Tariffs, History and Healing: U.S.-Vietnam Relations 50 Years After the War

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Now, this week marks 50 years since the fall of Saigon, which ended two decades of brutal war in Vietnam. It’s also the 30th anniversary of normalization between the U.S. and Vietnam. And now, trade talks between the two are ongoing after the Trump administration imposed one of its highest reciprocal tariffs on Vietnam. Daniel Kritenbrink was the U.S. ambassador there during Trump’s first term. He joins Walter Isaacson to reflect on where this complex relationship might be headed next.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Ambassador Dan Kritenbrink, welcome to the show.

DANIEL KRITENBRINK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM AND PARTNER, THE ASIA GROUP: Thank you, Walter. What an honor to be here.

ISAACSON: So, we’re now at the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, and I think they’ve invited some U.S. officials and representatives to be part of the honoring of that event in Vietnam. It’s complicated. Should U.S. officials be there? And as a former ambassador, what would you have done?

KRITENBRINK: Well, Walter, before I address that very important question squarely, I think it’s important to take a step back as well and reflect on just how extraordinary it is that the United States and Vietnam have built this amazing partnership 50 years after the end of the war. And I like to start there. And it really is extraordinary after the pain and suffering and the brutality of that war, that today the United States of America is more popular in Vietnam than any other country in the world. And we become partners and friends cooperating in a broad range of issues. But achieving that certainly wasn’t easy. And I think a key part of building this extraordinary achievement over the last 50 years has been the work that we’ve done on legacy of war work and humanitarian issues. You know, accounting for missing on both sides, dealing with Agent Orange and disabilities, and cleaning up unexploded ordinance. And of course, there’s been a lot of work as well on addressing our sensitive history in respectful ways. So, that’s the framework that I bring to this current debate over whether the United States should participate in this April 30th commemoration. I think it’s also important to understand, Walter, as well. To my knowledge, a U.S. ambassador has never participated in these April 30 commemorations before, and I’m not aware that a U.S. ambassador has ever been invited before either. Because, again, the April 30 commemoration, of course, is Vietnam’s own celebration of its victory in the war and its victory over, not just the United States, but South Vietnam as well. And of course, that hasn’t been the focus for the United States for the last 50 years. We’ve always focused on the July 11 anniversary of the normalization of relations. So, I think when I look at this, I think it’s important to understand even with the extraordinary progress we’ve made, these issues related to our history remain exceptionally sensitive, even 50 years on, and especially when you’re doing something for the first time. So, I don’t know exactly what the final decision may or may not be regarding America’s participation in this event. I think it’s a great sign that we were invited. But I can also understand that these issues are sensitive, especially as I’ve outlined here, because it would be the first time for us to ever attend Vietnam’s own ceremonies. We’re celebrating many anniversaries this year. It’s not just the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, it’s the 30th anniversary of the normalization of U.S.-Vietnam ties. It’s the 80th anniversary of the cooperation between the United States and the Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh in Northern Vietnam in 1945 during World War II. I’m confident that we’ll have a tremendous celebration of the 30th anniversary of our relationship at a minimum. I hope we can find a way

perhaps to respectfully and carefully participate in these April 30th commemorations. But if we don’t this year, I don’t think it will have a

tremendous impact on the relationship, and I’m confident we’ll get there someday.

ISAACSON: You were ambassador to Vietnam during President Trump’s first term.

KRITENBRINK: Yes, I was.

ISAACSON: You talk about this historic process of after 50 years, then becoming so close to the United States. Part of it was little things or big things you did, including, I think, visit a North Vietnamese cemetery for the first time. Tell me about that process of healing the wounds.

KRITENBRINK: Well, thank you for raising that. I found it extraordinary that during my tenure as ambassador again, almost 45 years after the end of the war, that no American ambassador had ever visited a North Vietnamese military cemetery, a martyr cemetery. So I had requested permission to visit the Truong Son martyr Cemetery in Vietnam, I thought it was the right thing to do. And my approach to that drawing on, of course the tremendous work done by my many predecessors as ambassadors to Vietnam, was to try to show great respect for those on all sides who had sacrificed in the name of patriotism. Of course, I visited the Vietnam War Memorial here in the United States multiple times, but I thought it was important to make a visit to a North Vietnamese military cemetery as well. I also visited, multiple times, the Bien Hoa or Binh An Martyr Cemetery in South Vietnam, which is the army of the Republic of Vietnam Cemetery as well. And I was trying to show that even these many decades after the war, it’s still meaningful to show respect to all sides. It’s not to apologize. It’s simply to say that these are symbolic acts that show that both sides have moved past the tragedy of the war, even as we don’t forget the lessons we’ve learned and we can respect one another. And I drew inspiration in part from the amazing encounters I witnessed between veterans on both sides. There, it’s incredibly moving to see when veterans from the US and Vietnam side get together, even sometimes units who fought against one another. What I witnessed was not rank or enmity, but was a tremendously emotional encounter in a very positive and healing way.

ISAACSON: Well, let me ask you a technical question. Did you have to get permission from the Trump White House when you went to that cemetery?

KRITENBRINK: Well as a matter of fact, at that point, no. I did not. And it was my assessment at that point that what I was, what I was proposing to do was important. And even though it was the first time I didn’t think it was so sensitive that it required me to get permission in advance. But I will say something as significant as the first ever American Ambassador to participate in the April 30th ceremony, I think that’s quite natural that that is something that ought to be an administration decision.

ISAACSON: During the presidency of George W. Bush I was asked to be co- chair of the U.S.-Vietnam dialogue on cleaning up the dioxin at the air base, as you’ve talked about. Susan Berresford of the Ford Foundation helped fund it. Ambassador Noah Joan was my counterpart there. And we felt that that was a way to reduce the tensions from the war. Has that — is that going to continue, the cleanup of the Agent Orange and dioxin?

KRITENBRINK: I was told that it will, and I certainly hope that that is the case. My understanding is that it will be the case. And again, I think it’s vitally important that that work continue. I used to ask, Walter, many Vietnamese friends and thinkers and strategists and officials, how is it that we’ve achieved this extraordinary accomplishment of becoming friends and partners after this brutal war? And I heard many, interesting answers to that question, including the fact that Vietnamese friends would say that they live in a rough neighborhood, and after millennia of struggles, including against their big northern neighbor, they don’t have the luxury of holding grudges and other factors. But almost to a person, they would say that America’s legacy of war work was vital to that as well. And, you know, in this place, I think it’s important to really recognize — I’m very grateful for the work and the leadership that you and many other American citizens have contributed in this space. Think about the amazing work that Senator Patrick Leahy and others did to lead this effort. And it’s important to note that I think it was very cleverly done that this assistance, for example, focused on remediation both at Da Nang and now the Bien Hoa Air Bases outside of Ho Chi Minh City. But there’s also work done to treat Vietnamese with disabilities irrespective of cause, but in the provinces that had been most heavily sprayed by Agent Orange during the war. And I thought that was quite a reasonable and elegant way to find a way to move forward. And of course, Walter, if you focus on this, it’s also — it was really inspiring to me to see that, really on both sides, it was our warriors who led us back to peace.

ISAACSON: The big issue right now in relations with Vietnam is tariffs and President Trump has put almost 50 percent tariff or announced it on Vietnam, and Vietnam has a very large trade deficit with the United States. How would you see your way out of this issue?

KRITENBRINK: It’s a fantastic question. And you’re right, this is the question of the day that both sides are seized with as we speak. It is not an overstatement to say that Hanoi was shocked by the level of tariffs that were placed on them on April 2nd, namely 46 percent. But I think in classic Vietnamese fashion, they’ve responded in a productive, in a very practical way. I think our Vietnamese counterparts are amongst the most strategic and practical and sometimes transactional people that I’ve ever met. I think after the initial shock and bewilderment and even some anger that was felt in private in Hanoi, our Vietnamese friends quickly regrouped and came back to the table, I think in classic Vietnamese fashion. And now, Vietnam is one of the priority countries for the Trump administration with whom we’re trying to negotiate a trade deal. I’m told there’ll be a — there will be a Vietnamese trade delegation in Washington this week, and I think our Vietnamese friends are trying to think through, in practical ways, how can they address the concerns of the U.S. side? So, they’re considering things like increasing commercial purchases, addressing market access challenges, thinking about investments in the United States. And I think that that is the way to approach this in a practical way.

ISAACSON: But don’t you think there’ll always be a trade deficit in that inherent in our relationship with Vietnam?

KRITENBRINK: Without a doubt, Walter. A trade — I think, first of all, most trade deficits, and it’s certainly not one of that size, can be somehow quickly reduced. And of course, there’s debate among economists whether that should be the objective anyway. But what I think our Vietnamese friends learned from the first Trump administration is that if they can demonstrate that they’re doing what they can to reduce the deficit by increasing purchases of American aircraft and LNG and grain and the like, if they’re fixing their existing market access barriers, they also suppress some of the trade. And if they invest in the United States, I think they can make progress. And look, my bottom line, Walter, is I think if the Trump administration wants a trade deal with Vietnam, then a deal can be had. Because Vietnam is ready to negotiate and cut that deal. One final really important question here too is the U.S. side is obviously going to push very aggressively to reduce any trans-shipment of Chinese goods via Vietnam. So, it’ll be important for Vietnam to crack down on that as well, because if there’s going to be a trade deal with Vietnam, it can’t serve as a backdoor for Chinese goods looking to evade U.S. tariff levies.

ISAACSON: Vietnam’s largest trade partner is China. And one of the things that I’m wondering is whether these tariffs being threatened by the United States will push Vietnam closer to China, or whether Vietnam doesn’t really want that. It’s friendly with the United States. And whether the U.S. can make a deal to wean Vietnam from being in China’s orbit. What do you think?

KRITENBRINK: Just the way that I see it, Walter. I see Vietnam as amongst the most skilled balancers on the international stage that I’ve ever encountered. And again, it comes from this, I think, strong strategic sense and great focus on practicality. I do think that Vietnam, over the millennia, has really struggled to maintain its identity and its independence. Certainly, if you look at Vietnamese history, much of that struggle was against China and its northern neighbor. But the Vietnamese are also very practical. They know that China’s an important counterpart. So, again, Vietnam is always striving for balance. China may be its largest trade partner, but the U.S. is by far its largest export market. Vietnam upgraded its partnership with the United States in 2023 to a comprehensive strategic partnership. Its top tier that it has with China and Russia, but it’s also done so with other key partners like Japan and Australia and India as well. So, I don’t see the strategic game, so to speak, as being tried — trying to peel Vietnam away from China. I see it as we believe that it’s in America’s interest to have strong, successful, sovereign partners. And it’s important that we provide Vietnam, I think, with the ability, which is in both of our interests, for it to maintain its balance and its sovereignty and independence, and not be overly influenced or dominated by any country, whether that’s China or anyone else.

ISAACSON: China’s leader, Xi Jinping, just visited Hanoi. What happened in those meetings?

KRITENBRINK: Walter, I thought it was quite natural for President Xi to go there. I think, again, as we’ve discussed here for Vietnam, I’m sureVietnam was motivated to host China because it’s looking always to balance with China and all the other partners that we talked about. I think China was motivated to travel, not just to Hanoi, but to other countries in Southeast Asia, because I’m sure China is trying to present itself as the responsible actor in international affairs, as the defender of the rules- based international order. And I’m sure that the Chinese probably sent some opportunity to advance their strategic interests across the region as there’s some concern over U.S. tariffs. But again, reflecting on Vietnamese history and Vietnamese strategic thinking, I think the Vietnamese are seeking balance not to tip too much to one side or the other. But I’ll also close here on the Xi Jinping visit, Walter, by noting that I think Xi Jinping came not just with carrots, but with some sticks as well. You may have seen he issued a public warning that no country should cut a deal with the United States that disadvantages China’s interest, and I’m sure that was part of the conversation as well.

ISAACSON: You were an ambassador to Vietnam during the first Trump administration. How has President Trump’s — how have — has his priorities changed now to the second administration?

KRITENBRINK: Well, Walter, when I was ambassador in Vietnam during almost the entire first Trump administration, I was there for his two visits to Vietnam, in some ways the priorities were quite similar, I thought. We made very clear to our Vietnamese friends that trade issues were at the forefront of our relationship. We worked very aggressively to increase Vietnamese purchases of U.S. goods, and perhaps more importantly to reduce market access and non-tariff trade barriers that inhibited the ability of U.S. companies to compete fairly. I think what’s probably the biggest difference for me and I know for our Vietnamese friends is that I think this second Trump administration, we’ve seen the administration being much more organized and systematic and aggressive in implementing a range of measures including tariffs. And I think unlike the first Trump administration, there’s been very much — there’s been very little dialogue in advance. There’s been announcements of these measures, and then the concern was on the part of the Vietnamese and others, would there be any dialogue and/or negotiations to try to deal with U.S. concerns? I think the good news for all of the shock caused by the April 2 announcements, I think the Vietnamese are now cautiously optimistic that they have channels with Washington. Again, I mentioned there’ll be a trade team from Vietnam here in Washington this week. I would expect that the Vietnamese trade team and the U.S. trade team, led by USTR, and I’m sure others from treasury and commerce will be there. I think they’ll get down to brass tacks quite quickly. But again, it’s that organization probably that aggressiveness that’s the biggest surprise to our Vietnamese friends and the biggest difference from the first administration.

ISAACSON: Ambassador Dan Kritenbrink, thank you so much for joining us.

KRITENBRINK: Thank you. What an honor to be here.