Why Did Vietnam Cut Half of the CCP’s Congratulatory Message?

On October 24–26, 2024, Zhang Youxia led a delegation to Vietnam, receiving a near state-level welcome, including a red carpet, a tri-service honor guard, and a ceremonial gun salute. Vietnam’s state-run media Vietnam News Agency (VNA) reported that Zhang’s visit was a “formal visit”. (Screenshot from video)

[People News] On February 3, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCP) sent a congratulatory message to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) to mark the 95th anniversary of the CPV’s founding. The original message contained over 500 characters, but Vietnam’s official report cut it down to just over 200 characters. Why did this happen?

In its message, the CCP praised the CPV for its “remarkable and glorious achievements”, specifically highlighting the 13th National Congress of the CPV. The message stated that under the CPV’s strengthened leadership and rectification efforts, Vietnam’s political stability, social order, economic growth, and international standing have all significantly improved. However, Vietnam News Agency only included the phrase “remarkable achievements” while omitting all other details.

It is worth noting that in December 2023, when Xi Jinping visited Vietnam, then-General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng proudly stated that the 13th CPV National Congress had affirmed that Vietnam was stronger than ever in terms of national foundation, potential, international status, and reputation. He also reiterated that Vietnam’s goal was to become a high-income developed country by the middle of the century. So why is Vietnam now ignoring the CCP’s endorsement?

Secondly, in its congratulatory message, the CCP stated that "the Vietnamese Party and people are under the strong leadership of the CPV Central Committee, headed by To Lam," and also added, "We believe that your goals will certainly be achieved!" However, Vietnam News Agency (VNA) only mentioned "under To Lam’s leadership" and omitted the phrase "We believe that your goals will certainly be achieved."

It is highly unusual for Vietnam to exclude this kind of statement from China. In previous official reports on the CCP’s congratulatory messages for the 90th and 85th anniversaries of the CPV, Vietnam had openly included the phrase "We believe (or firmly believe)..." from China. Why has Vietnam chosen not to mention it this time?

Third, in its congratulatory message, the CCP emphasized the long-standing friendship between the two sides and specifically highlighted the cooperation between Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. However, Vietnam News Agency (VNA) only mentioned that "the two countries supported and assisted each other in the revolutionary struggle," seemingly disregarding the CCP’s wording about "standing shoulder to shoulder" and "forging ahead together." Moreover, Mao and Ho were not mentioned at all.

Fourth, for the first time, the CCP stated in its message that it "has always attached importance to developing China-Vietnam relations from a strategic and long-term perspective." It also expressed willingness to work with the CPV to "implement the important consensus reached by the two parties’ top leaders, uphold the 'Sixteen-Character' Guideline and the 'Four Goods' Spirit, follow the overall goal of the 'Six Enhancements,' maintain high-level exchanges, strengthen strategic communication, consolidate traditional friendship, expand cooperation in all fields... and advance the building of a China-Vietnam community with a shared future in a deep and practical manner."

In its report, Vietnam News Agency (VNA) only briefly stated that "China expressed its willingness to work with the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) to effectively implement high-level consensus, promote mutual visits and exchanges, strengthen strategic communication and cooperation, consolidate traditional friendship, and expand exchanges and cooperation in all fields."

Over the past decade, the CCP’s standard phrasing in congratulatory messages has always been: "The CCP has always highly valued the development of friendly and cooperative relations with the CPV." However, this time, Beijing added the phrase "from a strategic height and long-term perspective" before "valued," emphasizing an increased focus on China-Vietnam relations. Yet, the CPV not only failed to acknowledge this change but also did not fully quote the CCP’s words as it had in previous reports. Instead, it downplayed the message, showing a lack of strong interest.

Additionally, while the CCP referred to both countries' “highest leaders”, Vietnam News Agency changed this to "high-level officials". The difference is significant—"highest leaders" refers exclusively to two individuals, whereas "high-level officials" is more ambiguous. Since rumors surfaced in July 2023 that Xi Jinping suffered a stroke, the CPV leadership is well aware of China’s internal situation. Vietnam’s high-level receptions for visiting Chinese officials like Li Qiang and Zhang Youxia may also reflect this awareness. By reporting “high-level consensus” rather than the CCP’s “highest leaders' consensus,” Vietnam may actually be closer to the truth.

Regarding the CPV's decision not to mention the CCP’s words of affirmation, not to include the phrase "we believe", not to reference Mao and Ho, and to downplay the CCP’s friendly remarks, the author believes there are two reasons for this.

The first reason reflects a shift in the CPV’s mindset. Whether it is the words of affirmation or the phrase "we believe", they give the impression that the CCP is speaking from a position of superiority rather than equality. With Vietnam’s economic growth, rising international status, and the CCP’s tarnished global reputation and unprecedented pressure, Vietnam likely no longer wishes to maintain a "big brother-little brother" relationship with China. While acknowledging China as a major power, Vietnam seeks a more equal diplomatic relationship.

The second reason is that Trump’s presidency has not fundamentally changed the U.S. strategy of containing the CCP. The U.S. has already made clear its intent to pressure the CCP in multiple areas, including the Panama Canal, Greenland, virus origin tracing, fentanyl, and tariffs. It is expected that further actions against the CCP will follow.

Meanwhile, the CCP’s internal assessment of U.S.-China relations remains pessimistic. However, Beijing hopes to win over European countries dissatisfied with Trump, as well as ASEAN, African, and other nations in an effort to counter the U.S. and break free from American tariff sanctions. The CCP’s diplomatic strategy is currently shifting in this direction.

From the CCP’s congratulatory message this time—especially its mention of developing relations with the CPV "from a strategic and long-term perspective"—it is clear that Beijing has realized the importance of strengthening ties with Vietnam amid high U.S. tariffs. Reports have suggested that DeepSeek, which recently triggered volatility in U.S. stock markets, illegally obtained NVIDIA chips from Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries.

The CPV, which follows a "bamboo diplomacy" strategy, is well aware of this situation. In order to avoid provoking U.S. displeasure or even sanctions, Vietnam, whether sincerely or just for appearances, does not want to seem overly close to the CCP.

However, due to the deep economic ties between China and Vietnam, the CPV cannot completely detach itself from the CCP. A recent Global Times article discussing how to strengthen Sino-Vietnamese economic and trade cooperation cited Vietnamese customs data, revealing that China-Vietnam bilateral trade reached $205.2 billion in 2024, setting a new record. China has become Vietnam’s first trade partner to surpass $200 billion in total trade volume.

Clearly, Vietnam faces a delicate balancing act—maintaining close economic relations with China while avoiding U.S. retaliation. The fact that the CPV cut down the CCP’s congratulatory message suggests that Vietnam is now more confident in saying "no" to Beijing. As two ideologically similar but diverging nations, the question remains: which one will successfully transition into the future?