Spring 1975 Offensive.

[20] The Battle of Buôn Ma Thuột: In the spring of 1973, the military’s strategic planning team
had looked at four possible initial strike sites in the South—Pleiku, Kontum, Sài Gòn, and Buôn Ma
Thuột. Plan 305 TGI, which the Politburo accepted, identified Buôn Ma Thuột in the Central Highlands
as the weakest yet essential Sài Gòn administration stronghold among the four appraised sites. The
DRVN leaders planned for an offensive that would begin in the spring of 1975 and last two years.
However, the Battle of Buôn Ma Thuột from March 10 to 12, 1975 precipitated the collapse of the Sài
Gòn administration. Instead of two years, the offensive took two months.

[21] The Organisation de l’Unité Africaine / Organization of African Unity was established
in Addis Ababa in 1963 with thirty-two member governments. It disbanded in 2002, when the African
Union was formed.

[22] Gabriel Kolko (1932-2014) and Joyce Manning Kolko (1933-2012) cooperated on many
books, with some of them published under one name and some of them under both names. Their works
include The Roots of American Foreign Policy; Anatomy of a War; and Restructuring the World
Economy.

[23] Yasser Arafat (1929-2004) was chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from
1969 until 2004. During that time, he made a number of visits to Hà Nội.
 8.

Memories and Deeply Held Thoughts

For fourteen years (1962-1976), I was active in foreign relations for the
National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam (NLF) / Provisional
Revolutionary Government (PRG). As I look across my life, those years
comprise the period most worthy of note, for they cover some of our
country’s major events, which I witnessed and in which I had the very good
fortune to participate. I will always hold dear the deep impressions and many
priceless lessons from that time.

I can say that our leaders gave deep thought to Việt Nam’s political
policies and provided careful direction during the Paris Conference in
particular and during our struggle in general.

First, I want to mention the guideline to establish the National Liberation

Front of South Việt Nam on December 20, 1960.[1] This wise policy was
both strategic and tactical. Through that step, we created a united national
front involving all social strata. We included not only the patriotic forces of
the NLF with Lawyer Nguyễn Hữu Thọ (a major southern intellectual) as
president but also the National Alliance for Democracy and Peace led by
Lawyer Trịnh Đình Thảo (another famous southern intellectual) as well as
two large groups: the people who really were the “Third Force” and the
patriotic overseas Vietnamese.

In addition to that guideline, we took advantage of the prestige of the

Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN, the socialist “North”) and, in
particular, the great prestige and respect accorded to the DRVN leader,
President Hồ Chí Minh. This allowed us to leverage widespread support and
solidarity with world-wide forces working for peace, independence,
freedom, and justice.

We can say that voices from everywhere—from large cities to remote

villages, including even those close to the North Pole—announced
“solidarity with Việt Nam.” Everyone agrees today that the international
solidarity movement with Việt Nam, which formed in opposition to the
American War of Aggression, was the largest and longest such movement in
world history. That world-wide movement of people who cherish peace was
extremely important in contributing to Việt Nam’s eventual victory.

To understand the NLF’s value and significance, we must look at the

circumstances that led to its establishment. The period from 1956 until 1959
was a terribly bleak time in the South. The US-Diệm regime instituted
merciless repression of the southern peace movement, which was demanding
implementation of the 1954 Geneva Agreement. Then the US-Diệm regime
organized a campaign to denounce and eradicate “communists,” including
everyone from the old Resistance Movement Against France, as well as
anyone who opposed the Sài Gòn regime. To do this, the regime’s police
hauled guillotines into villages throughout the South.

Prisons sprouted up everywhere. They were brimming with people—old

and young, men and women. Tens of thousands of people in the countryside
were held in colossal camps called “strategic hamlets.” Many international
journalists concluded, “The South is one giant prison.”

For a long time, activists in the South followed the Party’s directive to
resist through peaceful demonstrations and reconciliation, but the enemy
pushed us to the end of our patience. Armed to the teeth, the enemy terrorized
and executed our people en masse, yet we had only our empty hands. We
could not stand silently with our arms folded while the enemy waged its one-
sided war. Our people asked to take up arms. The Party heard our people’s
mournful pleas and, just in time, changed the guidelines for our Resistance
Movement. In 1959, the Party implemented its historic Decision 15,[2] which
accelerated the political struggle and simultaneously expedited military
action, thereby opening the route through which the people of the South could
achieve victory.

Decision 15 was a turning point in our nation’s modern history and

particularly in our struggle against the United States. Like a flood breaking a
dike, our people in many localities responded to the Party’s new guidelines
with uprisings. In the midst of this ebullience, the Party guided the formation
of the National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam to unite the various strata
of southerners in struggle against the United States. The goal was our
country’s independence and re-unification.

In this special context, the NLF served not only as a political organization
uniting all people in political and armed struggle but also as a de facto
political administration. From 1960 until 1969, the Front established
committees at various levels to lead our people in political, military,
economic, cultural, and diplomatic affairs.
 Another political victory worthy of note is the formation of the Alliance of
National, Democratic, and Peace Forces of Việt Nam with lawyer Trịnh Đình
Thảo,[3] a great intellectual in the South, as president. The Alliance, which
was established on April 20, 1968 a few months after the Tết 1968
Offensive, included many patriots, intellectuals, and religious leaders, whose
views were patriotic and whose members were organizing more openly in
the cities. With this step, our Front opposing the United States to save the
nation expanded.

When describing the Vietnamese struggle, especially during the

Resistance Against France and the Resistance Against the United States, we
should remember that most of the major Vietnamese intellectuals participated
alongside the farmers and the workers. Similarly, when describing the
international movement united with Việt Nam, we should remember that many
key intellectuals in other nations were also active participants. Everyone
who was of sufficient age at that time remembers the Bertrand Russell
Tribunal[4] established by Bertrand Russell,[5] the famous British
philosopher-mathematician. Participants included other famous intellectuals,
such as Jean-Paul Sartre[6] and Laurent Schwartz.[7]

We know that, most of all, intellectuals understand the value of the

individual, and they understand the meaning of freedom and justice.

The 1968 Tết General Offensive burst forth eight years after the Front’s
founding and reverberated across the South. This event was a core victory
and another key turning point in the Vietnamese people’s revolutionary war.
Eleven years later, in September 1979, the IVth Congress of the Communist
Party affirmed, “Only with the Spring of 1968 could we have had the Spring
of 1975.”[8]
 Up until now, a number of authors who were American officials,
particularly in the military, have held that the “Việt Cộng” suffered a heavy
defeat during the Tết Offensive of 1968, the Year of the Monkey. They have
also believed that, had the Americans “plunged headlong” by using their full
military strength, the United States probably would have “achieved victory.”
These are the shallow and blind views of those who saw apparent facts but
not the essence of the issue. They saw the temporal unfold before their eyes,
but they did not see the whole. Therefore, they could neither perceive nor
foresee the underlying, inevitable, and ultimate conclusion.

Our losses during the Tết General Offensive were certainly not small, but
that heroic offensive did shake the aggressive will of the United States.
Previously, our Liberation Army had achieved only small victories in rural
areas. However, with the Tết Offensive, our troops struck in unison across
the South and achieved victories inside the capital and at the enemy’s
headquarters.[9] The meaning was clear: In no place could the enemy be
secure. The 1968 Tết Offensive forced the United States to reach a very
important decision—the need to search for a way to de-escalate the war. It
compelled the Johnson administration to enter into negotiations, even though
the United States held tenaciously to the goal of finding a “solution from a
position of strength.”

For years, we in the South had been struggling against US escalation of the
war:

On June 26, 1954, three weeks before the signing of the Geneva
Agreement, the United States brought Ngô Đình Diệm from New York to Sài
Gòn to serve as prime minister of the Republic of Việt Nam. Ngô Đình Diệm
had spent the previous three years outside New York City in a Catholic
seminary.

On January 20, 1960, President Kennedy decided to use Việt Nam as a

site for “special war.”

On May 11, 1961, the United States sent to Việt Nam four hundred
special-forces soldiers and one hundred advisors to set up “strategic
hamlets,” which incarcerated millions of Vietnamese. Then, in December, the
number of advisors increased to thirty-two hundred. Yet the “special war”
failed.

In August 1964, the Johnson administration staged the “Tonkin Gulf

Incident” in order to expand the war.

On March 8, 1965, twenty-five hundred US marines landed at Đà Nẵng

and Chu Lai, beginning the “localized war.”

On July 30, 1965, the United States sent masses of troops to increase its
forces for “localized war.”

By the end of 1967, the number of US and allied troops (excluding the Sài
Gòn army - ARVN) had reached six hundred thousand.

Indeed, by the time the Paris Conference began in 1968, we in the South
were facing an occupying US army.

Our guideline for the four-party conference in Paris was to “fight through
negotiations,” thereby opening the struggle’s new diplomatic front to increase
our strength in battle. This policy was both correct and wise. During the five
years of the four-party conference, we in the South increased our military
strength through assistance from the North. We on the political and
diplomatic fronts took advantage of widespread international world opinion
to weaken the enemy’s rearguard.

We can view the Paris negotiating table as a new, effective battlefield

with continuing offensives first from the NLF and then from the PRG,
beginning with the Ten Points, then the Eight Points, then the Seven Points,
and finally the Two Points.[10] These successive proposals increasingly
cornered the enemy.

In particular, we can view the Seven-Point Plan, which we presented in

July 1971, as our diplomatic equivalent to the “1968 Tết Offensive.” We
concentrated on our demand that the United States remove all its military
forces from South Việt Nam; we set aside our desire for an immediate
political solution in the South. This final blow forced the United States to
follow the direction of eventually accepting the Draft Paris Agreement,
which Việt Nam had presented.

After the signing of the Paris Agreement in late January 1973, our leaders
predicted that two outcomes were possible in early 1973. In the first case,
the Sài Gòn administration would continue the war with US support and
assistance. In the second case, the situation between the Sài Gòn
administration and the PRG with the Third Force would become very
complicated and turn into a morass, but in the end we would surely achieve
victory.

Not long after the actual signing, we saw that the first possibility was
more likely and that the balance of forces increasingly favored us. In 1975,
the Party decided that we must strike quickly, defeat the puppet troops, and
liberate the South. This was a correct and timely policy. Thus, our troops and
supportive civilians launched the 1975 Spring General Offensive, bringing
total victory.

* *

We can draw important lessons from our Resistance War Against the
United States and from our struggle to assure the nation’s independence and
sovereignty. I think particularly about these major strategic guidelines:

We knew how to coordinate our national strength, using the power of

timing. With that overall guideline, we relied on political advantages and
resources from the Soviet Union, China, and the socialist bloc at the same
time that we took advantage of world-wide sympathy and the call for justice.
The result was multiplied strength. Here, I feel I must record accurately the
NLF’s important contribution through its flexible policy combined with wise,
dynamic action. Using this approach, we elicited sympathy and won over
people with differing political views, thereby creating a strong, widespread,
international movement of support. In addition, we always followed our own
principles of independence and self-reliance on the battlefield and in the
negotiations. We took advantage of our friends’ advice, yet we always made
our own decisions to insure our own national interest.

We had a great need in the southern battlefield for weapons during this
cruel stage of the war, yet the transport distance from the North along the Hồ
Chí Minh Trail to the South was long and fraught with difficulties. Some
countries allied with us suggested they send personnel to drive vehicles and
weapons to the South. Our Vietnamese leaders expressed their thanks but
refused these offers. We asked to receive the weapons, but the transport and
use of those weapons was our work and our responsibility.

We refused to allow the war to spread into an international conflict, for

this would have been complicated and would have caused us to lose the
initiative. Equally, we refused to allow the on-going division of our country.
The 1954 Geneva Conference had brought us many valuable insights. We
were determined to fight, and we knew how to fight. We knew how to begin a
war, and we knew how to conclude a war.

Now, after nearly forty years, many political activists across the world
still claim to have been completely surprised at the victory of the people of
Việt Nam (such a small country), which dared to fight against the world’s
largest imperialist power. To understand the sources of this heroic outcome,
we must remember Việt Nam’s recorded history of two thousand years,
during which our ancestors established and defended our nation. It is
imperative to research the materials, signed documents, and summaries
(probably incomplete) of the comrades who were the historical participants.

Many other comrades and I usually make this additional point: President
Hồ Chí Minh was the father and soul of our country and of our people’s
formidable Resistance War Against the United States. The Party’s directives
followed Hồ Chí Minh’s substantive ideology regarding domestic and
international unity. Alongside President Hồ, the Politburo led by Comrade Lê
Đuẩn was the supreme political command as well as the general tactical
headquarters for steering the country during the war’s dangerous and
decisive stages.

I remember 1956 and 1957, when the enemy launched its white terror in
the South. Many people were very worried and did not understand what
might come with future struggle in the South. At that time, Comrade Lê Duẩn
declared, “It’s not that the enemy is strong; instead, the enemy is weakening.
He must resort to savage means in order to crush the masses.” Reality has
decisively proven this lucid, sharp-witted point, for the enemy’s savage,
white terror increased the southerners’ anger and desire for action. Based on
this understanding and the design for the Southern Revolution, in 1959, the
Party instituted its historic Decision 15.

The letter Comrade Lê Duẩn sent to Comrade Phạm Hùng in 1975

regarding the major points of a Politburo meeting allows us to understand
more clearly the Politburo’s purpose, intelligence, skill, and spirit in guiding
the conclusion of the war, which had lasted nearly thirty years, when counting
from 1945.

During these last decisive moments, Comrade Lê Duẩn’s directive was

perceptive and precise: “This is the most favorable opportunity. No other
opportunity will be comparable. If we wait another ten or fifteen years, the
situation will become complicated, endlessly complicated. We must work
fast, completely, and thoroughly but wisely and skillfully.”

I think we should continue to remember the huge contribution of Comrade

Lê Duẩn. However, to cover the whole effort requires speaking of all the
contributions from all the leaders of the Workers’ Party (now the
Vietnamese.Communist Party), for they were very close to our people.
Today, the international communist movement is in a period of setbacks.
However, we Vietnamese certainly could not have liberated our country
without the sound and skilled leadership of the Party.

Even though the contributions of senior Party leaders were significant, it

is essential to remember the millions of Party members and the brave masses
of people who followed the Party and protected the Party. They fought with
all their strength and courage, and they were indomitable. Tens of thousands,
even millions of people from one generation to the next, lost their lives for
our nation’s sacred cause while fighting under the Party’s flag.

* *

During the War of Resistance Against the United States, I was assigned to
work in foreign relations. In addition to taking part in the Paris Conference,
my other primary work was mobilizing international support for our
Resistance Movement. Perhaps I can say that the chance to meet people
everywhere helped me gain important understandings. We have often spoken
of the great support we received from people in countries across the world.
To be fair, I must also speak about the important role of governments.

Many Western countries had special-interest relationships and could not

support us. Some even followed the United States in opposing Việt Nam. At
the same time, other countries—especially Sweden—were completely
different. Those countries—from their people to their governments—became
close and tireless friends of Việt Nam.

From the beginning, the Swedish government publicized and opposed the
US policy of aggression against Việt Nam and was faithful to the end. We
often speak about the Swedish people, the major political and cultural
Swedish leaders, and the details of their closeness to Việt Nam. In Sweden,
people say there was the “Việt Nam generation” and that Việt Nam entered
their lives. Large numbers of Swedish youth as well as youth in many other
countries became political “converts” to our people’s struggle. Việt Nam
brought them a fresh reason to live. I think the strength of what is right and
just per se conquered their hearts.

Sweden, like other countries of northern Europe, is a “cousin” of the

United States, but the Swedes could not accept the Americans’ cruel actions.
Many Americans who refused to fight left the United States and received
asylum in Sweden. The Bertrand Russell Tribunal and many other
international meetings in support of Việt Nam occurred there. The Swedes
were empathetic, and their voluntary actions were evidence of a truly
civilized country with a deep tradition of compassion. Yet in addition to the
pacific attitudes of the Swedish public, we must also speak of the role and
actions of the Swedish government and of the nation’s leaders, in particular
Premier Olof Palme. I wanted to speak clearly about this because many
people in our country do not yet know about the tremendously helpful role
Sweden played during our time of need.

I had occasion to visit nearly all the socialist countries, from the Soviet
Union and China to the countries of Eastern Europe and Cuba. These days,
the socialist bloc no longer remains, the Soviet Union has disbanded, and
many other countries have changed their orientation or have become more
complicated. However, we must nevertheless say that the support and
closeness of the governments in the socialist countries during our Resistance
War Against the United States were hugely significant. In particular, the
Soviet Union and China were the stable support for the Vietnamese front
lines. Of course, varieties of national interest motivated each of the countries
that offered assistance; nevertheless, their support was extremely important.

We all know Soviet and Chinese aid came in stages, and we know there
were serious conflicts between the two nations. However, Uncle Hồ and the
Party offered sincerity, seriousness, care, and perhaps we can even say great
skill to find a clear, flexible path to secure support from these important
“older-sibling” countries and from other socialist nations as well. Political
activists from other countries have described this as implementation of
traditional Vietnamese “political wisdom.”

While I was traveling overseas as a representative for the NFL, I had an

opportunity to attend an international conference in the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (“North Korea”). Here was an unusual nation, where the
people venerated their leader and where the leader’s words were orders for
the populace. North Korea shared with us the plight of a nation divided
because of an earlier American-led war. As such, North Korea was a
dedicated supporter of Việt Nam’s struggle to oppose the United States and
one of the first countries to recognize the Provisional Revolutionary
Government of the Republic of South Việt Nam.

Several comrades in our delegation and I went to Hungary many times to

work or to rest at Balaton Lake, a famous resort. Everyone we met in
Hungary, from the senior-level leaders to ordinary people, supported Việt
Nam, but particularly Foreign Minister János Péter. He would say to me,
“Whatever you Vietnamese friends need, we’re ready to help.”

In addition, many Vietnamese comrades and I went to visit the German

Democratic Republic (“East Germany”). At that time, Germany was divided
into two countries. Comrades in East Germany, from the Party leaders and
the government to the mass organizations, all felt strong connections to Việt
Nam and were zealously supportive in spirit and through shipments of
material goods. Many Vietnamese cadres, including those wounded on the
battlefield in the South, were brought first to the North and then traveled to
East Germany for medical treatment by excellent doctors.

At that time, the authorities in West Germany did not support our people’s
struggle. Nevertheless, the solidarity movement with Việt Nam in West
Germany was dynamic. Mme. Weber, a textile engineer, organized Aid to
Việt Nam. Through her efforts, many patriotic intellectuals and important
social activists in West Germany came to understand the Vietnamese people’s
struggle. They helped us with medical equipment and medicines. This
assistance continued after the liberation of the South. Mme. Weber’s empathy
with Việt Nam was very deep. In her Last Will and Testament, she stated her
wish that Việt Nam be her permanent resting place, for that was where her
heart had been. This gesture moved us deeply. We implemented her wish.

* *

The Paris Conference gave me the opportunity to live in France for many
years and observe French society. I met many French intellectuals,
communist laborers, and progressives. They were upstanding,
straightforward, and ready to support people facing difficulties and
oppression, even though their own lives were not always easy. I came to
understand more about French history and the glorious French cultural
heritage of such great thinkers and writers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor
Hugo, and others. In addition, we were near the heart of the 1789 Democratic
Proletarian Revolution, the Paris Commune, and the motto—“Liberté,
Égalité, Fraternité.”
 Indeed, the French people have a democratic tradition. I witnessed many
demonstrations as well as workers and students’ strikes. I also came to
understand in part capitalist “consumer society.” If a person had a job, he
could borrow money from a bank to buy a house and pay off the loan every
month at ordinary interest rates. However, if he lost his job and had no
money to pay the bank, then the bank would take back the house and he would
be out on the street.

During the negotiations in France, the DRVN and NLF-PRG delegations

received whole-hearted assistance from the French Communist Party and the
overseas Vietnamese community. We will always remember the images of
our French security guards and drivers, whom the French Communist Party
assigned to help us. They worked with complete dedication for years. So
many Vietnamese living in France set aside their own work to come to our
houses to make repairs and assist our delegations whenever we had a need.
We had special friends and comrades, who were very close to us. They stood
alongside us throughout the long march of two Wars of Resistance, first
against France and then against the United States. Even now, they stand with
us in our struggle to build and develop our country.

Our people will always remember Henri Martin[11] and Raymonde Dien,
[12] the husband and wife who opposed French colonialism’s re-invasion of
Việt Nam and were imprisoned and suffered many other losses. Another
especially close friend is Madeleine Riffaud,[13] a hero during the French
Resistance against the German Nazis. She supported Việt Nam’s struggle to
secure independence. We know she sacrificed her individual happiness to
help our struggle. These days, although she is elderly, frail, and blind, she
still follows the situation in Việt Nam. Her meetings with Vietnamese friends,
including “Bình,” are her happiest moments. She will talk continuously for
hours, forgetting illness and pain.

Many overseas Vietnamese intellectuals in France made huge

contributions to our two delegations in Paris. These include Huỳnh Trung
Đồng, Lâm Bá Châu, Phạm Ngọc Tới, and Dr. Therèse Phan. The list goes
on. After liberation, Nguyễn Vĩnh Mỹ returned to Việt Nam and served as
chief justice in the Hồ Chí Minh City Court. Dr. Nguyễn Ngọc Hà and
Professor Nguyễn Ngọc Trân also returned home and participated in the
National Assembly. And there were others. Some had to remain in France
because of family circumstances. These include Brother Trần Hữu Nghiệp,
who made many personal sacrifices for our shared work.

* *

I also had the chance to visit many Asian countries in addition to socialist
China. India made a deep impression on me. Hồ Chí Minh and Việt Nam
enjoyed considerable prestige in India, particularly in Calcutta/Kolkata and
Bengal, where the Communist Party was influential. Indians felt a special
empathy with the Vietnamese struggle. However, while there, I witnessed the
stark separation between rich and poor. A provincial governor would have a
beautiful palace surrounded by a park with prancing deer. But not far away
were people who were desperately poor and living on the streets.

I wondered: Why do they have this situation? Is it the drawn-out legacy of

the caste system? Is it religion? Political trends? Negative consequences
from nearly a century of British domination?
 India has an ancient and glorious culture. Today, Indians rank among the
world’s greatest experts in many fields. It’s unusual, but they have two
communist parties. It seems to me that if the Indians unify their people even
more strongly and take full advantage of the potential of their citizenry and
their natural resources, they will create a major political and economic
power.

During the war, people from the NLF could not secure visas to Japan. At
that time, the Japanese government stood alongside the United States, which
had many military bases in Japan. The largest of these was Okinawa, from
which US airplanes left every day to bomb Việt Nam. However, we knew
that Japan had a citizens’ movement in strong support of our struggle. The
progressive forces in Japan included organizations of youth, women,
workers, the Peace Committee, the Vietnamese-Japanese Friendship
Committee, the Beheiren Organization (Citizens’ League for Peace in Việt
Nam), and representatives of the Japanese Communist Party. They organized
many activities to oppose the US War of Aggression. Thousands of people
held sit-ins at Japanese ports to prevent the United States from sending war
materiel to Việt Nam. They organized a movement, “A yen for Vietnamese
women and children.” The Japanese had been victims of the two US nuclear
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These friends could easily feel
sympathy with the people of Việt Nam.

Many countries in Africa and Latin America viewed Việt Nam as a model.
Their governments’ support and help was great, with results in many areas.
By the time we liberated the South on April 30, 1975, the PRG had received
official diplomatic recognition from sixty-five countries, with the number of
African countries second to the number of socialist countries. I visited many
countries in Africa, that huge continent. We know that Africa was the cradle
of human beings, yet the level of economic development and living standards
remains “young” in comparison with other continents. The thirst of each
person everywhere is the same. And so, whether Africans at that time knew a
little or a lot about politics, they sympathized with the struggle of
Vietnamese, who had been oppressed and exploited like them. I took part in
many international gatherings—from international solidarity conferences to
governmental meetings. Việt Nam’s position received a consistently warm
response from many African governments, particularly Algeria, Guinea,
Mali, Madagascar, and Tanzania.

Throughout his life, Algerian President Houari Boumédiènne[14] and

Foreign Minister Abdelaziz Bouteflika,[15] currently the president of
Algeria, strongly supported the Vietnamese struggle and regarded it as their
own people’s struggle. President Boumédiènne paid close attention to my
travels to build international relations. Once, he said to me, “I invite you to
travel free of charge whenever you are on a mission to a country covered by
our airline.” Even now and even though our two countries have developed
differently, Algerians speaking of Việt Nam will place their hands over their
hearts and say, “Hồ Chí Minh, Điện Biên Phủ, Võ Nguyên Giáp!”[16]

Our African friends’ empathy and admiration for Việt Nam remain. After
we achieved independence, many African nations also developed along the
lines of socialism, but most of those nations lost direction after the socialist
bloc disintegrated. Many currently face difficulties, including increased
divisions among religious, racial, and ethnic groups. They look toward Việt
Nam in hopes of drawing from our experience.

As for the Americas, at that time, I was able to visit only Cuba. Comrade
Fidel Castro[17] and the Cuban people left a deep impression on me. Melba
Hernandez,[18] president of the Committee for Solidarity with Việt Nam,
retained a special feeling for Vietnamese and was a particularly close Cuban
sister. Several thousand Cuban youths volunteered to join the struggle in Việt
Nam. Our Cuban friends showed their deepest feelings when encouraging the
Vietnamese people during our cruel Resistance War.

In speaking of Cuba, we always remember the revolutionary, Che

Guevara.[19] I’d had occasion to read a number of the letters that Che
Guevara had sent to Fidel Castro and to friends in Bolivia. It is rare to find
such ardent revolutionary feelings and thoughts! Those revolutionaries’
greatest happiness was to serve the cause of justice. This point explains why
the revolutionary warriors in Latin America and even as far away as
Venezuela were so moved by Vietnamese hero Nguyễn Văn Trỗi.[20]
Guerrillas in Venezuela captured an American officer and offered to
exchange the officer for Nguyễn Văn Trỗi. Even though their initiative failed,
we prized the effort of these friends far away in South America.

Only recently have we learned details of that story:

Early in August 1964, Commander Luis Correa of the Unidales Tácticas

de Combate (UTC, a leftist, tactical combat unit) announced that in Việt Nam
an electrician named Nguyễn Văn Trỗi had attempted to assassinate US
Secretary of Defense McNamara. Luis Correa reported that the attempt had
failed, Trỗi had been arrested, and the Sài Gòn administration would execute
Trỗi. Mr. Correa assigned a UTC action unit with twelve members to capture
an American, whom the UTC would exchange for Trỗi.

The twelve-man unit divided into four sub-groups, with each assigned to
one of four tasks: capture the American, transport him, guard him, and
negotiate. The sub-group that captured US Air Force Colonel Michael
Smolen included five men: Noel Quintero (leader), Carlos Rey,[21] David
Salazar, Raúl Rodriguez, and Carlos Argenis Martinez. The attempted
exchange of the American prisoner to rescue Nguyễn Văn Trỗi failed.
Nevertheless, we so value the feelings of these friends from South American,
who joined us in the struggle.

In Chile, on November 4, 1970, the Marxists achieved victory in the

elections. Salvador Allende[22] came to power. Although his cause was
short-lived (he was assassinated by Pinochet),[23] his government expanded
the revolution and, in particular, made clear its support for the Vietnamese
people’s struggle. Shortly after Allende took office, he announced on March
25, 1971 the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic
Republic of Việt Nam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam. President Allende even covered the expenses
for the two Vietnamese offices.

From the beginning of the twentieth century, a leftist movement began to

flourish in Latin America, the “backyard” of American imperialism. Today,
these countries understand US neo-colonialism and search for ways to
benefit their own people and create world-wide peace and justice.

* *

Of course, I could not visit the United States during the war years, but I
did meet Americans at gatherings organized by US groups opposed to the
war. Many US delegations came to Paris to visit us, including Congressional
representatives, families of American prisoners, women, and youth opposed
to the war. They made a beautiful impression on us, particularly the
American women, who wanted the war to end and to have peace so their
husbands and sons could avoid the draft and an early death. They were filled
with sorrow and embarrassment after they learned that their husbands and
sons had perpetrated extreme acts of cruelty on the Vietnamese people.

In 1971, Women Strike for Peace organized a meeting in Canada, where

American women met with women from the three countries of Indochina.

Some of the US women announced, “They (the Vietnamese women) are

not the enemy. They are our sisters.”

There were many demonstrations, often with women as the majority of the
participants. A photograph[24] from a demonstration in Miami, Florida in
1972 contains a detail particularly moving to me. One of the sisters is
wearing a T-shirt with an image of Mme. Bình and the slogan, “LIVE LIKE
HER.” I’ve recently learned that many women wore “Mme. Bình T-shirts” at
demonstrations across the United States. Those American women were
supporting a Việt Cộng woman leader, yet at that same time, in South Việt
Nam, American soldiers were being ordered to kill any “Việt Cộng” they
saw. Those American women were truly courageous!

Many Americans from different strata of society ardently opposed the US

war and supported Việt Nam.

I want our people always to remember the names of ten Americans,[25]

among them five youth, who immolated themselves to give voice to the
American people’s choking anger about the meaningless American War in
Việt Nam. They were peace warriors and “war martyrs,” just as President
Hồ Chí Minh said.[26]
 *

* *

In speaking about the friends in the US anti-war movement, Dave

Dellinger[27] is the person I want to emphasize the most. I could say he was
the “president” of the American peace movement demanding an end to the
war in Việt Nam. He was one of the first Americans to visit North Việt Nam
and also someone who held firmly to his positions on peace and justice.

Tom Hayden,[28] an anti-war movement leader, loved Jane Fonda; their

sense of purpose was the struggle to demand an end to the American War in
Việt Nam. They named their son Troy in memory of Nguyễn Văn Trỗi. Cora
Weiss[29] is a famous and tireless woman activist. Many women in the
peace movement, such as Carol Brightman,[30] named their children “Bình”
(“Peace”) out of their love for Việt Nam. By now, there may be a dozen
American women named “Bình.” And, of course, it is impossible to forget
the great humanitarians, Dr. Benjamin Spock and Jane Cheney Spock.[31]

I have an adopted son, Rennie Davis,[32] an American youth who used all
his strength in the movement to support Việt Nam. Davis was a very sensitive
young man, who worked tirelessly in the US anti-war movement. At the end
of 1969, Davis came to Paris, where we met and where he asked me to
accept him as an adopted son, although “mother” and “son” had not yet had
the occasion to know each other well. The following year, Davis met me
again and asked why, after so lengthy a struggle, the war had not ended. I
explained and encouraged Davis to believe in our ultimate victory, but
perhaps I was unable to persuade him. After that, I never met Davis again,
but I heard from a number of American friends that he had moved to India
and entered a monastery.

In fact, that wasn’t the truth at all!

In 2013, Rennie Davis and his wife were on the list of Americans visiting
Việt Nam to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Paris
Agreement. I was so delighted to meet Davis again. He had not entered a
monastery in India as rumors had led me to believe but, instead, had
continued his activism in the United States. Only during this recent meeting
did I come to understand more fully his anti-war accomplishments. This
increased my affection for him. Rennie was among the “Chicago Seven” and
had been selected by The New York Times as one of the most important
political figures in US history. He had organized large anti-war
demonstrations, including the one at the Democratic Party’s national
convention in 1968. These days, Rennie works in technology and leadership-
training. Rennie has an idea to assist Việt Nam with many projects. In
particular, he wants to help produce inexpensive computer hardware of high
quality because he knows Việt Nam still has many challenges. The
sentiments of my close American friends remain deep.

Some people are especially precious to me. Even now, they remain
faithful to the cause of Việt Nam’s struggle. I think, for example, of Merle
Ratner[33] (Older Sister “Mơ,” the wife of Professor Ngô Thanh Nhàn[34]).
Even though Merle has no personal wealth, she is there with help whenever
Việt Nam has a request. These international friends are people who live
according to political and humane ideals; their happiness comes from
following those ideals.
 It would take a long time to tell all the stories of our friends on the five
continents. The points I want to record here are not only from my own
personal experience but also perhaps from the common experience of all of
us. During the struggle, we suffered losses and savored our gains against the
enemy.

We always kept in mind the Party’s crucial guideline: “We must unify all
our own people and, after that, unify internationally.” In truth, this directive
was ingenious. Suppose we had not taken full advantage of the assistance
from the Soviet Union, China, and the socialist bloc. Suppose we had let
ourselves be stopped by the conflicts and by the crossed purposes between
those countries. If so, we would surely not have received their political
support and military and financial assistance. Taken together, that aid gave us
the means to secure victory.

Suppose Việt Nam had not enjoyed an international solidarity movement,

particularly in the United States. If so, we could not have shaken
Washington’s aggressive will. The memoirs of many politicians from the
American administrations at that time also make this point. The US
administrations had to address the widespread public opinion opposing the
meaningless war they had created in Việt Nam. The US anti-war movement in
solidarity with Việt Nam drew from many forces—communists, leftists,
progressive people, those who simply love peace and justice, and others.
This political and material strength shook the most stubborn, conservative,
and warlike minds in the US political leadership.

The Vietnamese people have great appreciation for the peace and anti-war
movements in the United States and view those movements’ contributions as
important in shortening the war and re-establishing peace in Việt Nam. Not
long ago, an American film team visiting Việt Nam asked me, “Is it true that
Việt Nam profited from the divisions within the United States?”

“No,” I answered. “We don’t think that way. The work that we did took
advantage of the American people’s spirit, which prizes peace and justice, to
oppose again and again the useless and destructive war in Việt Nam, which
provided no benefit for the American people.”

It is fortunate that many Americans, particularly the women, understood

this point and stood on the side of common sense and peace. That made
possible the path leading to later reconciliation between the people of our
two nations.

The press and mass media also played a major role. At times, people
called the press and mass media the second authority, after the administrative
authority. Journalists dared to speak the truth and, despite intimidation and
punishment, accurately portrayed our suffering and the demands of the anti-
war movement. Their work affected the US government’s attitudes and
policies.

Most of all, I must speak about the progressive journalists who dared to
visit the NLF-PRG liberated areas to report on our soldiers and on our
people’s war. They were prepared to accept every sacrifice and endure
every imaginable difficulty. We will always remember Madeleine Riffaud,
who spoke from her heart, saying, “Việt Nam is a part of my life.” Along
with her were many other journalists from l’Humanité (the newspaper of the
French Communist Party).

Wilfred Burchett[35] was always jovial and smiling. Burchett published

interviews, which had a huge effect on public opinion, so much so that
although he was an Australian citizen, he was not allowed to return to
Australia. Then there was the Bulgarian woman writer Dimitrova[36] and
Older Sister Vanessa (who was Polish).

We are also indebted to the hundreds of journalists who “stuck” to the

Paris Conference from beginning to end in order to distribute news about the
seemingly endless negotiations. We must recognize the American journalists
from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CBS television as well
as the AP and UPI news agencies. They were dedicated to capturing the
situation and the news. In time, they helped Americans and other peoples
follow the war and see clearly the frightfully violent rain of bombs, the
ghastly massacres, the imprisonment of ordinary citizens, and the painful loss
of American soldiers.

We must recognize journalists Seymour Hersh[37] and Don Luce,[38] as

well as many other international journalists, who courageously exposed the
truth. Through their efforts, public opinion—particularly in the United States
—learned about the Mỹ Lai massacre and the notorious “tiger cages” in the
prison on Côn Đảo Island.

The world heard about so many other cruelties perpetrated by the US

aggressors. After the war, I had the chance to see documentary films of
tremendous value by filmmakers from Canada, Belgium, and other countries.
I came to understand more about what was known on “this side” and “that
side” during the long and endlessly cruel war in Việt Nam.

Finally, I want to say that all of us active in the diplomatic front can affirm
this point: “The battlefield decides the results at the negotiating table.” The
struggle and sacrifice of our troops and our people in every victorious step
during decades of struggle conquered “the hearts and minds” of progressive
peoples across the world and eventually forced the enemy to submit.
Endlessly important to the southern battlefield was this—our stable
rearguard in the socialist North, where for years every person truly lived and
worked every day with the spirit of “Everything for the South, everything for
our kin.”

Việt Nam’s struggle for independence and freedom lasted for more than
twenty years filled with excruciating sacrifices requiring endless heroism
from our people. Our struggle has become a symbol receiving the world’s
esteem. Yet the strong “spirit of international unity” has not yet reached the
millions and millions of the world’s deserving people who are still
struggling.

I am extremely proud of my country, of our people, and of our friends.

[1] For the guidelines establishing the National Liberation Front, see the same link as
presented in Chapter 5: see http://openrevolt.info/2011/12/20/program-of-the-nlf/.

[2] Party Decision 15, promulgated in July 1959, addressed the topic of liberation of the South by
prioritizing the toppling of the Ngô Đình Diệm regime and its US supporters through a shift to
“revolutionary violence” and coordination of political struggle with armed struggle.

[3] Trịnh Đình Thảo had served on the Supreme Court of the French-backed regime, beginning in
1946. A nationalist but not a communist, he attracted and drew together a group of nationalists different
from those affiliated with the NLF. See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance War Against France,”
footnote 53, p. 108.

[4] The Bertrand Russell Tribunal or International Tribunal on War Crimes (1967) drew
the attention of international journalists, who published their stories about the US military’s atrocities and
US use of defoliant chemicals, exposing these issues widely for the first time. The Tribunal included
participants from Việt Nam and featured prominent European intellectuals, among them: Wofgang
Abendroth (German professor of political science), Simone de Beauvoir (French writer and
philosopher), Lázaro Cárdenas (former president of Mexico), Vladimir Dedijer (Yugoslavian historian
and lawyer), Amado V. Hernandez (Filipino poet), Sara Lidman (Swedish writer), Kinju Morikawa
(Japanese social activist), Bertrand Russell (British philosopher and mathematician), Jean-Paul Sartre
(French philosopher), and Peter Weiss (Swedish writer and artist).

[5] Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a famous British philosopher, mathematician, logician, and
activist.

[6] Jean-Paul Sartre: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote 35, p.
187.

[7] Laurent Schwartz: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote 36,
p. 187.

[8] “Spring of 1968” … “Spring of 1975”: “Spring of 1968” refers to the 1968 Tết General
Offensive, while “Spring of 1975” refers to the Hồ Chí Minh Campaign leading to the end of the war on
April 30, 1975.

[9] “Inside the capital and at the enemy’s headquarters”: During the 1968 Tết Offensive,
NLF troops penetrated the US Embassy in Sài Gòn.

[10] NLF-PRG Plans presented at the Paris Conference: The NLF presented its Ten-Point
Plan on May 8, 1969, its Eight-Point Plan on September 17, 1970, its Seven-Point Plan on July 1, 1971,
and its Two-Point Plan on January 11, 1972. For Web links to the contents of the plans in Vietnamese
and summaries in English, see notes in Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History.”

[11] Henri Martin (1927-) was sentenced to five years in prison (he served three) for distributing
pamphlets opposing the French War in Indochina. At that time, he was a sailor in the French navy.

[12] Raymonde Dien (1929-), a French communist, lay across railroad tracks in France in 1950
to protest the French War in Việt Nam.

[13] Madeleine Riffaud (1924-), a French poet and journalist, visited liberated areas under NLF-
PRG control during the war.

[14] Houari Boumédiènne: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,”
footnote 44, p. 193.
 [15] Abdelaziz Bouteflika: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote
45, p. 193.

[16] Algerian support: Algeria had been a French colony, with many Algerians serving with the
French Far-East Expeditionary Corps in Việt Nam during the French War. Through Hồ Chí Minh’s
guidance, the DRVN had a program to educate North African POWs in nationalism and then release
those converted to revolutionary ideology back into the French posts. The French caught onto this ruse
and sent the released North African POWs back home. Some Algerian veterans say that Algeria’s war
of independence (1954-1962) began with the French Sétif Massacre on May 8, 1954, the day after Việt
Nam’s victory over France at Điện Biên Phủ. However, the official starting date of the French War in
Algeria is November 1, 1954.

[17] Fidel Castro: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote 62, p.
202.

[18] Melba Hernandez (1921-), a revolutionary Cuban hero, served as Cuba’s ambassador to
Việt Nam and Cambodia.

[19] Che Guevara (1928-1967), an Argentine Marxist and revolutionary, played a prominent role
in the Cuban Revolution. He carried out revolutionary activities in other countries, was captured in
Bolivia, and executed.

[20] Nguyễn Văn Trỗi (1940-1964), a revolutionary activist, tried to assassinate US Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara during McNamara’s visit to Sài Gòn in May 1963. International journalists
covered Nguyễn Văn Trỗi’s public execution on October 15, 1964. Nguyễn Văn Trỗi spoke out in
defiance against the “Americans who have sinned” and shouted, “Long live Việt Nam!”

[21] Carlos Rey: All five members of this UTC team are deceased with the exception of Carlos
Rey, who visited Việt Nam and met Mme. Nguyễn Thị Bình in January 2013 on the occasion of the
fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Agreement.

[22] Salvador Allende (1908-1973), a medical doctor and president of Chile from 1970 to 1973,
was the first Marxist elected president of a Latin American country. The United States sponsored a
military coup led by General Pinochet, who killed or “disappeared” many of Allende’s supporters.

[23] Augusto Pinochet (1915-2006, a.k.a. Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte) led the US-
sponsored coup against President Salvador Allende. General Pinochet was dictator of Chile from 1973
to 1990.
 [24] This photograph introduces the photo section, “With International Friends,” at the back of
this book.

[25] Ten Americans who immolated themselves:

1. On November 2, 1965, Norman Morrison (age thirty-two), a Quaker, took his eleven-month-old
daughter and a can of gasoline to the Pentagon in northern Virginia. He handed his daughter to a
bystander and set himself afire. Three months before that, he had sent a letter to The Baltimore Sun,
saying: “Our American youth have no reason to respond to the so-called ‘patriotism.’”

2. One week after Morrison’s death, on November 9, 1965, Roger Allen LaPorte (age twenty-one),
an American member of the Christian Workers’ Organization, sat in meditation before the UN
Headquarters in New York City and burned himself with gasoline. Father Daniel Berrigan, one of the
first Americans to speak out against the war, said: “LaPorte died so others could live.”

3. Before Morrison and LaPorte, on May 16, 1965, Alice Herz (age eighty-two) immolated herself
to protest the war in Việt Nam, but her sacrifice received less attention because it happened on a back
street of Detroit, Michigan.

4. On April 10, 1966, Arthur Zinner, a student, started to immolate himself in front of the White
House in Washington, D.C., but the police rescued him. William Racolin, his roommate, said that Zinner
had once said, “This is an unjust war” and “The people of South Việt Nam should solve their problems
themselves without American intervention.”

5. On August 18, 1967, John Kopping (age thirty-three) immolated himself in Panorama Township
outside Los Angeles. The police found a nearby note saying he was protesting American policy in Việt
Nam.

6. On October 12, 1967, Hiroko Hayaski set herself afire in San Diego at an airbase from which
American troops left for Việt Nam. She died in the hospital one hour later. Her elder sister, Mrs. Kay,
said Hiroko Kayaski had acted in protest against the war in Việt Nam.

7. Three days later, on October 15, 1967, Florence Beaumont immolated herself. She died in the
hospital. Her husband, George Beaumont, said that she had acted in opposition to the American “dirty
war” in Việt Nam.

8. In late November 1967, the burnt body of an American youth was discovered in Tijuana near the
US-Mexican border. Identification papers showed he was James Thornton (age twenty-four) from
California. A pilot, James Thornton had received orders to leave for Việt Nam on December 6, 1967.
Instead, he immolated himself.
 9. Some days later, in early December 1967, Kenneth Zilya (age twenty) immolated himself in front
of the United Nations headquarters in New York City in protest against the American War in Việt Nam.

10. On May 10, 1970, George Winne, Jr., an American Navy captain’s son and a student at the
University of California, immolated himself. He was to receive his masters in history that June. Before
his death, George Winne, Jr. had written a letter to President Nixon, demanding an end to the war in
Việt Nam.

[26] Hồ Chí Minh, “Trả lời nhà báo Anh Phêlích Gơrin” (Answers for British Journalist Felix
Greene), Toàn Tập (Collected Works), vol. 14 (Hà Nội: Nxb. Chính Trị Quốc Gia [National Political
Publishers], 2011, 664-70.

[27] David Dellinger (1915-2004), a pacifist, was one of the Chicago Seven arrested during
demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention.

[28] Tom Hayden (1939-), a socio-political activist, took part in the anti-war movement and in the
struggle for human rights during the 1960s.

[29] Cora Weiss: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 34, p. 144.

[30] Carol Brightman has written about her visits to Việt Nam.

[31] Benjamin Spock (1903-1998) is famous for his Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care and
other writings with assistance from his wife, Jane Cheney Spock (1907-1989). Both were famous
American activists in support of Việt Nam.

[32] Rennie Davis (1941-) is a human-resources business consultant.

[33] Merle Ratner continues to be active on the issue of Agent Orange as co-chair of the Agent
Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign. She provided assistance to delegations from the Vietnam
Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) traveling to New York for VAVA’s legal case against
American chemical companies.

[34] Ngô Thanh Nhàn is one of about a hundred scholars world-wide who can read Nôm, the
ancient Vietnamese ideographic script used in early Vietnamese literature and historical and
administrative documents. Professor Nhàn has translated poetry written in Nôm and has created
computer programs to translate the script. He works with Việt Nam’s National Library on preservation
of ancient Nôm documents.
 [35] Wilfred Burchett (1911-1983) was the first journalist to cover the bombing of Hiroshima.
He visited both North Việt Nam and liberated areas of South Việt Nam during the American War and
wrote the sentient books in English about wartime life in both those regions.

[36] Blaga Nikolova Dimitrova (1922-2003) visited Việt Nam several times and adopted a
Vietnamese girl in 1967.

[37] Seymour Hersh (1937-) received a Pulitzer prize in 1970 for his coverage in 1969 of the Mỹ
Lai (Sơn Mỹ) massacre, which had occurred in 1968, and the cover-up of the massacre. On March 30,
2015, he published “The Scene of the Crime” in The New Yorker, where he quoted Mme. Bình: “‘I’ll be
honest with you,’ she said. ‘My Lai became important in America only after it was reported by an
American.’ Within weeks of the massacre, a spokesman for the North Vietnamese in Paris had publicly
described the events, but the story was assumed to be propaganda. ‘I remember it well, because the
antiwar movement in America grew because of it,’ Madame Binh added, speaking in French. ‘But in
Vietnam there was not only one My Lai—there were many.’”

[38] Don Luce was head of the International Voluntary Services Program in the Republic of Việt
Nam (“South Việt Nam”) during the American War but resigned in protest against US government use
of voluntary organizations to support its policies in the South. He then worked as a free-lance journalist
in Sài Gòn and is best known for exposing the Côn Đảo (Côn Sơn) Island “tiger cages,” where the US -
Sài Gòn regime kept political prisoners. Mme. Bình describes the cages later in this memoir.
 9.

Re-Unification of the Country

April 30, 1975 is memorable in our country’s history and, for me, a day I
can never forget.

For twenty years, our people in both the South and the North had earnestly
wished for re-unification of our Homeland. For twenty years, our country
was divided; for twenty years, families were separated; for twenty years,
wives and husbands waited for each other. For the first time, after twenty
years, some twenty-year-old adults finally saw their fathers’ faces.[1]

Some of my friends standing amidst this indescribable exuberance faced

equally indescribable sorrow. They’d been unable to find their father or
mother, or a bomb had killed their husband or wife and their children. For
them, joy lay buried beneath bombs and military mopping-up operations.

A few days before May 13, 1975, I traveled from Hà Nội to Sài Gòn with
comrades in the leadership. Even though I had lived in Sài Gòn and had been
an activist there, I could no longer recognize areas of the city. Our troops’
general offensive and the people’s uprising had liberated Sài Gòn, but in
many places it seemed as if everything were still intact. This was marvelous!
 During the Resistance War Against France, I had lived with my family at
the memorial to Elder Phan Châu Trinh, my maternal grandfather, near Đa
Kao Market in Ward 5, District 3. On returning in 1975, I was surprised to
find still standing the memorial to Grandfather Phan. The surrounding
neighborhoods where we had tacked up our propaganda posters and held our
demonstrations so many years before were still there. Yet everything was in
disorder, chaotic, and confused. Perhaps this was one of the negative after-
effects of the war. So many people had abandoned their homes in the rural
areas and fled to the city to avoid bombs and mortars as well as to earn a
living. They had crowded into Sài Gòn and into my former neighborhood.

In other areas, the Sài Gòn authorities had widened the streets, and the
buildings were far grander, with imposing villas, tall buildings, and elegant
shops displaying a surfeit of foreign goods. The American military had
dominated some areas of the city for twenty years, investing billions of
dollars. The most symbolic trace of the former Sài Gòn administration was
Independence Palace. The new administration immediately changed its name
to Unification Palace.

The Americans and the Sài Gòn administration had fled the city during the
recent turbulence, but by now, the streets were peaceful under our new
administration. The people were exuberant. Surely, some people associated
with the previous administration remained worried. However, their worries
abated when they saw that the Liberation Army soldiers were not “barbaric,”
as the local citizenry had been told.

The huge event on May 13 in front of Unification Palace was solemn and
monumental. On the long presidium sat the Provisional Revolutionary
Government’s most senior leaders—Nguyễn Hữu Thọ,[2] Huỳnh Tấn Phát,[3]
Trần Nam Trung,[4] and others—along with comrades from the leadership of
the Vietnamese Workers’ Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party). That
group included Uncle Tôn Đức Thắng,[5] Comrade Lê Duẩn,[6] Phạm Hùng,
[7] and others. For the first time, the people of Sài Gòn saw the Party and
State leaders whose names and work they had known for decades but only
through newspapers and radio.

PRG Council of Government President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ spoke, praising

the troops and the people who had fought so heroically. They had achieved a
glorious victory as well as independence, freedom, and re-unification for our
magnificent Homeland. A parade followed. Our foot soldiers carrying their
weapons marched by, and then we watched a display of the Liberation
Army’s military equipment. Everyone in Sài Gòn was in the streets during
those historic days in the middle of May 1975. We all understood that now
we could really live in peace. The South had achieved liberation, and we
had re-united our Homeland from the northern tip at Nam Quan to the
southern tip at Cà Mau.

I was indescribably buoyant during that ceremony, as were the millions of

others who had lived through the two fierce Resistance Wars. At times, I felt
as if I were dreaming. I was endlessly moved to meet old friends after
decades of separation, particularly the brothers and sisters with whom I had
been in prison at Chí Hòa. We had all aged markedly. Many comrades had
passed on; they would never be among us again. We had endless stories to
share about our activities in the Resistance, the different fronts where we had
served, and our families.

*
 * *

My most pressing task was to search for my younger brother, Hà, whom
the Sài Gòn authorities had imprisoned on Côn Đảo Island in 1968, when I
began participating in the Paris Conference. At that time, Hà was an activist
in Sài Gòn.

The gang of informers knew he was the younger brother of Nguyễn Thị
Bình. The Sài Gòn police arrested him. Hà endured every type of corporal
punishment during the fierce questioning before they exiled him to Côn Đảo.
For nearly seven years, he lived there in a “tiger cage,”[8] a far crueler cell
than those of the Middle Ages.

Perhaps my younger brother’s pain was not just that he was tortured from
the outset but, rather, a deeper, far sharper pain. His wife, Tư Sương, was
also arrested, because she was Hà’s wife and because Hà was the younger
brother of Mme. Bình and a grandson of Phan Châu Trinh. Hà’s wife had just
given birth. Their baby, who was not yet two months old, was also taken to
prison. Tư Sương was in prison for six years, including two years at Côn
Đảo.

Theirs was the pain of so many families during the Resistance. With
mothers and fathers both in prison, the children also became prisoners, or the
children were sent to relatives for a time here, for a time there.

I knew that on May 1, 1975 (the day after Sài Gòn’s liberation), the
Revolutionary Administration sent boats to fetch the brothers and sisters in
the Côn Đảo Prison. Hải, my fourth younger sibling, and I went from one
reception camp to another to another, searching for Hà. We witnessed
countless reunions between close family members—the uncontrollable
emotions, people laughing, crying, laughing, crying. Finally, we arrived at
Hùng Vương Reception Center and found our brother, Nguyễn Đông Hà,
whom we had not seen for twenty-one years. He was pale but not gaunt.
Although he had aged terribly, his eyes were bright; although he looked
exhausted, he still could smile. While my father was still alive, his eyes
would fill with tears whenever anyone mentioned my younger brother in
prison.

Hà and I hugged each other as if we would never let go. Hà’s wife and
children had also arrived. We left for the house of Hà’s wife, Tư Sương, who
had been released earlier. As a District 1 official, she had received an
apartment on Phạm Ngũ Lão Street. It had been so long since we had been
together, although we still did not have with us our three younger siblings,
who were in Hà Nội. Several months later, we had a chance to have
everyone together at the shrine for Elder Phan.

By this time, most of our younger siblings had married. Hải was nearly
forty years old when he married, and so he had children late. Loan and her
husband had both graduated from Qing Hua University in China; they had a
son and then later, a daughter. Hồ had married and had faced difficulties, but
by this point, his family situation was tranquil. Only Hào had yet to establish
a family. A soldier for seven years, he had hiked down the Hồ Chí Minh
Trail. After our mother’s early death, I had tried to step into her place and
help my siblings as they grew to adulthood. Now, there remained only Hào,
the youngest, of whom I was terribly fond. I can say that he probably bore the
greatest loss in our family. I had yet to complete my responsibility, for I still
needed to help him secure family happiness.

*
 * *

Although I was busy with my family, I needed to return quickly to

professional responsibilities, since I was still the PRG foreign minister.
Several brothers and sisters in the PRG ministry took over the Sài Gòn
regime’s foreign-ministry offices and began working there. Soon, we
transferred the PRG’s foreign ministry from Cam Lộ in Quảng Trị Province to
Sài Gòn. I assigned Comrade Hoàng Bích Sơn,[9] our deputy foreign
minister, and several other officials to take direct responsibility in Sài Gòn. I
continued to work in Hà Nội until complete re-unification in July 1976.

The major political issue was when to unite the State administration.
Some held that complete re-unification required no discussion since the
people in both sectors longed for a unified country and since independence
and re-unification had been the basic goals of our people’s continuous
struggle for decades. However, others thought we should preserve two
administrations for a time. These colleagues pointed to the two different
political systems that had been in place. The Democratic Republic of Việt
Nam (DRVN) was already established as a socialist state, whereas the
Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) of South Việt Nam was still a
nationalist, independent, and neutral state. The NLF-PRG platform was
carefully neither pro-socialist nor pro-capitalist. These colleagues urged that
we keep the South as it was in order to secure outside cooperation and
assistance from socialist, nationalist, and capitalist nations and their
organizations.

In the end, we unanimously accepted the proposal to implement complete

re-unification of the country and its ministries, departments, and
organizations as soon as possible. I raised my hand in agreement.
 Now, looking back after many years, I know that this guideline was
correct. Prolonging the division and its differences might have given the
United States the advantages needed in order to meddle; the situation might
have become more complicated and difficult. We can look at other divided
countries and see that our decision was appropriate. Usually, when we re-
examine an issue, we might say this side or that side should have been more
flexible. However, this basic decision was correct and far-sighted.

On June 17, 1975, a large, historic meeting took place at the Unification
Palace between the Fatherland Front of Việt Nam (the North) and the
National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam (the South).[10] The leaders of
both fronts attended. I was also there. The discussion was heated but also
serious and filled with a sense of responsibility. President Nguyễn Hữu Thọ
presented the NLF’s contributions during fifteen years opposing the United
States. Since the Front had now completed its historic responsibilities, he
proposed establishing a unified Front for the entire country to facilitate early
re-unification in all fields. This Consultative Conference decided to establish
a nationwide front—the Vietnamese Fatherland Front. The newly forming,
interim Fatherland Front then proposed nationwide National Assembly
elections for 1976.

In April 1976, candidates for the VIth National Assembly (counting from
the first National Assembly election in 1946) went to the localities to
mobilize the electorate. I was introduced to serve as a candidate for Sài
Gòn’s Districts 4, 7, and 8 as well as Côn Đảo Island (which at that time
belonged to Sài Gòn City). Comrades Phạm Hùng, Trần Văn Trà,[11] Nguyễn
Hữu Thọ, and others were on the same list of candidates.
 This was the first time in many years that I mingled with the people of Sài
Gòn. The voters came out in large numbers to see the faces of those in the
PRG whose names they had been hearing for a long time. Older Brother Trà
and I went to Côn Đảo. The population there was thinly scattered. We toured
the areas where the enemy had held our revolutionary warriors, from the
“cattle barn”[12] of French colonialism to the “tiger cages” of US
imperialism. The local authorities had cleaned up the area. Nevertheless, we
stared at the instruments used to intimidate and torture the brothers and
sisters whom the Sài Gòn authorities had held as political prisoners. I felt
keenly aware that I’d been the beneficiary of countless lives sacrificed by the
comrades who had gone before me.

The election results were announced in June 1976. I was one of the
candidates to receive the most votes. I served as a representative in the
National Assembly from the VIth session (1976-1981) continuously through
the Xth session (1997-2002).

* *

In August 1976, I returned to Hà Nội. Comrade Lê Văn Lương,[13] then a

Politburo member and head of the Party’s Central-Level Organizing
Committee, came to see me. He suggested I accept the position of minister of
education in the new government. He said this responsibility was very
important in this next stage of building the country. The comrades had noticed
in my curriculum vitae that I had been a teacher.

I was completely surprised. I had gathered some experience during more

than fourteen years working in foreign affairs. It seemed to me that continuing
in foreign affairs would better use my capabilities. Yet faced with Comrade
Lê Văn Lương’s encouragement, I felt I should accept the Party’s assignment.

After re-unification, one issue during 1977 and 1978 left me constantly
uneasy. The Party promulgated Directive Z.30 to transform the capitalist
industries and commerce in the former South to socialism. One of my
husband’s younger sisters and her family had opened a store selling Western
medicine in Chợ Lớn. Appearance of their names on the list for
transformation paralyzed them. All their pharmaceutical goods were
confiscated, and their store was sealed. I went to visit. Husband and wife
were terribly worried. I tried to explain the policy, but at the bottom of my
heart, I was very uneasy. I couldn’t understand: What good could come of
this? Surely, my family could not continue to run their drug store. I never saw
them again. Later, I learned that this guideline was re-examined, but I
wondered: Had the leaders drawn from deep experience? Had they realized
the depth of the negative results?

I continued my PRG diplomatic activities from 1975 until September

1976, when I moved to the Ministry of Education.

In July 1975, the Non-Aligned-Movement (NAM) foreign ministers met in

Lima, Peru, the first Latin American country I visited after Cuba. The
president of Peru gave our PRG delegation a warm welcome and
congratulated us on the Vietnamese people’s great victory. He presented me
with a precious gift, a bracelet made from a strand of gold. However, during
the conference, there was a “peaceful” coup in Peru and a new president. We
were worrying about the new administration’s attitude when the Peruvian
foreign minister passed along the new president’s message: “Friends, be at
ease. Although Peru has undergone an internal change, we still support and
esteem the Vietnamese people.”

A major agenda item for the NAM foreign ministers’ meeting was
discussion of new members to be admitted. Among the candidates were the
Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN, “North Việt Nam), North Korea,
South Korea, and the Philippines. At this time, the DRVN had not
participated in the Non-Aligned Movement, although the PRG was an official
member. Nguyễn Cơ Thạch[14] led the DRVN delegation. Of course, the
DRVN met no difficulty, since our two delegations each encouraged the other
countries to accept the DRVN.

The PRG’s prestige was high from the Vietnamese victory. Other nations
facing thorny problems often came to ask for our suggestions. During this
particular meeting, the most difficult issue was South Korea’s possible
admission into NAM. Of course, the PRG would support North Korea and
oppose South Korea. South Korea had supported US policies during the war,
even to the extent of sending soldiers to occupy South Việt Nam. Those
troops had perpetrated many atrocities against our people. Thus, our
delegation said, we could not call South Korea a “non-aligned nation.”

Some NAM members supported the Philippines’ admission, but other

delegations refused their support after we informed everyone that US
airplanes had left airbases in the Philippines to bomb Việt Nam. One DRVN
delegation member questioned whether we should think of the future and
support the Philippines. Yet how could we forget the recent past, when the
tears of our compatriots—the mothers of sons sacrificed in the war—had not
dried?
 Several months later, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch and I went with several other
comrades to Mexico, Venezuela, and other countries to research the
possibilities of exploiting Việt Nam’s natural reserves of oil. After
liberation, our first worry had been securing sufficient rice for our people;
[15] our second concern was petrol. The cooperation between Việt Nam and
the Soviet Union on development of Vietnamese oil reserves began during
this period. However, first we had to borrow oil for economic and military
activities, as well as for our people’s daily life.

In October 1975, three of us—Comrade Trúc from the Office of the

Government, an interpreter, and I—visited Algeria, Libya, and Iraq “to
borrow oil.” Even though these friendly countries supported Việt Nam,
addressing economic matters was not easy. Nevertheless, we were able to
borrow oil for immediate use with preferential interest rates.

The visit to Iraq left me with deep impressions. At that time, Saddam
Hussein,[16] whom many of the Iraqi people regarded as a hero, had just
become vice president of Iraq. Hearing Việt Nam’s urgent request, he
answered immediately, saying, “We will give Việt Nam four hundred
thousand tons of oil and lend 1.5 million tons with a preferred interest rate.”
I heard this, but I could not believe my ears; I asked the interpreter whether
he was sure this was true. We were so touched by this gesture from our Iraqi
friends. Later, Iraq suffered under the embargo and had to exchange oil for
food. Nevertheless, our friends continued to sign commercial contracts
favorable to us during the years when we had many economic difficulties.

In 2002, I went back to Iraq to address our debt of more than twenty years,
which we still had not completely repaid. According to suggestions from our
government, we proposed transferring the debt into investment in an
economic project in Việt Nam. When I met Saddam Hussein to propose this
idea, he laughed and said, “You Vietnamese friends needn’t worry. I know
you face difficulties. We will view this debt as paid.” Once again, I was so
touched, for I knew Iraq was suffering from an American embargo and
experiencing its own difficulties on every front.

We all know how the situation in Iraq has changed. US President George
Bush mobilized a war against Iraq by accusing Saddam Hussein of a
relationship with the Al-Qaeda terrorist forces and the production of
weapons of mass destruction. Later the world learned that these accusations
were bold lies invented to implement a scheme for US profit. Iraqi history
will decide whether Saddam Hussein made mistakes domestically,
internationally, or against his own people.

Nevertheless, I think we Vietnamese should be grateful for his much-

needed assistance throughout the early years when our country was
recovering from war.

During the War Against the United States in Việt Nam, I had many
opportunities to travel to the Middle East. This region is wealthy because
large oil reserves lie beneath its dry sands. Yet perhaps these many seams of
“black gold” keep the people from having tranquil lives. I harbor deep
feelings about the fate of the Palestinian people and their struggle for an
independent Palestinian State. When will they achieve victory? Palestinians
must still live like “refugees” from their own ancestral homes!

Once when I was visiting Iraq, our interpreter was an Iraqi married to a
Palestinian, who had sacrificed himself in the independence struggle. Their
twenty-year-old daughter, who was strong and beautiful, had just finished
university in Beirut, Lebanon. She said, “I don’t know what my future will
be. Like most of my friends, I will follow the call of our leader, Arafat!”[17]
Her soft, calm words moved me deeply. So many Palestinian youth have
fallen and will fall during the unequal struggle so they can have their own
country, their own Homeland!

After the re-unification of Việt Nam, I left the diplomatic service, where I
had been active for many years, and moved to education.

This was a huge step for me. Now, looking back, I can see that my growth
as a public servant continued. The lessons I had accumulated in my
diplomatic service were useful for my next assignment.

[1] …saw their fathers’ faces: After the 1954 Geneva Agreement, the southerners who had
been active in fighting the French genuinely expected that elections would re-unite their country in 1956.
Thus, in 1954, many young men who had fought on the Việt Minh side tied down their sweet-hearts by
marrying before they regrouped to the North. These couples were together sometimes for only a few
days, a week, or perhaps a month. The children conceived in that short time before regrouping first saw
their fathers’ faces twenty years later, if the fathers survived.

[2] Nguyễn Hữu Thọ: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,” footnote
25, p. 84.

[3] Huỳnh Tấn Phát: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,” footnote
29, p. 85.

[4] Trần Nam Trung: See Chapter 7, “Total Victory,” footnote 15, p. 241.

[5] Tôn Đức Thắng (1888-1980, a.k.a. Hai [Second] Thắng, Thoại Sơn, and Bác [Uncle] Tôn)
came from what is now An Giang Province in the Mekong Delta of the Southern Region. He studied
ship-building in Sài Gòn, was involved in labor issues in 1912, and went to France as a laborer in 1913.
He joined the League of Revolutionary Youth in Canton in 1927, the same year Hồ Chí Minh (using the
alias Lý Thụy) secretly established that organization. Tôn Đức Thắng joined the Party in 1930, while he
was a prisoner on Côn Đảo Island. Released with the August 1945 Revolution, he became Party
secretary for the Southern Region. He was vice president of Việt Nam from 1960 until President Hồ’s
death in 1969. Tôn Đức Thắng served as president from 1969 to 1976.

[6] Lê Duẩn: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,” footnote 43, p. 98.

[7] Phạm Hùng: See Chapter 4, “Forged during the Resistance Against France,” footnote 45, p.
98.

[8] “Tiger cages:” France had secured ownership of the Côn Đảo (Côn Sơn) archipelago in
1783 with the Treaty of Versailles but did not take possession until 1861. The next year, the French
began turning the main island into a prison. They started Prison I in 1862 and finished it in 1896, built
Prison II next to Prison I in 1916, and Prison III about a kilometer away in 1928, with Auxiliary Prison
III built in 1941. They built the first “tiger cages” in 1940. These 120 cells were hidden behind a stone
wall. The two rows of cells had iron bars overhead and a walkway for guards, who threw lime down on
the prisoners. Four or five people lived in each cell, which was so cramped the prisoners could not all lie
down at once.

In December 1970, American journalist Don Luce secured a sketch-map drawn by a former
prisoner, Cao Nguyên Lợi, who had pin-pointed the door leading to the tiger cages. Using Lợi’s map,
Don led a delegation of aides from the US Congress onto the walkway over the cages. At that time, the
prison (including the tiger cages) was under the supervision of American officers. The delegation’s
photographs in Life, then the most popular US weekly magazine, shocked the world. Major newspapers
covered the story. Activists protesting US policy imprisoned themselves in model tiger cages in front of
the US capital. The tiger cages on Côn Đảo were closed.

Or so the activists thought.

Despite the protests, within months, in 1971, US officers supervised the building of two new camps
of tiger cages, with 384 cages total. These cages were so secret that, today, very few people—both
Vietnamese and Americans and other nationalities who were activists at that time—know of their
existence. The American cages are open to the public, but tourists visiting Côn Đảo usually “miss” them
because the two camps were intentionally hidden outside of town and down a dead-end road. The new
tiger cages were even more cramped than the French model. US advisors stopped building a third camp
of tiger cages after the signing of the Paris Agreement. However, the other two US-built camps of tiger
cages remained full of prisoners until May 1, 1975.

[9] Hoàng Bích Sơn: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 15, p. 125.
 [10] The National Liberation Front of South Việt Nam had continued to function as a
coordinating body for mass organizations after formation of the Provisional Revolutionary Government
on June 6, 1969.

[11] Trần Văn Trà: See Chapter 7, “Total Victory,” footnote 9, p. 236.

[12] The “cattle barn” on Côn Đảo was indeed a cattle barn made of rocks split by prisoners.
The barn had a pipe, which carried manure down to a huge vat in a special building also built of split
rocks. Prisoners were thrown into the vat; they drowned in the manure.

[13] Lê Văn Lương (1912-1995) from Bắc Ninh Province in the Northern Region was a member
of the Politburo and party secretary for Hà Nội from 1976 to 1986.

[14] Nguyễn Cơ Thạch (1921-1998, given name: Phạm Văn Cương) came from Nam Định
Province in the Red River Delta of the Northern Region. He took part in revolutionary youth
organizations, was arrested during the French crack-down at the end of the French Popular Front, and
was in prison from 1940 to the August 1945 Revolution. He joined the Party while in Sơn La Prison, one
of the five major French centers for political detainees. During the French War, he served with Party
offices in the military and then, in 1954, moved over to foreign affairs. He was special assistant to Lê
Đức Thọ in the final year of the Paris Conference. Nguyễn Cơ Thạch was foreign minister from 1980
to 1991 and established the preliminary relationships that facilitated normalized relations between Việt
Nam and the United States.

[15] Rice supplies for our people: Before the American War, Việt Nam’s Southern Region
exported rice. However, by the end of the war, the United States was flying daily shipments of rice from
Louisiana into Sài Gòn. All those shipments stopped at the end of April 1975.

[16] Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) was president of Iraq from 1979 to 2003.

[17] Yassar Arafat: See Chapter 7, “Total Victory,” footnote 23, p. 252.
 10.

A United Front Opposing the United States and

the Sài Gòn Administration

After April 30, 1975, I was again able to meet close friends I had not seen
in more than twenty years. This was a great joy. I also met once more many
people whom I had known in different situations. Now, we were each far
older, and each had somewhat different views. Together, we reviewed the
experiences that had led us to follow different routes during those difficult
times under French colonialism and American imperialism.

We asked each other about our lives, sharing our innermost emotions and
private hopes. I heard many simple, heartfelt words expressing such deep
feelings, but also many secret, opposing, and worrisome thoughts. Many
times, I have returned to Hồ Chí Minh City on a work assignment and in
particular for anniversaries of the liberation of the South on April 30. I have
taken the time when there to share stories with these brothers and sisters,
along with those whom I had known by name only but had not met.

I had known lawyer Trần Ngọc Liễng[1] when we were activists with
lawyer Nguyễn Hữu Thọ. Now, he was living in a monastery, as he said, for
“peace of mind.” Others, such as Professor Lý Chánh Trung[2] and Priests
Huỳnh Công Minh[3] and Phan Khắc Từ,[4] had been representatives in the
Sài Gòn National Assembly several years before. Journalists Lý Quý Chung,
[5] Hồ Ngọc Nhuận,[6] and Ngô Công Đức[7] had been members of the
opposition in the Sài Gòn National Assembly’s lower house.

These days, when the Hồ Chí Minh City leaders speak at post-war
celebrations, they emphasize our people’s glorious victory in returning
independence and unification to our Homeland. They praise the important
contributions of the army and political leadership in the struggle to liberate
the country in general and Sài Gòn in particular. I have often suggested that
when they speak of the political forces in the South, they should also talk
about the Third Force and its role in national reconciliation and concord.
However, these comrades remain hesitant to engage this issue. I think this
situation is not yet as it should be. As an “insider,” I’ve had the opportunity
to know and understand some truths, which perhaps have been forgotten. I
feel it is my responsibility to speak out about those points.

It is terribly difficult to gain complete clarity on all matters that occurred

during our people’s prolonged struggle. We had many secret activities, in
many different places, at many different times, with many different lines of
communication. We who held positions of responsibility and who are still
living must make the truth clear. We must be sure no one is forgotten! This is
a fundamental truth for me because I believe each of us has only one life.
Thus, we should never allow a person’s life to languish in misunderstanding.

* *

The National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Việt Nam came into being
in 1960. It lifted aloft the flag of solidarity, gathering many strata of people
together in order to end the war of aggression, liberate the South, and re-unite
our Homeland.

The Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peace Forces was established

after Tết 1968, the Year of the Monkey. If the National Liberation Front of
South Việt Nam is considered the First Force, then the Alliance would be the
Second Force. Following the Alliance, other political and social
organizations appeared in Sài Gòn, including the Women’s Movement for the
Right to Life[8] and the Movement to Protect the National Culture. The
Buddhists and Catholics also organized many groups and actions to demand
peace and national reconciliation. These groups became the Third Force.[9]

Before the signing of the Paris Agreement in January 1973, Comrade Lê

Duẩn (the Party general secretary) sent a letter to the Party Central Level for
the South. He wrote, “You must hasten to pull together the various groups
advocating peace, independence, democracy, and national reconciliation to
form a Third Force in order to split and isolate the oppositional forces even
more and to direct a spearhead into Thiệu[10] and the most warlike factions
close to the United States. … You need to research how to expand the
National Liberation Front and the National Alliance of Democratic and
Peace Forces as appropriate to the new situation. At the same time, you need
to organize well and unite your activities with the Third Force to oppose the
US-Thiệu forces.”

As we all know, in 1973, after four years of negotiations, the balance of

forces between us and the enemy compelled the Americans to end their war
in the South, withdraw their soldiers and their satellite state from the South,
and end their air war against the North. During the negotiations, we relaxed
our position on the political administration in the South. We no longer
demanded that the Paris Agreement require Thiệu’s resignation and the
removal of the Sài Gòn administration. Instead, we required only a National
Council for Reconciliation and Concord with three sectors (the PRG, the Sài
Gòn administration, and the Third Force). This Council would implement the
Paris Agreement’s points leading toward a nationwide election.

After the four parties signed the Paris Agreement, the Sài Gòn
administration refused to implement its provisions. Rather, it sent troops to
occupy our liberated areas, froze out the Reconciliation Conference, and
continued fighting to its final bullet and its last grain of rice.

Many political organizations, some associated with the Third Force,

demanded that President Thiệu apply the Paris Agreement and implement
national reconciliation and concord. Many also demanded his resignation.

Mme. Ngô Bá Thành,[11] an intellectual famous for her courageous spirit

in the struggle, was a leader of the Women’s Movement for the Right to Life.
She officially labeled herself as Third Force. The Thiệu administration
arrested Ngô Bá Thành, but then public pressure forced the Sài Gòn regime
to release her. On October 8, 1973, Ngô Bá Thành stood before intellectuals,
many representatives of the Sài Gòn National Assembly, Sài Gòn
administration officials, and foreign journalists. She announced, “We are
indeed the Third Political Force.”

Lawyer Trần Ngọc Liễng (whom I knew maintained close ties to the NLF)
had been on the same ticket with General Dương Văn Minh[12] in the
presidential elections and was a member of Dương Văn Minh’s group.
Dương Văn Minh returned to Sài Gòn from Thailand after the Paris
Conference. Mr. Trần Ngọc Liễng established the People’s Organization
Demanding Implementation of the Paris Agreement. He announced, “We are
part of the Third Force.”

At that time, young intellectuals serving on Dương Văn Minh’s staff

included Professor Lý Chánh Trung, Priest Nguyễn Ngọc Lan,[13] and
representatives from the Sài Gòn National Assembly, such as Hồ Ngọc
Nhuận, Dương Văn Ba,[14] Ngô Công Đức, Lý Quý Chung, and others. All
had direct or indirect relations with the NLF in Sài Gòn or Paris. Their clear
position “in the middle” stood for reconciliation between the first and second
parties [the NLF-PRG and the Thiệu administration]. These men were
patriots, but they were not communists.

During the Paris negotiations, we—particularly Sister Nguyễn Thị

Chơn[15] and Brother Phan Nhẫn[16]—educated and mobilized those who
supported our just position. This work included organizing with overseas
Vietnamese and Vietnamese who came from the South on visits to Paris. We
increased our base of action inside the country by encouraging intellectuals
to return home, among them, Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh,[17] Trần Hà Anh,[18] Thái
Thị Ngọc Dư,[19] Bùi Trân Phượng,[20] and others. Many brothers and
sisters who returned home were zealous activists in the Third Force. Later,
they held important positions to help rebuild the country.

After the Paris Agreement took effect, Mr. Nguyễn Hữu Châu[21] (former
minister of interior from the Ngô Đình Diệm administration), Mr. Âu Trường
Thanh[22] (former minister of economy in the Thiệu - Kỳ - Khiêm
administration) both held press conferences outside the country on behalf of
the Third Force. They requested the two sides in South Việt Nam seriously
implement the Paris Agreement and quickly establish the National Council
for Reconciliation and Concord with its three sectors.
 On January 16, 1975, the Third Force in Paris organized “A Day for the
South,” demanding the United States oust Thiệu.

By April 26, 1975, our army was pressuring Sài Gòn. Comrade Đinh Bá
Thi was in Paris, serving as deputy head of the PRG representative
delegation at the Consultative Conference between the two sides in South
Việt Nam. He announced the PRG’s two position points:

The United States must strictly implement Provisions 1, 4, and 9 of the

Paris Agreement.

The Sài Gòn administration must be abolished; its neo-colonial and war
apparatus must be eliminated; and its system of domination over the people
of South Việt Nam must end.

At that time, French and international public opinion perceived this as a

call for the Sài Gòn administration’s surrender.

We invited Mr. Ngô Công Đức and Priest Nguyễn Đình Thi[23] to our
office in Paris to inform them of this announcement. On April 27, 1975, Mr.
Ngô Công Đức flew from Paris to Thailand (because Sài Gòn’s Tân Sơn
Nhất Airport was already closed to incoming flights) to inform Mr. Dương
Văn Minh.

* *

I want to make clearer the role of Mr. Dương Văn Minh and his group
with regard to their position on implementing national reconciliation.
 Why, on the very day our troops expanded our historic Hồ Chí Minh
Campaign, did Dương Văn Minh and his group switch from the Third Force
and stand up to replace the Thiệu administration and establish a cabinet with
Dương Văn Minh as president?

We must remember October 8, 1974, when the PRG promulgated its

position regarding the situation in South Việt Nam. We demanded that “the
United States terminate its military involvement and intervention in the
internal affairs of South Việt Nam; overthrow Nguyễn Văn Thiệu; and
establish in Sài Gòn an administration agreeing to peace and national
reconciliation as well to implementation of the Paris Agreement.” According
to many documents we now have, the events occurred as follows:

After the signing of the Paris Agreement on January 27, 1973, the Sài Gòn
administration grew weaker on every front, making a coup possible.
Members of Dương Văn Minh’s staff decided that they must overthrow Thiệu,
establish a peace cabinet, and negotiate with the PRG to end the war. They
reasoned that no other group could do this. Further, they were quite sure the
PRG would accept negotiations because Dương Văn Minh’s group had had
direct and indirect relations with the PRG and had joined the struggle against
the US-Thiệu regime in the capital.

Nevertheless, the members of Dương Văn Minh’s group had to resolve

their internal, opposing ideas, a process that continued until the beginning of
April 1975. Almost a month before the collapse of the Thiệu administration,
this group announced its decision to replace Thiệu in order to end the war,
even if it had to “hold aloft the white flag of surrender.”

As for Dương Văn Minh’s role, a document from the Secretariat of the
Party’s Central Level provides this evaluation: “Although Mr. Dương Văn
Minh had not yet implemented all our requests, his announcement [on April
30] and the order promulgated by Nguyễn Hữu Hạnh[24] contained decisive
content. It lessened the Sài Gòn army’s will to resist in the final hours of the
war, thereby creating the conditions for our armed forces to accelerate the
liberation of Sài Gòn...”

I think this evaluation is satisfactory. However, if we search more deeply

into Mr. Dương Văn Minh’s background and listen to the accounts of the
progressive people around him, then we can see that Dương Văn Minh’s
actions reflect his knowledge of the world and show that he was a patriot.

On the morning of April 30, 1975, French General Vanuxem[25] asked to

see President Dương Văn Minh.

Mr. Vũ Văn Mẫu[26] was present at this meeting with General Vanuxem.
In 1963, when he was foreign minister, Mr. Vũ Văn Mẫu had shaved his head
in opposition to the Ngô Đình Diệm administration’s oppression of the
Buddhists. In early 1975, Mr. Mẫu (then serving as president of the Ấn Quang
Buddhists’ Movement for Reconciliation and Concord) met in Paris with
Phạm Văn Ba, director of our PRG Information Bureau. At the end of April
1975, Mr. Mẫu was asked by President Minh to serve as prime minister.

Mr. Vũ Văn Mẫu was amazed to hear General Vanuxem’s proposal.

General Vanuxem said to President Minh, “The situation is not at all

without hope. I have just finished making arrangements in Paris. You should
make a call for outside intervention from another country. That country will
intervene immediately! I can arrange to be the liaison. I would liaise from
here.”
 Dương Văn Minh said, “I have no more time. I don’t have even a single
day.”

After General Vanuxem left, those who had attended the meeting with
Dương Văn Minh returned to their seats. Mr. Dương Văn Minh said, “We
sold our nation to France and then to the United States. Now he wants to
‘help’ us to sell our country a third time!”

In addition to selecting Vũ Văn Mẫu to serve as prime minister, Dương

Văn Minh made other important appointments:

Mr. Nguyễn Hữu Hạnh, a former ARVN general, had been an efficient
core agent (that is, a spy) for our secret Central-Level Agitation Committee
for the South. Mr. Dương Văn Minh appointed him chief-of-staff of the ARVN
General Headquarters.

As our army’s lightning offensive against Sài Gòn began, Mr. Minh
appointed lawyer Triệu Quốc Mạnh,[27] an underground member of the
Communist Party, as the city’s police chief with responsibility, among other
tasks, to free political prisoners immediately and dismantle the old
administration’s police forces.

Lastly, according to Huỳnh Tấn Mẫn,[28] former president of the Sài Gòn
Students’ Association, Mr. Dương Văn Minh had housed Mẫn, thereby
helping him avoid the secret police. Before that, from 1972, General Dương
Văn Minh had stood up in support of the Youth-and-Student Movements
opposing the Thiệu administration. Dương Văn Minh referred to himself in an
intimate, friendly way as “Qua” – “Cross-Over” in his message to the youth:
“Qua” knows the direction you youth are taking. “Qua” supports you. The
truth is that “Qua” supports establishment of the Third Force, but “Qua”
wishes to remain on the outside and change the existing administration in
order to speak about reconciliation and concord with the National Liberation
Front.

The actual events in Sài Gòn at the end of April 1975 prove that Mr.
Dương Văn Minh did indeed stand up, just as he had planned.

* *

My colleagues and I who were active in the National Liberation Front of

South Việt Nam spent many years concentrating on the issue of national
reconciliation and concord.

Over time, imperialists and colonialists invading other countries have

employed a policy of “divide and conquer.”

The US administrations plotted to divide the land of eternal Việt Nam in

order to create the sector of “nationalist South Việt Nam” in opposition to
“communist North Việt Nam.” Then they could implement their insidious
policy of “Vietnamizing the war” by using Vietnamese to kill Vietnamese.
This created division between and hatred among Vietnamese.

Our people can never forget this.

During the American War, including the period after the Paris Agreements,
our Party countered the enemy’s “divide-and-rule” policy by using the
opposite strategy. We drew together all our patriotic, progressive forces and
individuals regardless of who they were in order to combine their strengths
into a national people’s front for widespread struggle. Our policy of
reconciliation and concord was a large, expansive policy with the spirit of
the Party’s strategy and our people’s Great unity.[29] This lesson has value
today for the struggle of our people as we “protect” and develop our country.

By 1976, the NLF and the organizations associated with the armed
struggle in the South had completed their historic responsibilities. The
Vietnamese Fatherland Front and the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam came
into being. A number of NLF staff went to work in State offices. Later, the Hồ
Chí Minh City Fatherland Front and the Central-Level Fatherland Front
sought participation by people from the political forces previously active in
the South and allied with the Sài Gòn administration. These included Nguyễn
Văn Huyền[30] (who refused because of health reasons) and Nguyễn Hữu
Có[31] (a minister of defense for the former Sài Gòn administration).

During recent years, the Vietnamese State has had many guidelines and
policies. We need even more supportive guidelines to help us address the
many deep wounds in our land and among our people. We must fully
implement a policy of reconciliation and concord for our people, not the
least because we Vietnamese arise from one source and from one homeland,
but also because of an even greater meaning—we Vietnamese have one
destiny and one future.

Every Vietnamese wants to have a Việt Nam, which is developed, strong,

and equal to any other country, a Việt Nam worthy of its awe-inspiring
history of several thousand years. To implement such a substantial wish, we
must mobilize all Vietnamese everywhere.

Musician Trịnh Công Sơn[32] wrote a song, “A Mother’s Legacy,” with

lines that rend my heart:
 A thousand years of Chinese domination

A hundred years of Western occupation

Twenty years of civil war.

Our people have borne so much pain in order to achieve the peace,
independence, re-unification, and complete territorial integrity that we have
today. We will never allow that painful past to reoccur.

[1] Trần Ngọc Liễng (1923-2011) was the founder of the National Progressive Forces in June
1969 together with Phan Văn Mỹ, and he was also the founder of the Popular Organization for the
Implementation of the Paris Agreement (February 1974). He was subsequently a member of the
Executive Committee of the Fatherland Front and vice president of the Hồ Chí Minh City Fatherland
Front.

[2] Lý Chánh Trung (1929-) graduated from Louvain University (Belgium) with a major in
psychology and political science. He headed the Public Higher Education Department under the Sài Gòn
regime and was later a member of the Central Committee of the Việt Nam Fatherland Front. He is the
author of many scholarly books.

[3] Bishop Jean Baptiste Huỳnh Công Minh of the Hồ Chí Minh diocese attended the May
2014 rally protesting China’s deployment of a massive deep sea oil rig off the Việt Nam’s coast. The
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Vietnam had condemned the Chinese action and had called upon
Catholics to take actions to defend Vietnamese sovereignty.

[4] Phan Khắc Từ (1941-), was born in Hải Phòng in the Northern Region. He was vice president
of the Việt Nam Committee for Christian Solidarity and is currently vice president and general secretary
of the Catholic Solidarity Committee. Phan Khắc Từ was a representative of the National Assembly,
Sessions VIII (1987-1992), IX (1992-1997), and X (1997-2002). He is currently a representative for
Session XIII (2011-2016). Phan Khắc Từ is pastor of Vườn Xoài Church in Hồ Chí Minh City.

[5] Lý Quý Chung (1940-2005, a.k.a. Chánh Trinh) was editor of Điện Tín (News Telegraph)
and a member of the opposition in the House of Representatives of the Republic of Việt Nam (“South
Việt Nam”).

[6] Hồ Ngọc Nhuận (1935-), former Editor of Tin Sáng (Morning News), was a member of the
opposition in the House of Representatives of the Republic of Việt Nam and, later, a member of the Việt
Nam Fatherland Front’s Central Committee. He is currently vice president of the Hồ Chí Minh City
Fatherland Front.

[7] Ngô Công Đức (1936-2007), a businessman and newspaper editor, was a member of the
opposition in the House of Representatives of the Republic of Việt Nam from 1967 to 1971.

[8] Women’s Movement for the Right to Life was a peace-action political group active with
the Third Force during the war. This movement had no thematic connection to “right to life” as the
phrase is used now in the United States.

[9] “Third Force” is ambiguous because the term is also used to refer to those in the South who
were neither allied with the US - Sài Gòn regime nor with the NLF-PRG.

[10] Nguyễn Văn Thiệu (1923-2001), who came from Ninh Thuận Province in the Southern
Region, was an army general and president of the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam,” allied with
the United States) from 1967 to 1975. He left Sài Gòn in April 1975, as the former South was collapsing,
and lived in the United States until his death.

[11] Ngô Bá Thành (1921-2004) used her husband’s name; her given name was Phạm Thị Thanh
Vân. She was born in Hà Tĩnh Province in the Central Region north of the DMZ, which later divided
Việt Nam. A graduate of Columbia Law School in New York, she was an activist in the Third Force
and, after the American War, a member of the National Assembly, Sessions VI (1976-1981), VII (1981-
1987), VIII (1987-1992), and X (1997-2002). She also served as vice president of the Việt Nam
Lawyers’ Association and as vice president of the Việt Nam Women’s Union.

[12] Dương Văn Minh (1916-2001, a.k.a. “Big Minh”) came from Mỹ Thọ (now Tiền Giang), a
province in the Mekong Delta of the Southern Region. A general of the army of the Republic of Việt
Nam (ARVN), he served as president for three days (April 28-30, 1975), thereby facilitating a peaceful
transition at the end of the war. He emigrated to France in 1983 and passed away in California, USA.

[13] Nguyễn Ngọc Lan (1930-2007) was a professor of literature at the Huế Institute and a
professor at the Redemptorists Institute. He also served as editor of Đối Diện, (Opposition), Đứng Dậy
(Rise Up), and Đồng Dao (Children’s Song). He was a prolific writer under many pen names and
passed away in Hồ Chí Minh City.
 [14] Dương Văn Ba (1942-) came from Bạc Liêu in the Southern Region. He studied philosophy
and was a journalist as well as a representative in the National Assembly of the Republic of Việt Nam
(“South Việt Nam) from 1967 to 1971. He served as minister of information in Dương Văn Minh’s
government at the end of April 1975.

[15] Nguyễn Thị Chơn: See Chapter 5, “A Special Front Opposing the United States to Save the
Nation,” footnote 27, p. 138.

[16] Phan Nhẫn: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote 83, p.
226.

[17] Tôn Nữ Thị Ninh (1947-) graduated from the University of Paris (France) and earned her
masters at Cambridge University (England). She served as Việt Nam’s ambassador to the European
Union and, upon returning to Việt Nam, served simultaneously as a representative in the National
Assembly, Session XI (2002-2007) and as deputy head of the National Assembly’s Committee on
External Affairs.

[18] Trần Hà Anh (1938-), a scientist, was a representative at the National Assembly, Session X
(1997-2002). He has been active in developing research and scholarly relationships between overseas
Vietnamese and Vietnamese in Việt Nam.

[19] Thái Thị Ngọc Dư studied geography in France and teaches now at Hoa Sen University in
Hồ Chí Minh City, where she is the head of the Center for Research on Gender and Society. Dr. Thái
Thị Ngọc Dư was a member of the Vietnamese delegation to the NGO Forum on Women in Beijing in
1995.

[20] Bùi Trân Phượng (1950-) graduated from Marie Curie School in Sài Gòn and was studying
in France during the Paris Conference. She taught at Marie Curie School from 1972 until 1975 and then
at the Hồ Chí Minh Pedagogical School. Bùi Trân Phượng earned her doctorate in history at the
University of Lyon, France in 2008; she is currently rector of Hoa Sen University in Hồ Chí Minh City.

[21] Nguyễn Hữu Châu earned his doctorate in law in France and was part of Ngô Đình Diệm’s
wider family as the husband of Madame Nhu’s older sister. In 1956, Nguyễn Hữu Châu was
simultaneously interior minister and head of the Prime Minister’s Office; in the second role, he
negotiated with the French for removal of French troops following the Geneva Agreement. He broke
with the Ngô Đình Diệm regime in 1958 and divorced his wife. After the American War, Nguyễn Hữu
Châu was a professor of law in France.
 [22] Âu Trường Thanh (1925-2009) earned a law degree in Sài Gòn and then studied economics
in France. He left Việt Nam in 1968 and did not return before his death.

[23] Nguyễn Đình Thi (1934-2010) was a theologian and philosopher based mainly in Paris. In
the early 1970s, he established the National Christians’ Movement to call on the Christians and others to
join the struggle for peace and national re-unification.

[24] General Nguyễn Hữu Hạnh (1923-) came from Mỹ Tho (now Tiền Giang) Province in the
Mekong Delta of the Southern Region. Beginning in 1946, he served under Dương Văn Minh in the
French ranks. Nguyễn Hữu Hạnh was the last chief-of-staff for the Army of the Republic of Việt Nam
(ARVN). He called on the armed forces to set aside their weapons, thereby limiting casualties in the
final days of the American War.

[25] General Paul Vanuxem (1904-1979) was a French colonel in Việt Nam, serving as a
commander in the Battle of Ninh Bình during the Winter-Spring 1953-1954 Campaign, which culminated
in the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ. He was promoted to general following the 1954 Geneva Agreement for
supervising the evacuation zones in the southern part of the Red River Delta of North Việt Nam. At the
time of the conversation described above, General Vanuxem was the French ambassador to the
Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”).

[26] Vũ Văn Mẫu (1914-1988) came from outside Hà Nội and earned a law degree from the
Law School in Sài Gòn. He was prime minister of the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”) for
April 29 and 30, 1975.

[27] Triệu Quốc Mạnh graduated from law school in Sài Gòn and, at age twenty-three, became
the youngest judge in the city. By 1966, he was ranked third among the nine Sài Gòn judges. That same
year, Triệu Quốc Mạnh took a short leave of absence and went “across” to the PRG side in Long An
Province, where he joined the Party. He returned to serve undercover on the Sài Gòn court.

[28] Huỳnh Tấn Mẫn (1942-) came from Sài Gòn, studied at Pétrus Ký School, and joined his
first revolutionary organization at the age of fifteen. He was an outspoken and famous activist and
student leader, resulting in the constant threat of arrest. He earned his medical degree and was vice
president of the Red Cross in Hồ Chí Minh City. Now retired, Huỳnh Tấn Mẫn continues work on
health projects for the poor.

[29] “Great unity”: According to General Võ Nguyên Giáp, commander-in-chief of the People’s
Army of Việt Nam during the French War and the American War, Hồ Chí Minh first used the
expression “Unity, unity, great unity / Success, success, great success” after the founding of the Việt
Minh in 1941. The slogan was a mantra during both wars.

[30] Nguyễn Văn Huyền had served as president of the Senate for the National Assembly of the
Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”) from 1967 to 1973.

[31] Nguyễn Hữu Có (1925-2012) was born in Mỹ Tho (now Tiền Giang) Province in the
Southern Region. He took part in several coups in the Republic of Việt Nam and was minister of
defense and army chief-of-staff from 1965 to 1967. After the American War ended, Nguyễn Hữu Có
was in a re-education camp until 1987. In 2004, he was elected to the executive committee of the
Central-Level Fatherland Front, which requested that he concentrate on relations with Vietnamese
overseas. The government formally recognized him as a symbol of active reconciliation.

[32] Trịnh Công Sơn (1939-2001), a famous musician and composer of popular love songs and
anti-war songs, lived most of his life in Huế. People from both sides of the war loved his lyrics, while
politicians on both sides censored his recordings at different times. Trịnh Công Sơn’s music remains
very popular today. Many say that singer Khánh Ly knows best how to capture the pathos of Trịnh
Công Sơn’s music.
 11.

Entering the Field of Education

In September 1976, I was elected to the National Assembly and formally

asked to serve as education minister for the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam.

One day that autumn, I met for the first time with the deputy ministers and
department heads at the ministry. My friends had joked with me. “Sister,”
they said, “you’ve landed in an ants’ nest. Those deputy ministers are
formidable.” Perhaps these views added to my own apprehension about this
assignment. I approached the ministry as if I were a solitary warrior riding
her horse into a strange battlefield. I was determined to do my best and
decided that whatever transpired would be fine.

Nguyễn Văn Huyên,[1] a prominent Vietnamese intellectual, had served as

minister for many years. He had passed away more than a year before,
leaving behind three deputy ministers: Võ Thuần Nho,[2] Hồ Trúc,[3] and
Nguyễn Cản Toàn.[4] Comrades Nho and Trúc had been at the ministry for
many years, while Comrade Toàn had just been promoted.

At that time, the Ministry of Education was located at 19 Lê Thánh Tông

in a large, French-designed building, which had previously been the
administration building for the Hà Nội Medical and Pharmaceutical
University.

A year after my arrival, two other deputy ministers were appointed—Bùi

Thanh Khiết,[5] a high-level political officer of the People’s Liberation
Army from the Hồ Chí Minh City’s military administration, and Comrade Y
Ngông Niêk Đam,[6] rector of Tây Nguyên University.

That day of my first staff meeting, nearly twenty comrades from the senior
leadership and various departments greeted me in the ministry’s large room
on the second floor. My first words came from my heart: “I’m here on
assignment from the Party. I can’t possibly address most matters as well as
you comrades. … I will try my best to hold your ideas in high esteem. But in
the end, I must make decisions and bear the responsibility. I hope you
comrades will be supportive.”

I think this reasonable and modest statement touched their sense of

comradeship.

Actually, the reality veered away from the jokesters’ predictions. My

ministry comrades were accustomed to friendly, collegial, professional
relationships. In particular Comrade Hồ Trúc (Party secretary at the ministry
for many years), Comrade Lê Huyến (head of the Organization Department),
Comrade Nguyễn Minh Quang (head of the Administration Department), and
others helped me a great deal during my first days.

Each person in the ministry’s leadership had his own idiosyncrasies,

strengths, and weaknesses, yet everyone worked together as a united group.
As a result, even though leading the Ministry of Education was a complex
assignment, I could complete my responsibilities because I had these
colleagues’ assistance. In general, during my time as minister of education, I
met no resistance or conflict worth noting within the ministry. The difficulty
lay in the work’s heavy weight and the fact that every aspect of that
assignment was entirely new for me. I tried my very best, according to the
lesson I’d been taught during childhood—Whenever you accept a task,
decide to complete it as best you can.

* *

After liberation, like other State branches, the Ministry of Education had
to implement its management across the entire country. Education was a huge
ministry. The two regions had used different educational systems for twenty
years. Public education in the former North was ten years in length, while it
was twelve years in the former South. The curriculum and textbooks were
different. In particular, the two regions had different levels of material
covered in each grade.

Despite the cruel war, the educational system in the former North had
developed markedly. At that time, shortly after the war ended, everyone
spoke of the socialist garden’s two most beautiful flowers—education and
health. Friends from other countries admired Việt Nam’s achievements in
eradicating illiteracy and developing its educational system for the people’s
cultural attainment and professional capacity. We called our soldiers
“educated troops” since, at that time, youth joining the army had finished
seventh grade or above.

However, in the former South, schools had been developed only in the
cities and in scattered areas along the national highways. The level of
illiteracy was very high.

Our first responsibility was to unify the ministry’s management system

quickly, while simultaneously developing education in the southern
provinces, particularly in remote areas without schools. We organized a
major mobilization to send northern teachers to support the southern
provinces. We thought of this move as modeled on the March to the South in
previous years. During 1977 and 1978, several thousand teachers from
northern provinces answered the ministry’s appeal and volunteered to serve
in southern provinces. Nghệ An and Hà Tĩnh Provinces sent the largest
number of teachers to work in the former South.

At the end of July 1977, I went on an inspection tour in the Mekong Delta.
I traveled from the middle of Đồng Tháp Mười Province down to Kiên Giang
and Cà Mau and saw for myself the presence of many northern teachers. The
senior Party leaders and local administrators were delighted, but some
people also spoke frankly, saying, “These teachers are very dedicated, but
some of them speak with Nghệ An, Hà Tĩnh, and Quảng Bình accents. At
first, the children can’t understand them.” I met with the teachers and
encouraged them to speak slowly and adjust their accents.

Not only teachers but also management staff went south. We were
fortunate that many southern students had come to the North for training
during the war. They had matured during their years working in northern
provinces. They returned to their southern home provinces. With their help,
setting up an educational framework in southern provinces was less difficult.
After two years, we finished establishing the management system across the
country. About five years later, by 1983, the Ministry of Education had a
network of public schools in every southern province, district, and commune.
 Other major initiatives included eradicating illiteracy among workers and
supplementing cultural education for staff and youth. We completed the Light-
of-Culture Campaign across the former South on February 28, 1978, with
illiteracy eradicated among 94 percent of people in the program.[7]

This success followed the high-level Party leaders’ directives, but it also
stemmed from the participation of the entire ministry, the educational
administration, and the people. The complementary work supplementing
cultural education for staff was completed at the same time.

We worked with great effort to improve the quality of pre-schools for

children entering the public schools. We built schools in remote and
mountainous areas, improved the curriculum and pedagogy for teaching the
youngest of our children, and established much-needed policies for teachers
and management staff.

* *

After I joined the Ministry of Education, I saw early on that I must

concentrate on teacher training, for this was “the engine” of education and
the source of an educational system’s strength and quality. In 1946, Uncle Hồ
had established a system for teacher education when our country still faced
extreme difficulties. Even during the Resistance War Against French
Colonialism and then during the Resistance War Against American
Imperialism, the North organized pedagogical schools from the central level
to the regions and provinces and then continued widening that system.
 On the central level, we had the Hà Nội Pedagogical University, the first
university built during that period. It trained teachers up to standard and
graduated many scientists, who served in research institutes as well as in
Party and State offices. At that time, the State budget was severely limited,
yet demands were huge. The Hà Nội Pedagogical University and the
pedagogical universities in Vinh, Thái Nguyên, and other sites were hard
pressed for financial resources to support students’ learning and living. We
had an expression, “eat like begging monks, live like prisoners.”[8]

In particular, we concentrated on establishing pedagogical schools to train

teachers on site. For this task, we once again assigned staff and teachers from
our northern normal schools. We began by building normal schools for
elementary school teachers. After a time, we built colleges for secondary-
school teachers. Finding staff and teachers for normal schools was difficult,
as was the task of finding students to become teachers.

The need to develop teachers for elementary and secondary schools was
pressing. In many localities, we trained people for just one or two years, to a
seventh-grade level but sometimes only to a fifth-grade level. Those teachers
then taught up to their same levels. We called this “rice dipped in rice.”
Later, teachers who had been trained in this abbreviated way received
additional education to bring them up to appropriately higher levels.
Unfortunately, some teachers could not manage the additional study required,
thus affecting the quality of public-school teaching in many localities during
subsequent years.

Cao Lãnh, Đồng Tháp Province had the first higher-level normal school in
the Mekong Delta. This model school graduated many classes of secondary-
school teachers, who served Đồng Tháp and other neighboring provinces.
 In general, students didn’t want to attend pedagogical school. They had a
saying, “Only a rat at the end of its tether enters pedagogical school!” I
visited the Hà Nội Pedagogical University’s dining hall and immediately felt
uneasy. The students’ situation was impossible. They had to eat standing up,
for there were no chairs. Each table had a pot of rice, a dish of salted
vegetables, and a bowl of “pilotless” soup.[9] Each student had a bowl and
spoon. That’s how they ate!

* *

Our country faced a period of serious socio-economic crisis between

liberation of the South in April 1975 and Renovation in late 1986. The
government worried constantly about providing our people with food.

Then, in the midst of our economic difficulties came the genocidal Pol Pot
regime’s attacks from Cambodia into the southwest of Việt Nam. The
Cambodian Liberation Front appealed to us for help; Vietnamese soldiers
once again volunteered. And then, in February 1979, China attacked our
northern border “to teach Việt Nam a lesson.” But what mistake had we
made? I visited a number of northern provinces—Quảng Ninh, Hoàng Liên
Sơn, and so on. I saw our ravaged cities and our people suffering. The
invading Chinese had destroyed Lạng Sơn Province’s tertiary school. I was
so moved to see our youth zealously setting off to defend our Homeland’s
border.

These youth fought bravely, just as their fathers and older brothers had
before them. We and perhaps the entire world were stunned, asking: “Why
would one socialist country invade another socialist country?” Indeed, here
was true sorrow! Nevertheless, I understood that each nation—even among
socialist nations—held its own interests paramount.

I remembered an anecdote from eight years before (around 1971) during a

meeting in Kiruna, northern Sweden. It was near midnight, and snow was
falling heavily. Even though the area was thinly populated, people arrived in
large numbers, including the elderly.

After I described the situation in Việt Nam, an elderly woman stood up

and asked, “Have you Vietnamese friends thought about what you will do
after you’ve chased out the Americans and then the Chinese arrive?” We in
our delegation looked at each other: How could she ask such a question? I
explained that no such incident could transpire between socialist countries,
for we socialists shared the comradely feeling of brothers and sisters. Yet
now, in 1979, hearing that China had invaded Việt Nam, I wondered: What
would that elderly woman think? She had been truly profound, with an
experienced person’s range of sight. As for us, we had been so naive!

The Border War with China was incredibly cruel, with more than a
hundred and twenty thousand Chinese troops assaulting the six northern
provinces of Việt Nam, bringing so many casualties and so much material
loss. Several tens of thousands of our children and younger siblings once
again poured out their blood to protect our country.

For so many years, we have not wanted to tell the stories of that pain in
the relationship between Việt Nam and China. But it is disturbing that even
today in Chinese public discussion there are cruel distortions, where our
interlocutors say that the events of February 17, 1979 occurred because Việt
Nam provoked China, that Việt Nam was ungrateful and had no sense of
gratitude.
 How could Việt Nam, having just passed through thirty years of cruel war
and still having to address so many unbound war wounds, attack another
country? Why would Việt Nam provoke China, a huge, socialist country,
which had helped us liberate and re-unite our nation? How could protecting
our own people from Khmer Rouge genocide and saving the Cambodian
people from genocide be considered a crime?

A subsequent situation helps us see the truth.

On March 14, 1988, China sent its naval forces to occupy Gạc Ma
(Johnson South Reef), which belongs to Việt Nam’s Trường Sa Archipelago
(the Spratlys). Sixty-four Vietnamese troops died in combat.

Then, in 2009, China announced its “Cow’s Tongue”[10] with nine points
in an assault aimed at occupying all the East Sea, regardless of international
law. Using that absurd premise, China has been constantly engaged in actions
invading the territory of other nations, in particular territory belonging to Việt
Nam. This threatens the region’s peace and security. Indeed, China has
exposed its expansionist intentions recently, as it did in 1979.

Life during 1979 and early 1980 was especially hard. In general, Party
and State officials had to do additional work, such as making handicrafts and
tending chickens or pigs to supplement their meager wages. People would
say, “Teaching is the ‘additional work’ of teachers.” Tens of thousands of
teachers asked to quit. The State had to lay off some of its staff. The Ministry
of Education lost many of its best teachers.

In April 1980, I discussed with comrades from the Việt Nam Educators’
Union the idea for a national congress in Yên Dũng District (Hà Bắc
Province) to discuss ways to improve teachers’ lives. Yên Dũng had
developed some good models. We wanted to mobilize a movement, “Study
and Practice like Yên Dũng.”

Educational leaders in Yên Dũng had asked the local authorities for land
to plant Hải Dương lychees. They calculated that ten lychee trees planted at
an educational office could improve the teachers’ livelihoods. Other local
educational offices followed this movement; Hải Dương lychees spread
across many northern provinces. After two years, many districts and
communes had “growing” symbols of their concern for teachers’ welfare.
Many other sites organized special funds to assist teachers.

These sacrifices and this dedication impressed me. I was particularly

touched by the teachers who left their homes in the cities and the deltas to
work in our mountainous provinces, such as Cao Bằng, Lai Châu, and Lạng
Sơn. Working conditions were strenuous. The teachers had to motivate
families in order to have students. Each class had only a few students, often
at different grade levels. Teachers’ living conditions in the mountains were
primitive, and they were isolated from the country’s general development.
Their greatest hardship was to spend decades in the mountains without the
chance to return home to the delta.

One woman spoke to me in confidence, saying, “For sure, I’ve lost my

chance to find a husband.”

I think we do not yet know all the silent sacrifices of those brothers and
sisters.

My comrades and I in the ministry leadership understood clearly the

crucial role of teachers. Our troops had been decisive on the battlefield.
Now, our teachers were warriors on a new front. Their task was rebuilding
the nation to bring about a highly educated, skilled, and spirited populace.
We examined our system and policies regarding teachers and saw that our
ministry’s management was weaker than staff in other governmental
branches. We researched quality and professional status to implement a
policy of salaries and allowances.

Persuading the government, the other ministries, and branches was

difficult because the educational system included so many people! Education
was the country’s largest branch after the army, in terms of personnel. (These
days, the situation is different.) Finally, at the end of 1983, the State decided
to readjust educational salaries and address other systemic policy issues,
with the most important question being seniority. Many working in the
educational system still mention this as the “turning point” in educational
reform.

To honor teachers and encourage their spirit, the ministry and the Việt
Nam Educators’ Union proposed that the Council of Ministers choose
November 20 each year for Việt Nam Teachers’ Day. We also suggested the
State create titles—“People’s Teacher” and “Merit Teacher”—for those who
had taught for many years and had made significant contributions to the
educational system.

* *

When I arrived at the Ministry of Education, the Politburo was finishing

Decision 14 about education. Prime Minister Phạm Văn Đồng[11] had
educational expertise and a commitment to the profession, as did Comrade
Tố Hữu.[12]
 The Politburo announced its decision on January 11, 1979. We in the
ministry’s leadership spent considerable time studying Decision 14, which
contained basic guidelines for building a progressive, socialist educational
system.

Even now, to my thinking, that decision’s major points still have value. To
implement Decision 14, we had to examine the actual situations on site and
then establish appropriate objectives, content, and methodologies. To date,
we still have not yet properly achieved that major point, for some areas of
our educational system remain heavily “dogmatic” and “willful.”

Education is a difficult and complicated field because its realm

encompasses an individual’s development from early years to maturity. For
this reason, to establish correct guidelines (in particular, curricula and
methodologies), we relied on the Institute of Educational Science and
assigned to it additional, highly trained professionals. Comrade Võ Thuần
Nho was responsible for the Institute along with Phạm Minh Hạc[13] and
Phạm Tất Dong,[14] who had doctorates in psychology, and Hà Thế Ngữ[15]
and Phạm Văn Hoàn,[16] who also had doctorates.

Later, in 1985, some comrades criticized this work of educational reform

and declared it a failure. I think that evaluation was unfair, inaccurate, and
partisan. Comparing the earlier curriculum and textbooks with the reformed
ones makes clear the later materials’ progressive qualities.

On the other hand, Decision 14’s salient point was that the system needed
to find ways to internalize its guiding principles—study in combination with
practice; comprehensive education in intellectual areas, morality, physical
abilities, and aesthetics; and vocational training for workers and
professionals. We still have not properly implemented these important
principles of Decision 14.

In 1981, I was introduced and elected to the Party’s Central Committee.

This acknowledged my contribution to the nation’s work in general and
simultaneously added to my responsibilities.

In 1982, Deputy Minister Bùi Thanh Khiết passed away, and Comrade Y
Ngông Niêk Đam left to become president of the Đắc Lắc People’s
Committee. The ministry was assigned two new, young deputy ministers,
Comrades Lương Ngọc Toản[17] and Trần Xuân Nhĩ.[18]

* *

In the summer of 1983, representatives from across the educational system

met at Sầm Sơn, Thanh Hóa Province. We agreed on the “Sầm Sơn
Announcement,” which introduced educational points into actual school
activities, particularly into vocational training. After that meeting, an
ebullient atmosphere spread across the educational system. Every region
established a technical center for general vocational training, built factory
schools, and planted experimental agricultural fields as well as gardens for
traditional medicine. All teachers and students both studied and did manual
labor.

The State undertook a major initiative of tree planting called “Green

Cover for Bare Hills.” In 1984, the Ministry of Education worked with the
Ministry of Forestry to plant fourteen million trees (one tree for each
student), achieving our goal within a year. I went on a tour of schools in
Quảng Trị Province, where the war’s destruction had been momentous. I was
delighted to find Cồn Tiên and Tân Lâm Schools surrounded by forests of
young trees, which the students and teachers had planted.

In addition to production, we instituted a savings movement— “Contribute

Bits of Paper,” “Collect Bottles and Cans,” and “Gather Duck Feathers.” The
country’s economic situation was dire. This program educated our students in
community spirit and assisted the schools’ economic viability.
Administrators and parents were supportive. Yet with such a widespread
movement, how could we avoid shortcomings?

Unfortunately, instead of seeing the movement’s larger meaning, some

people intervened and stopped the students’ activities because these
initiatives were “beyond” the very strict socio-political-economic limits
enforced by the “economic police” at a time when we had an extremely
rigorous model of socialism.

In 1985, we finished preparations for instituting basic educational reform,

although some tasks remained, in particular pedagogical training. This step
required early intervention. Since we needed to move fast, we decided to
take a step-by-step approach in switching textbooks for the primary level and
the beginning of the secondary level.

Implementation of educational reform began in 1985 and was to last until

1991 for the first full cycle. We planned to complete and consolidate the
work in a second cycle. Of course, the situation in Việt Nam changed
markedly at the end of 1986 with Renovation and the shift to a socialist
market economy. Education faced new tests and new demands.

*
 * *

During my ten years as minister, I paid constant attention to education in

industrial areas. I felt we must train the workers’ children in order to
maintain a strong class of industrial laborers. I visited the Hòn Gai and Cẩm
Phả mines as well as the Thái Nguyên steel factory to guide and encourage
expansion of the Ministry’s education guidelines. I was also attentive to
ethnic-minority areas.[19] During my tenure, the ministry established
directives for a system of on-site boarding schools for ethnic minorities in
provinces, districts, and communes. These schools saved ethnic-minority
students from walking dozens of kilometers to school each day.

I also concentrated on the role of women within the ministry. More than
80 percent of the teachers in the general school system were women.
Shouldn’t we also have a large number of women administrators? Thus, the
Ministry of Education announced a directive: “Every level of administration
—from local schools to school systems to universities—must have women in
the leadership.” Through this decision, women administrators became
eligible for appointments and had access to further self-development.

The educational emulation movement[20] was one of the most effective

and enduring emulation movements for enhancing patriotism. In 1964,
President Hồ had instituted the emulation model, “Teach well. Study well.”
Later, in his last letter to the educational system, Hồ Chí Minh counseled,
“Even when facing difficulties everywhere, you must continue the emulation
campaign to teach well and study well.” President Hồ had a deep
understanding of education’s social function. He would mention the ancient
saying, “For a legacy in a decade, plant trees; for a legacy in a century,
nourish the people.”
 I often visited Bắc Lý, a poor area of the midlands with a model school in
the nation’s emulation movement. Bắc Lý’s school had two levels,
elementary and general, in a simple building. The students were gaunt, yet
their attention to their studies and the seriousness of the school’s activities
touched me. Many teachers from this school received additional training and
became staff in the Ministry of Education and the Institute for Scientific
Education, while its students became staff and workers in their ancestral
villages.

* *

During our work to expand education, we relied on experience from other

socialist countries, in particular the Soviet Union and the Democratic
Republic of Germany (“East Germany”), where we sent many staff for
training in scientific areas, including pedagogy and psychology. I had a
special, collegial relationship with Mme. Margot Honecker, the minister of
education for the Democratic Republic of Germany. She was a skilled,
committed educator. We Vietnamese drew from the German experience in
vocational training for our workers’ educational program.

For curricula and textbooks, we relied primarily on Soviet experience

and, in part, on that of France. Cuba was a new socialist country. Our Cuban
friends had a progressive outlook. They had decided that the Party and
State’s first task was to emphasize education. Visitors to Cuba often went to
Youth Island, where students both studied and worked. There, thousands of
Cuban youth continued their studies and planted fruit for export. This was
indeed impressive. Well-nourished pupils learned on site in a wholesome
school. Here was a pleasing point: Our Cuban friends said they had picked
up their educational model, “Study and Work,” from Việt Nam. They brought
the model home and spread it with good results.

We had established that model in 1974 and 1975, when the need for older
rural youth to study and work was enormous. Older rural students lived too
far from the tertiary schools in the provincial or district towns to continue
their studies. Students at the model tertiary Hòa Bình Province Socialist
Labor School both studied and learned a trade, thereby achieving the
technical skills they needed to make a living. This school concentrated on
production of cassava, the local agricultural crop appropriate to land in that
area. Older students lived at the site and returned home for the summer.

These schools delighted me. I visited them often to observe the students’
study-practice and living conditions. Many localities used this model,
including Phù Cừ School in Hưng Yên Province as well as Tân Lâm and Cồn
Tiên Schools in Quảng Trị Province. Students from these schools became
good workers. However, building and managing these study-and-work
boarding schools required huge efforts by local authorities and the provincial
educational system. I regret that we have abandoned this excellent
educational focus in what I worry will become a budget move that saved
money but compromised quality and distanced us from the goal of equality in
education.

* *

In 1984, we were preparing to expand our educational reforms, but the

ministry’s budget had no line item for this activity. When I reported the
budget shortage to Premier Phạm Văn Đồng, he shook his head in sympathy.
“If you can do it without money,” he said, “you are truly smart.”

At this time, living conditions for the ministry’s office staff were difficult.
Many officials did additional paid work outside their official
responsibilities. Deputy Minister Trần Xuân Nhĩ noticed that these secondary
jobs dissipated our staff members’ energy so that they were not concentrating
on the ministry’s work. He and others in the ministry discussed with me the
idea of establishing the Educational Services Company as a focal point for
the schools’ production output according to the directive, “Take productive
labor into the schools.” These staff members collected funds from other staff
to provide part of the company’s initial capital.

Trần Xuân Nhĩ established a program with ten points describing

appropriate activities for schools having the means and ability. The ministry
would provide guidance and assistance through the Educational Services
Company. The company built a kiln to produce pottery. Early efforts were
successful. Many comrades in the educational system and other branches
praised the products—pottery, educational materials, kindergarten toys, etc.
The atmosphere in participating schools was effervescent.

Nowadays, people reading these sentences will say, “Why mention

activities, which are so petty?”

However, we must remember the circumstances at that time. Our national

economic policy was extremely strict and rigorous. We were desperately
poor. People had nothing. Anyone making even the smallest profit from a
creative enterprise suffered from police watchers and became the topic of
malicious gossip. Any ministries wanting to take initiatives also met with
difficulties and blockage.
 The economic police noticed that the Ministry of Education was extremely
active in finishing one project and starting another. Police officers would
visit “to ask about our health.” Staff working in the Educational Services
Company and I lost a great deal of time “greeting these visitors” and
reporting on those student projects. The police visitors’ thinking was
outdated. During inspections, these officers would remain 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.

[14] Trịnh Đức Dụ was subsequently Việt Nam’s ambassador to Great Britain.

[15] Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1922-) earned his bachelor’s degree at Cairo University and a
doctorate in international law from the Sorbonne. He was Egypt’s acting foreign minister in the late
1970s and served as general secretary of the United Nations from January 1992 through December
1996. The United States vetoed the possibility of his serving a second term. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was
general secretary of Francophonie from 1997 until 2002. After that post, he continued his work with
international law and conflict resolution.

[16] Phạm Hưng was president of the People’s Supreme Court from 1981 to 1997. After retiring,
he served as president of the Vietnamese Lawyers Association until 2004.

[17] Nông Đức Mạnh (1940-) from the Tày ethnic minority was born in Bắc Kạn Province in the
Northern Region. He studied forestry at the Central-Level Forestry School in Hà Nội, joined the Party
in 1963, and then studied for five years at the Forestry University in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). He held
many positions in forestry institutions in Viet Nam. From 1986 until 1989, he was Party general
secretary for Bắc Thái Province; he was elected to the Party Central Committee in 1989 and also to the
National Assembly. Nông Đức Mạnh served as president of the National Assembly from 1992 to 2001
and as Party general secretary from 2001 to 2011.

[18] The Party general secretary holds the most important position in Việt Nam.

[19] Vũ Dũng (1949-) spent much of his time while vice foreign minister working on the Foreign
Ministry Committee Regarding the Border, examining issues involving the land border between Việt
Nam and China. Upon retiring, he undertook a two-week assignment as Việt Nam’s representative at
human-rights meetings sponsored by the United Nations.

[20] Phan Văn Khải (1933-) is from Củ Chi District, the famous revolutionary base in what is
now Hồ Chí Minh City. He joined the Revolution in 1947, while still in his early teens. He regrouped to
the North in 1954 and studied foreign languages and then studied in Moscow until 1965. He served on
the Re-Unification Committee in Hà Nội. After 1975, Phan Văn Khải returned to Hồ Chí Minh, where
he served as vice president of the Hồ Chí Minh City People’s Committee. He was president of the
People’s Committee from 1985 to 1989. Phan Văn Khải was prime minister of Việt Nam from 1997 to
2006.

[21] Củ Chi District is the site of the famous tunnels that ran under the US base, Johnson City.

[22] Nguyễn Văn Trỗi: See Chapter 8, “Memories and Deeply Held Thoughts,” footnote 20, p.
279.

[23] Trần Thị Lý (1933-1992), a revolutionary activist, was a soldier with the Liberation Army
during the War of Resistance Against France and the War of Resistance Against the United States. She
was especially famous for her bravery.

[24] Dr. Lê Cao Đài (1928-2002) was the medical director and military commander of the major
hospital in the Southern Front during the American War. His journal, The Central Highlands, is the best
account in English of Vietnamese soldiers’ experience on the Hồ Chí Minh Trail. Dr. Đài was among
the first Vietnamese researchers on residual dioxin and a key Vietnamese partner for the 10-80 /
Hatfield research. This Vietnamese-Canadian cooperation narrowed the question of residual dioxin to
“hot spots,” the sites where defoliants were stored and loaded on US and ARVN bases. These hot
spots are rather like “superfund” toxic-waste sites in the United States.

[25] The Hồ Chí Minh Medal is Việt Nam highest award.

 14.

Retired and Busy

After fifty years of activism, I thought that perhaps the time had come to
retire. I would care for my family and go visiting with friends. However,—

However, the country’s situation remained unsettled. Officials and the

people were better off than before, but many Vietnamese were still living in
difficult straits. The Cold War had ended, but the arms race continued.
Armed conflicts and wars of aggression exploded here and there. One could
say that, world-wide, there has never been a day of peace.

I boiled with anger at the Iraq War, which destroyed that country. The
conflicts between nation states and classes of people continue. The large
countries still oppress and dominate the small countries; they squeeze the
developing nations economically. Workers remain poor. International
political activists point out that the disparity between the rich and poor
widens, with the rich growing richer and the poor, poorer.

These international and domestic situations have affected our people’s

spirit. Although most Vietnamese are worried, they believe our people’s
choice has been correct and that we must continue on the road we have
chosen, but with adjustments. However, others are alarmed. They believe we
have lost our direction. They are pessimistic and even stand in opposition.
 Our material life is much better, but in general our society has become far
more complicated. People say the wartime days were cruel and difficult yet
simpler. Many people speak about our cultural decline, which is truly
worrying. Ethical and moral standards have collapsed. The current tendency
is to follow individual interests and race after money and status; that
tendency is increasing. When a society is changing, its general psychological
character can become confused and wavering. Our society needs to follow
established laws. We need to be straight-forward, acknowledging that we
have just passed through a very long war and that thus we lag behind
neighboring nations in many fields.

Could it be that the Party and State paid too much attention to economic
matters and too little to cultural affairs, to the quality of people’s lives, to the
structure of our society? When will we have a society that is truly
democratic, equal, and cultured?

These dynamics continue to harass me. I can’t sit still. I must continue to
take full part in life. And so, my years since official retirement have been
very busy, at times even busier than before. Perhaps it is my “fate” from
when I was young: I want always to be deeply involved and committed in my
work. I don’t know how to stand on the outside.

The year of 2003 began with a series of fascinating activities. One of

these involved the thirtieth anniversary in of the signing of the Paris Peace
Agreement on Việt Nam (January 27, 1973). On January 25, 2003, I took part
in a conference in Paris, with the theme “The Việt Nam War and Europe.”
Academic comrades, Bùi Văn Thanh (historian at the Social Sciences
Institute) and Dr. Nguyễn Hồng Thạch (expert at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs’ Institute of International Relations), joined me. The French Center
for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies organized the event with financial
assistance from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The keynote speakers
among the hundred participants were primarily researchers in politics and
history from European countries and from the United States. In addition to
our delegation, the organizers had invited Bùi Diễm,[1] the ambassador from
the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt Nam”) to the United States in 1967
and 1968.

The speakers presented information, documents, and analyses of the

attitudes of European countries toward the American War in Việt Nam. In
general, these presentations were objective and concentrated on events, legal
documents, and official government pronouncements. Of course, each person
had his or her own individual viewpoint, with the result that the conference
portrayed many different angles. In particular, the participants looked at the
huge movement opposing the American War in Viet Nam, not just the
communist parties and the leftists in France, Italy, and other countries, but
also the socialist parties of northern Europe, especially in Sweden. They
spoke about the peace forces among the religious groups, particularly the
Christians. They also mentioned the strong attitude of Europe’s intelligentsia,
including those who had participated in the Bertrand Russell Tribunal.[2]

During the American War Against Việt Nam, European governments did
not allow the United States to pull them in, even though the Americans
wanted NATO countries to participate if only symbolically. Some
participants at the conference affirmed that the American War in Việt Nam
had caused Europe—the “old continent”—to grow farther away from the
United States on the “new continent.” Many French speakers mentioned
former President de Gaulle’s statement in 1966 and the French government’s
contributions in facilitating negotiations at the Paris Conference on Việt Nam.
 Bùi Diễm and I were the two key representatives of the Vietnamese sides.
We had no personal conflict, but of course our two points of view were
entirely different. Bùi Diễm could not accept the name “American War”
because, he said, the war was between nationalists and communists. He held
that the Republic of Việt Nam was the “nationalist side, with support from
the United States,” while we were the “communists in the socialist faction,
with support from the Soviet Union and China.” In addition, he said, the
communist victory had relied on “violence in drastic ways, causing countless
deaths and massive destruction.”

I tried to control myself. I read my prepared speech, presenting our system

and processes as they developed in resisting American aggression. I
described the principles of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam and the
National Liberation Front / Provisional Revolutionary Government of the
Republic of South Việt Nam, which we had established in order to secure
independence and re-unification, just as we had done during our War of
Resistance Against French Colonialism from 1945 until 1954. I spoke
strongly: “The strength of our resistance came from our patriotic spirit and
the solidarity of all our people. Those who were communists stood at the
forefront in the resistance and sacrificed the most for the Homeland and our
people. That is the truth, which no one can deny.”

One participant at the conference asked, “Don’t documents show that three
hundred thousand Chinese troops arrived to fight alongside your army?”

I answered, “The Chinese people helped Việt Nam both politically and
materially. But only the Vietnamese Liberation Army fought in the South.”

The conference lasted two days. Surely, we will organize many more
international conferences and write many books and magazine articles in
various countries in the effort to understand our Resistance War Against the
United States, for this was a major event during the twentieth century.

A little more than a month later, the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry also
organized a conference for the thirtieth anniversary of the signing of the Paris
Agreement with the goal of drawing lessons from our experiences in
diplomatic struggle. Our meaningful lessons included the use of sound
negotiating principles, our diplomatic timing, the coordination between
diplomacy and the battlefield, and our use of international solidarity,
especially with the Soviet Union and China.

There was also this question: In 1954, should Việt Nam have continued its
resistance to the end in order to liberate the entire country and re-unite the
nation? Stopping with the Geneva Agreement forced us to accept division at
the 17th parallel. Did we cast aside the opportunity to avoid another war?

As I see it, the Geneva Agreement reflected the situation that embodied
the advantages and disadvantages of the two sides in 1954. It also allowed us
to see the complicated international relationships at that time. As a result, we
could ensure that the Paris Agreement was more complete and more rigorous,
because we could incorporate the valuable experience and lessons we had
drawn from the Geneva Agreement. This assessment reflects the skilled
leadership of our Party and the strength of our people.

* *

From 2003 until 2013 and the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the
Paris Agreement, many international political activists and historians were
researching and evaluating the American War in Việt Nam. They will
continue to do so for many years. The questions they ask again and again
include: Why did the United States invade Việt Nam? What was the source of
the Vietnamese people’s victory? Might it have been possible for the war to
end earlier? What was the intention behind the Paris Agreement? And so on.
Through many conferences and many individual conversations, I’ve had
occasion to engage in dialogue and to explain the answers.

Several years ago, in a speech, Mr. Henry Kissinger[3] accepted the US

failure. The causes, he said, were the lack of a clear US purpose and a lack
of support within the United States.

A number of experts on the United States and the war in Việt Nam hold
that the United States engaged in the war from 1961 to 1964 with the aim of
limiting the communists in accordance with principles operative during the
Cold War. Then, in 1967, when the United States saw that the war in Việt
Nam was not based on directives from Russia and China, the Americans’
purpose was only to help South Việt Nam stand up and to keep South Việt
Nam from falling into the hands of the communist North Vietnamese. That’s
when the United States thought about withdrawing its troops and
“Vietnamizing the war.”

This is a simplistic explanation for a war that lasted twenty years,

destroyed a country, and killed several million people. For us, the US
purpose was clear. The purpose was to change South Việt Nam into a colony
according to a new, American model and to limit communism in Southeast
Asia. However, the United States did not have the right to transform the war
into an invasion. That was a violation of international law, a violation of a
nation’s rights, and a violation of the legitimate choice a nationality had
made. Because of these violations, the Americans were immediately opposed
both inside the country and across the world. This dynamic is the primary
source of the American defeat. In truth, France was like the United States in
not understanding our history and the Vietnamese people. These are the basic
reasons both wars of invasion met defeat.

As to the relationship between South Việt Nam and North Việt Nam, they
should remember that in 1945, following the August Revolution, the
Vietnamese people from North to South stood up and seized their
independence, choosing for themselves the route of a “democratic republic.”
Thus, when the United States destroyed the 1954 Geneva Agreement and
established the “Sài Gòn” administration, the people in the South had to
continue their resistance, with assistance from the North, in order to
complete the unfinished goal of securing independence and re-unification of
our Homeland.

And so, how then can anyone say that the North invaded the South?

* *

In April 2003, several comrades and I organized the Việt Nam Foundation
for Peace and Development to respond to the nation’s needs and duties in our
new situation with Renovation.

Peace is the great wish of every nation but particularly of Việt Nam,
which bore decades of continuous war. Only if we have peace can we
develop our nation and assure security and contentment for our people. Việt
Nam is an active participant in the world peace movement and a member of
the World Peace Council. These movements contributed a great deal to our
victory in the War Against American Aggression. These days, we must
continue to struggle to protect peace for our own interests and for the world’s
people.

Developing our nation in a globalized world, which the strong and

wealthy countries control, is a difficult assignment filled with challenges. We
must quickly learn from the experience of other countries and work in
solidarity with widespread and equal cooperation. We must use fair and
skillful competition, while also opposing oppression from adversaries. Việt
Nam is now a member of the large economic, financial, and commercial
institutions. This development should create more favorable conditions for
economic development, although we must also overcome new challenges.

Even though the Việt Nam Foundation for Peace and Development has had
challenges in terms of personnel and financing in previous years, we have
contributed to our country’s development. I am indebted to and appreciative
of the Foundation’s executive committee members, who have been committed
and responsible.

* *

At the end of 2003, a delegation from the Association of International

Democratic Lawyers visited Việt Nam. This international organization had
zealously supported our wartime people’s struggle against the United States.
In particular, this group helped shape the famous Bertrand Russell
International Tribunal, which in 1967 raised accusations against the
Americans’ cruelty in Việt Nam, including the use of chemical warfare.
 The leader of this delegation was Mr. Sharma, an Indian and long-time
friend of Việt Nam. Like other international democratic organizations,[4] this
association did not have the financial means to be as active as before, even
though its members are prestigious lawyers from many countries, including
the United States. The visiting delegation was concentrating on the after-
effects of war.

These lawyers said our people had the right to sue the United States for
damages resulting in so much pain and loss in Việt Nam. They pointed out
that the war’s after-effects are still serious, particularly the effects of Agent
Orange. All American veterans who served in Việt Nam between 1962 and
1975 were deemed to have been exposed to Agent Orange, even if only
indirectly. They are eligible to receive assistance from the US government.
Thus, the lawyers said, there was no reason for the United States not to
accept responsibility for damages inflicted on the Vietnamese people. They
suggested that we needed to establish immediately an association for victims
of Agent Orange to represent the rights of the several million Vietnamese
plaintiffs.

On January 10, 2004, we formally established the Vietnamese Association

of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA), with Lieutenant General Đặng Vũ
Hiệp[5] as president. He was a veteran, who had spent ten years fighting in
the Central Highlands, an area the Americans had heavily sprayed. I was
invited to serve as the Association’s honorary chair.

On January 30, 2004, the association represented the victims of Agent

Orange in suing the thirty-seven American chemical companies that had
produced the defoliants, such as Agent Orange and its impurity, dioxin. The
United States had sprayed the defoliants on forests and fields in South Việt
Nam, with the poison affecting several million Vietnamese, including
warriors and ordinary people. Thousands had died; countless victims have
disabilities. Even more painful and more prolonged are the victims—both
men and women—who gave birth to children and then even had
grandchildren with severe disabilities. Taken together, this greatest cruelty
from the American War and the war’s most toxic residue have created the
huge debt that US authorities owe the Vietnamese people.

The case was heard in a New York court, which did not rule in Việt
Nam’s favor. Then the case was appealed. We know we must prolong this
difficult struggle, which requires determination and firmness. However, now,
world public opinion understands the serious after-effects of the thirty-year
war (1945-1975) the United States perpetrated on Việt Nam. The legal case
kindled an international movement supporting Vietnamese Agent Orange
victims. Many people perceive this as the world’s struggle for peace and
justice to stop war and stop the use of the arms (including biological and
chemical weapons) that kill masses of people. Unfortunately, American
courts have refused to settle in our favor regarding the cruel US actions in
Việt Nam. Nevertheless, the Association of International Democratic
Lawyers announced, “Humanity’s court of conscience has decided.”

* *

I continue to serve as chair of the Fund for the Protection of Children, as

president of the Fund for the Kovalevskaya Prize,[6] and as president of the
Phan Châu Trinh Cultural Foundation. In addition to these activities, I cannot
refuse to work in education and training, which I consider the keys to
development. Under the auspices of the Việt Nam Foundation for Peace and
Development, I have sponsored research on educational methodology and,
with my Foundation brothers and sisters, have organized informal
discussions and conferences on education in hopes of contributing to this
crucial cause.

* *

My younger siblings and my children keep reminding me that I must retire.

However, I cannot abide a passing day when I do not work, as long as I am
still able to contribute.

My hopes and happiness reside in my two grandchildren—Long (paternal)

and Đông (maternal). Both have been assiduous students. Long is studying
banking and finance at a university in Great Britain. When he returns to Việt
Nam, he hopes to work on national financial policy in a State office. Such a
wish is not easy to implement, but I am supportive and encouraging. Đông
has chosen architecture and wants to learn the skills needed to rebuild his
grandparents’ house. That’s also a beautiful vision.

I am pleased and happy that, even though I have retired, I am fortunate to

have many friends come to visit. In addition, every day there are new friends
—brothers and sisters, who come to share their confidences with me and ask
for my ideas on shared questions and private matters.

On my eightieth birthday, comrade Vũ Khiêu,[7] a friend and brother who

was then over ninety, presented me with a beautiful pair of parallel
sentences:[8]
 Việt Nam has not only men of gifts,

Tây Hồ also has a woman of talent.

The year 2006 was special for my family, for we commemorated the
eightieth year of the passing of Elder Phan Châu Trinh, my maternal
grandfather. We organized two seminars—one in Đà Nẵng and one in Hồ Chí
Minh City. In 1994, the State had designated Elder Phan’s Temple a National
Cultural and Historical Site. In 2006, we organized a large commemoration
ceremony at the temple. Participants included Elder Phan’s many
descendants, our friends, representatives of the Hồ Chí Minh City
Department of Culture and Information, and officials from the Tân Bình
District Office of Culture and Information.

The workshop involved historians from research institutes and

universities. It clarified and unified assessment of Elder Phan’s important
political role. Some people held contrary ideas. They objected, for they
worried that lifting up Elder Phan would diminish the great status of
President Hồ Chí Minh. I completely disagreed. Evaluating each event and
actor during our country’s complicated twentieth-century history is difficult.
However, time will permit us gradually to lift up and perceive historical
truths clearly, precisely, and calmly. We can explore each person’s role in
defining the principles for the founding of our nation. We can determine each
person’s influence at decisive times and afterwards, even a very long time
afterwards.

* *

I began writing this memoir in the beginning of 2007, when I turned eighty;
I finished it at the end of 2009. After I’d set down my pen, I still had many
conflicting thoughts, a jostling of worries and hopes.
 We can perhaps say that my generation is the last of the Vietnamese who
took part in our two Resistance Wars and who, after thirty years of constant
struggle, were still alive and could contribute to healing the wounds of war
and to rebuilding our nation. We are more fortunate than many of our brothers
and sisters, our comrades who died along the way for the cause.

I have come to understand the pain of war and the difficulty of

establishing peace.

My own life, in concert with the life of our nation, has helped me
understand that seizing political power and demanding independence were
extremely difficult, particularly when opposing the colonialists and
imperialists. However, maintaining political power and building a nation—
particularly a nation fitting the people’s wishes and hopes for a truly pure life
of freedom and happiness—is much more difficult.

Nelson Mandela, the pre-eminent South African political leader, said,

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that
respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

We in Việt Nam must draw upon our human resources so that our people
can use their own self-determination and capabilities to build an independent
and free nation. I hope that at some time not long from now we will have a
generation of Vietnamese with sufficient self-confidence, humanity, and
intelligence to create a democratic and cultured society in a strong country,
which the Vietnamese have built from their own self-direction and with their
own hands. For this reason, I continue to suggest that the Party and State
implement a basic and comprehensive reform of our educational system,
thereby also improving our national culture and our nation’s future. Education
remains the most decisive factor in our nation’s success.
 If there is an issue on which I concentrate and about which I worry, it is
the question of our nation’s internal strength.

We made it through a war of national liberation, which was extremely

cruel and lasted for so long. The war pushed our country’s economy to its
lowest ebb and severely injured our nation’s culture and society. We lack
trained administrators with expertise in economics, technology, education,
culture, and management. Perhaps speaking from the piles of ashes, we can
move forward with the wish to build a developed country, returning to us a
life where all our people have their basic needs met, are free, and content.
We strive toward that goal, which is totally appropriate, but the road is filled
with obstacles and challenges in a world now brimming with serious
conflicts on every side, particularly regarding economics and technology.

We understand that we must protect our political independence with

economic independence and national-defense security but above all, with an
independent economy.

Thus, in order to protect our independence and national rights and in order
to develop our country, we have no other route than the necessity of
establishing a strong, independent, and sustainable economy that is not
beholden to anyone, that is cooperative but is not dependent on any other
nation. Our spirit of patriotism and the unification of people must be strong in
self-sufficiency and labor to build our country so that our own, internal,
national strength becomes stronger.

Our own internal strength must build a democratic society, a nation of

laws and justice—using the strength of our people’s heart and their unity—to
create the base for all our various strengths.
 Our nation has never before had such advantages and resources. Many
people say we have a “golden opportunity.” However, life is such that when
opportunities are greater, challenges are also greater. Can we overcome our
challenges and achieve the objectives and dreams of the generations who
sacrificed everything to bring us to where we are today? The answer rests
with the comrades, the brothers and sisters who bear heavy leadership
responsibilities. The answer also rests with our people and especially with
our youth—the primary force building and defending our Homeland.

I believe in the destiny of our Homeland—a country and nationality,

which has struggled in heroic sacrifice during our long history. Our
Homeland has earned the right to a splendid future. Surely we Vietnamese
have the strength and will to create that future. Those who lead our country
must accept that responsibility, while the youngest generation must prepare to
shoulder responsibility for the future.

We must remember our ancestors’ priceless historical lessons. We must

place shared interests first. Regardless of hardships, we must strictly follow
the chosen way to assure our people’s freedom and contentment. Then, the
happiness of our nation will become our children’s happiness.

I like to compare our Homeland to a small river boat carrying all

Vietnamese. Despite countless whirlpools, our Homeland will reach the sea
and a new horizon!

Completed, end of 2009.

Supplemented, 2013-2015.
 [1] Bùi Diễm (1923-) came from Ha Nam, a province in Việt Nam’s Northern Region. He studied
at Bưởi (now, Chu Van An) School and was active with the Vietnamese government established by the
Japanese authorities after the Japanese imprisoned the Vichy French administrators in Việt Nam on
March 9, 1945. Bùi Điễm served as the ambassador from the Republic of Việt Nam (“South Việt
Nam”) to the United States from 1967 to 1972. He left for the United States in 1975.

[2] The Bertrand Russell Tribunal on War Crimes (1967): See Chapter 8, “Memories and
Deeply Held Thoughts,” footnote 4, p. 259.

[3] Henry Kissinger: See Chapter 6, “The Longest Peace Negotiation in History,” footnote 69,
p. 210.

[4] These international democratic organizations had originated in the former Soviet Union.

[5] Đặng Vũ Hiệp (1928-2008) came from Hưng Yên Province in the Northern Region and
studied at Bưởi (Chu Văn An) School in Hà Nội. He commanded the 1969 Đăc Tô Campaign. In 1982,
Đăng Vũ Hiệp was elected to the Party Central Committee. He was president of VAVA from 2003 to
2008.

[6] The Kovalevskaya Prize is given each year to a Vietnamese woman who has made a major
contribution to science. The prize is in memory of Sofia Kovalevskaya (1850-1891), the first major
woman mathematician in Russia.

[7] Vũ Khiêu (1916-, a.k.a. Đặng Vũ Kiêu) came from Nam Định in the Northern Region. A
researcher in Vietnamese culture, he was head of the Social Sciences Institute and also served as
deputy director of Vietnam News Agency.

[8] Parallel sentences, câu đối, are a Vietnamese literary form where the second line changes
two key words in the first line to create a play on words. Here “Việt Nam” is changed to “Tây Hồ,”
which means “West Lake” (a key Hà Nội landmark) but is also a pen name of Phan Châu Trinh,
Nguyễn Thị Bình’s maternal grandfather. The change from “men” to “a woman” is more obvious.
 Chronology

May 26, 1927 Born, Tân Hiệp Commune, Sa Đéc District, Đồng Tháp
Province; birth name: Nguyễn Thị Châu Sa, daughter of Mr. Nguyễn Đồng
Hợi (1900-1969) and Ms. Phan Thị Châu Lan (1907-1943)

1927-1940 Spends childhood in Việt Nam’s southwestern provinces

1940 Moves to Cambodia with family, studies at Lycée Sisowath

1943 Meets future husband, Đinh Khang; mother passes away

1944 Participates in Overseas Vietnamese Patriots’ Association in

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

May 1945 Moves back to Sài Gòn with family; joins Việt Minh

August 25, 1945 August Revolution in Sài Gòn: Sài Gòn Revolutionary
Administration and Sài Gòn Provisional Committee seize political power in
Sài Gòn

September 2, 1945 Declaration of Independence event in Sài Gòn: Sài

Gòn Revolutionary Administration and Sài Gòn Provisional Committee
organize a large meeting in Notre Dame Square in concert with Hồ Chí
Minh’s reading of Việt Nam’s Declaration of Independence in Hà Nội,
announcing formation of the Democratic Republic of Việt Nam (DRVN)
 September 23, 1945 French troops with American weapons arrive on
British ships and attack the newly formed Việt Minh administration in Sài
Gòn; War of Resistance Against France begins in Sài Gòn and then spreads
throughout Việt Nam’s Southern Region

January 6, 1945 Serves as secretary of Resistance Committee, Hồng

Ngự District, Đồng Tháp Province; takes part in independent Việt Nam’s first
general election

May 1946 Returns to Sài Gòn, joins secret activities (Association of

Women for National Salvation, Association of Youth for National Salvation,
etc.); takes alias, Yến Sa

November 1946 French invade Hải Phòng northern port city and then
push toward Hà Nội, the DRVN capital

December 19, 1946 President Hồ Chí Minh promulgates his “Call for
Nationwide Resistance”; War of Resistance Against France spreads across
all of Việt Nam

1948 Joins Indochinese Communist Party

1949 Works as Party grassroots organizer with Lawyer Nguyễn Hữu

Thọ

April 1951 - early 1954 Arrested as a “spy;” intervention by high-level

French associates of her grandfather (Phan Châu Trinh) in Paris prevents her
execution; held in Chí Hòa Prison, Sài Gòn

November 1954 Arrives in the North as part of regrouping after the

Geneva Agreement; works as secretary for president of the Central-Level
National Women’s Union

December 1, 1954 Marries Mr. Đinh Khang, a military engineer after a

nine-year separation during the French War

1956 Đinh Nam Thắng (son) is born

1957-1959 Studies at the Nguyễn Ái Quốc Political Academy

1960 Đinh Thúy Mai (daughter) is born

December 20, 1960 Establishment of the National Liberation Front

(NLF) of South Việt Nam

1961 Works for the Reunification Commission in Hà Nội; concentrates

on NLF people-to-people diplomacy; takes a new alias, Nguyễn Thị Bình
(“Peace”)

1962-1968 Through NLF activities, builds international support for Việt

Nam by lobbying with individuals, international organizations, and foreign
governments

June 1962 Attends World Democratic Students’ Congress in Budapest,

Hungary

July 1962 Attends World Democratic Youth Congress in Leningrad,

Soviet Union (now St. Petersburg, Russia)

Late 1962 Visits Indonesia, meets President Sukarno and Dipa

Nusantara Aidit, general secretary, Indonesian Communist Party; Prof.
Nguyễn Văn Hiếu, NLF secretary general, is head of delegation
 March 1963 Attends the third congress of the Asia-Africa Solidarity
Committee in Tanzania as head of the NLF delegation

1964 Visits Indonesia for the second time

Late 1964 Attends International Women’s Congress as head of

delegation representing the Women’s Association from Liberated Areas of
South Việt Nam

1967 Meets representatives of the American anti-war movement in

Bratislava, Czechoslovakia (now the capital of Slovakia)

November 4, 1968 Arrives in Paris as deputy head of the NLF

delegation to the Paris Conference on Việt Nam

January 25, 1969 Official opening of the Paris four-sided conference

April 1969 Visits the United Kingdom, delivers a speech on the NLF at
Trafalgar Square

May 1969 Father, Nguyễn Đồng Hợi, passes away

May 8, 1969 Announces the NLF’s Ten-Point Position at Kléber

International Convention Center, Paris

June 6, 1969 Establishment of the Provisional Revolutionary

Government (PRG) of the Republic of South Việt Nam; becomes foreign
minister and head of the PRG delegation at the Paris Conference

Early 1970 Visits Sweden at the invitation of Prime Minister Olof

Palme
 July 1970 Official visit to India and Sri Lanka as PRG foreign minister

September 17, 1970 Announces the PRG Eight-Point

Position demanding US total withdrawal before June 30, 1971

September 1970 Travels to Lusaka (Zambia) to lobby for PRG’s

admission to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

Early 1971 Visits Cuba during Cuba’s International Year for Việt Nam

July 1, 1971 Announces the PRG’s Seven-Point Position demanding US

total withdrawal and establishment of a government of national concord

January 11, 1972 Announces the PRG’s Two-Point Position—US

withdrawal and Establishment of a Coalition Government consisting of the
PRG, the Sài Gòn Administration, and the Third Force

March 1972 Troops of the Liberation Army attack eastern regions of the
South

September 1972 DRVN Special Advisor Lê Đức Thọ presents US

National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger with the Draft Paris Agreement
on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Việt Nam

December 18-29, 1972 United States bombs Hà Nội and Hải Phòng
with B-52s during what Westerners call the “Christmas Bombing” and
Vietnamese call “Điện Biên Phủ in the Air”; Vietnamese Air Defense shoots
down or disables a significant percentage of the US B-52 fleet

January 23, 1973 Lê Đức Thọ and Henry Kissinger initial the Paris
Agreement
 10 o’clock, January 27, 1973 Thirty-two documents of the Paris
Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Việt Nam are each
signed by the foreign ministers of four nations: the DRVN (Nguyễn Duy
Trinh), the PRG (Nguyễn Thị Bình), the Republic of Việt Nam (Trần Văn
Lắm), and the United States of America (Williams P. Rogers)

February 27 - March 2, 1973 International Conference on Việt Nam in

Paris

March 2, 1973 International Act on the International Conference on Việt

Nam signed on March 2, 1973 by foreign ministers of twelve nations:
(DRVN, PRG, ROV, and the USA as signatories to the Paris Agreement;
Canada, China, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, and the
Soviet Union as additional signatories to the International Act, with the UN
secretary general present but not a signatory

April 1973 Leaves Paris for Hà Nội

April 1973 - April 1975 Continues work in formal diplomacy and

people-to-people diplomacy; lobbies governments and people’s
organizations for implementation of the Paris Agreement by the United States
and the Sài Gòn Administration

July 1973 PRG achieves official admission to the Non-Aligned

Movement (NAM)

1974 Receives the Ben Barka Medal for Afro-Asian Solidarity

June 1974 Visits Afghanistan to lobby for diplomatic recognition of the

PRG
 September 1974 Travels the Hồ Chí Minh Trail as a member of the
delegation led by PRG President of Government Hùynh Tấn Phát for a visit
to the Cambodian Resistance Movement against the US-backed Lon Nol
administration

April 30, 1975 Liberation of the South; sixty-five governments have

established formal relations with the PRG

May 1, 1975 Reunion after twenty-one years with her brother, Nguyễn
Đông Hà, just released from the “tiger cages” on Côn Sơn (Côn Đảo) Island

May 13, 1975 Sài Gòn grand meeting to celebrate liberation of the
South

June 17, 1975 Meeting between the NLF of the South (PRG) and Việt
Nam Fatherland Front (DRVN)

July 1975 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) foreign ministers’ meeting in

Lima (Peru); lobbies for admission of the DRVN to NAM

October 1975 Visits Arab states to “borrow” petrol; meets Saddam

Hussein and manages to borrow 1.5 million tons of petro at preferential
interest rate

1976-2002 Elected a deputy to Việt Nam’s National Assembly, VIth

through Xth sessions

1976-1987 Minister of education; unites the management of Việt Nam’s

educational system; organizes literacy training for the former South; institutes
expanded teacher training and a modernized curriculum
 1977-1978 Thousands of northern teachers volunteer to teach in southern
Việt Nam

January 11, 1979 Politburo promulgates Resolution 14 on educational

reform

1978 - 1979 Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia; Khmer

Rouge incursions into southwestern Việt Nam; Southwest Border War with
the Khmer Rouge begins

February 1979 China invades Việt Nam’s northern border provinces

April 1980 National Conference on Education in Yên Dũng (Bắc Giang

Province) concentrates on teachers’ living standards

1981 Elected to the Central Committee of the Vietnamese Communist

Party

1982 to present Elected deputy chair of Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity

Organization (AAPSO)

1983 Adjustment of salary scales for teachers; introduction of seniority

system and awards, “People’s Teacher” and “Merited Teacher;” decision to
make November 20 “Teachers’ Day”

Summer 1983 Sầm Sơn Statement on Education

1984 Establishes the Education Services Company

December 1986 Vietnamese Communist Party’s VI Party Congress

promulgates its policy of Renovation
 Mid-1987 Becomes deputy chair of the Party Committee for External
Relations; president of the Union for Peace, Solidarity and Friendship; chair
of the National Assembly Committee on External Relations; lobbies for
removal of US embargo and sanctions

December 25, 1989 Husband Đinh Khang passes away

1991 Becomes chair of Fund for Care and Protection of Children

1992-2002 Vice president of Việt Nam; works in diplomatic relations,

education, health care, judicial reform, and Việt Nam’s emulation and awards
system

1994 Visits West African countries, meets Jacques Diouf of UN Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO); opens up cooperation in agricultural
production between Senegal and Việt Nam and then with other African
countries

1995 Attends summit of French-speaking countries, meets French

President Jacques Chirac

1997 Việt Nam hosts the seventh conference of the French-speaking

nations in Hà Nội; chairs the conference meetings

1998 Honorary chair of the Agent Orange Victims Fund

April 2001 Presented with the Hồ Chí Minh Medal, the highest award in
Việt Nam

August 2002 Retires from State positions

 April 2003 to Present Chair, Việt Nam Foundation for Peace and
Development

January 1, 2004 to Present Honorary chair, Việt Nam Agent Orange

Victims Association (VAVA)

January 30, 2004 VAVA sues thirty-seven US chemical companies on

behalf of Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims

2006 until Present Chair, Phan Châu Trinh Cultural Foundation

 1

Family
 2

Activism Inside Việt Nam

1960-1976
 3

With International Friends

1960-1976
 4

The Days in Paris

1968-1973
 5

The Education Ministry

1976-1987
 6

Returning to People-to-People Diplomacy

(1987-1992)
Vice President of Việt Nam
(1992-2002)
 7

Friends in Retirement
From 2002
LETTER