At the Shangri-La Dialogue Forum in Singapore, Vietnam’s To Lam warns of 3 crises converging in Asia-Pacific security

Vietnam’s President and Communist Party leader, To Lam, on Friday  (29 May) struck a sombre tone at a summit when he warned of three foundational crises converging to cause global instabilities – those of international order, development models and strategic trust.

He was delivering the keynote address at the Shangri-La  dialogue forum in Singapore, Asia’s premier defence forum, in his first speech on Vietnam’s foreign policy to an international audience since being elected president in April. The forum is organised by Lindon, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), and will run from 29-31 May 2026.

Speaking to defence ministers, military chiefs, diplomats and analysts at the 23rd edition of the dialogue, Lam said the three crises – a changing world order where might was right, the erosion of globalisation and the loss of trust among countries – reinforced each other and converged most clearly in the Asia-Pacific region.

“This is the world’s most dynamic centre of growth, but also a theatre of intense strategic competition, a region defined by vital maritime routes, yet fraught with risk at sea; a region that benefited profoundly from globalisation, yet now faces mounting pressure from supply chain fragmentation, climate change, technological transition and emerging geoeconomic competition,” said Lam, the president and general secretary of Vietnam’s Communist Party.

On the crisis of strategic trust, Lam called this “a silent yet dangerous crisis” that caused states to interpret actions through mistrust and anxiety, a situation made more complex by rapid developments in emerging technologies.

“Big data, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, quantum technologies, autonomous systems, and digital infrastructure are expanding development capabilities, yet they also have the potential to amplify suspicion, enable information manipulation, compress decision-making timelines, and increase the risk of miscalculation,” Lam said.

He noted that strategic stability would become more fragile when technological advances outpaced the evolution of rules and human oversight.

To overcome this crisis, Lam called for a strategic framework for trust building that would include rapid communication channels in times of incident, dialogue to reduce misperception, clear codes of conduct to prevent collision and robust technological norms to ensure humans remained ultimately responsible for decisions carrying grave security consequences.

“Strategic trust does not require elimination of differences or denying competition, its essence lies in managing differences within a rules-based framework, ensuring that competition remains bounded, responsible and predictable. A durable regional order cannot be built upon perpetual fear and mutual distrust,” Lam said.

Precisely because it is where these challenges converge, the Asia-Pacific must also become where solutions emerge.

Asked if he agreed that AI also created new opportunities and gave countries the chance to deliver needed combat power for deterrence at a new speed, Lam said Vietnam believed the need for human decision remained important, especially in defence and security.

He called for transparency, information sharing, and building trust and consensus based on principles and technical standards when using these advanced technologies in military activities.

Lam was also asked by a senior colonel from China if he viewed Beijing and Hanoi’s “3+3” strategic dialogue on diplomacy, defence and public security as a new way of promoting regional security cooperation.

The concept refers to adding the public security element to the typical “2+2” bilateral mechanism involving foreign and defence ministers.

Lam said there were many mechanisms to bolster cooperation, and noted the implementation of this mechanism reflected Vietnam’s position of self-reliance and resilience.

“In its relations with China, Vietnam views the ‘3+3’ strategic dialogue as an important mechanism among core agencies in maintaining regional peace and security,” he said.

“These agencies all bring forth very practical values in bolstering Vietnam’s relations with China and ensuring and contributing to peace, stability and cooperation in the region.”

source: commonspace.eu with South China Morning Post  (Hong Kong) and agencies

 photo: The leader of Vietnam, To Lam, arrivinf to speak at the Shangri La Forum in Singapore

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)