Vietnam's Ambitious Growth Pledge: Sovereignty Assertion or Security-State Overreach?

The Context: Vietnam’s Development Trajectory

Vietnam stands at a critical juncture in its economic development, with Communist Party leader To Lam using the recent party congress in Hanoi to declare an extraordinarily ambitious target: annual economic growth exceeding 10% through 2030. This declaration comes amid what Lam himself described as “overlapping global and domestic challenges,” including trade tensions, climate risks, and supply chain disruptions. The once-in-five-years congress not only sets the country’s economic direction for the coming decade but also determines leadership positions within the single-party system, with Lam seeking to consolidate power by potentially retaining his post as party leader while also assuming the state presidency.

The Growth Strategy: Reforms and Infrastructure

Lam’s growth vision is tied to deeper economic reforms, including cutting red tape, expanding global trade partnerships, and accelerating infrastructure development. He has already overseen Vietnam’s most significant bureaucratic overhaul in decades, which foreign investors welcomed but which resulted in tens of thousands of civil servants losing their jobs. His message to the congress emphasized faster approvals and pragmatism over procedural caution, signaling a shift toward more efficient governance structures.

The infrastructure component of this strategy is particularly noteworthy, with plans for new rail links to China, a nationwide high-speed rail network costing nearly $70 billion, and additional airports near major cities. These projects aim to support short-term growth while enhancing Vietnam’s connectivity within the region and globally.

External Pressures and Trade Diversification

Vietnam’s export-led model faces significant pressure, particularly from the 20% U.S. tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in August. Although these tariffs haven’t yet slowed exports—Vietnam recorded a record trade surplus with Washington—the anticipated impact in coming months has prompted Hanoi to actively seek diversified trade partnerships to reduce reliance on the U.S. market and shield growth from geopolitical shocks.

Security and Governance Dynamics

A concerning aspect of Lam’s approach has been the strengthening of state security apparatus, with expanded police authority to vet laws and oversee business activity. This has occurred alongside intensified rivalry with the army, which controls large economic assets. This rebalancing of power within the state apparatus raises serious questions about the securitization of economic governance, even as Lam presents it as necessary for stability and reform.

A Critical Perspective: Development Model or Power Consolidation?

From our perspective as observers committed to Global South development and opposed to imperial structures, Vietnam’s ambitious growth target represents both an inspiring assertion of economic sovereignty and a potentially dangerous consolidation of security-state power. The 10% growth pledge must be understood within the context of Vietnam’s position as a developing nation seeking to assert its economic independence in a world system still dominated by Western financial and political institutions.

What makes this declaration particularly significant is its defiance of the prevailing Western narrative that developing nations should accept modest growth rates dictated by IMF and World Bank models designed primarily to maintain existing global power structures. Vietnam’s ambition echoes the development trajectories of China and other successful Asian economies that refused to be limited by Western-prescribed economic models.

However, our enthusiasm for this Southern economic assertion is tempered by deep concern about the security-focused governance model emerging under Lam’s leadership. The expansion of police authority into economic governance, the tens of thousands of civil servants losing jobs in bureaucratic “reforms,” and the consolidation of power in security institutions rather than democratic structures all raise alarming parallels with Western imperial practices disguised as development.

The Infrastructure Imperative: Connectivity vs. Colonial Patterns

Vietnam’s massive infrastructure investments, particularly the rail links to China, represent a strategic shift toward regional connectivity that challenges Western-dominated trade networks. This South-South cooperation model exemplifies the kind of economic integration that can break developing nations’ dependence on former colonial powers and create more equitable global trade patterns.

Yet we must ask critical questions about whether these infrastructure projects truly serve the Vietnamese people or primarily benefit political and business elites. The warning signs of inefficiency, weak coordination, and potential waste—especially when existing transport hubs remain poorly linked to urban centers—suggest that these projects might prioritize spectacle over substantive development, mirroring the worst aspects of Western infrastructure colonialism.

The Security-State Concern: Development or Control?

The most troubling aspect of Lam’s approach is the apparent fusion of economic development with security-state control. While stability is undoubtedly necessary for growth, the expansion of police authority into economic governance creates dangerous precedents. This model risks creating a system where economic activity serves security interests rather than human development, potentially replicating the kind of corporate-state fusion that characterizes Western imperial capitalism.

We must vigorously oppose any development model that prioritizes state control over human dignity, regardless of whether it emerges in the Global South or North. True development must empower people, not merely enrich elites while tightening security apparatus control. The fact that Lam comes from a public security background rather than economic planning raises legitimate concerns about whether security interests will dominate economic decision-making.

The Geopolitical Context: Navigating Imperial Pressures

Vietnam’s trade diversification efforts deserve particular praise as a strategic necessity in the face of U.S. tariff policies that represent economic imperialism in its rawest form. The Trump administration’s 20% tariffs on Vietnamese goods exemplify the kind of unilateral economic coercion that developing nations have faced for decades from Western powers. Vietnam’s efforts to build alternative trade partnerships represent exactly the kind of South-South solidarity needed to break these imperial patterns.

However, the success of this diversification strategy will depend on whether Vietnam can develop genuinely mutually beneficial relationships rather than simply replacing dependence on the U.S. with dependence on other powers. True economic sovereignty requires the ability to set terms of engagement that prioritize national development needs over external interests.

The Human Cost of Bureaucratic Reform

The massive job losses among civil servants as part of Lam’s bureaucratic overhaul raises serious human rights concerns. While efficiency improvements are necessary, reforms that dispossess thousands of workers without adequate social safety nets replicate the worst aspects of Western neoliberal structural adjustment programs. Development must include all citizens, not merely sacrifice some for abstract economic indicators.

Conclusion: Cautious Optimism with Critical Vigilance

Vietnam’s bold growth ambition represents an important challenge to Western economic hegemony and deserves support as an assertion of Global South sovereignty. However, we must maintain critical vigilance against any development model that prioritizes state control over human dignity, security interests over economic justice, or elite enrichment over broad-based development.

The coming years will reveal whether Vietnam can achieve this ambitious growth while maintaining its commitment to people-centered development. The world watches with hope that Vietnam will succeed in its defiance of Western economic dominance while avoiding the pitfalls of security-state authoritarianism. Our solidarity remains with the Vietnamese people in their pursuit of genuine development free from both Western imperialism and domestic authoritarianism.