At the annual event, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and President of Vietnam To Lam stressed that while all nations continue to speak of peace, stability and cooperation, the strategic environment is marked by a growing lack of trust, fragmentation and unchecked competition.

General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of Vietnam and President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam To Lam
attended and delivered a keynote address at the 23rd Shangri-La Dialogue in
Singapore on May 29.

Following is a translation of the keynote address released
by the Vietnam News Agency:

PROACTIVELY SHAPING PEACE, STABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT IN A
WORLD OF TURBULENCE

Your Excellency Lawrence Wong,
Prime Minister of the host country Singapore,

Dr. Bastian Giegerich,
Director-General of International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS),

Distinguished guests, Ladies and
Gentlemen,

At the outset, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to
the Government of Singapore and the International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) for the honour of addressing the opening session of this
important forum. For more than two decades, the Shangri-La Dialogue has evolved
into a premier platform for regional security exchange, where nations share
perspectives, listen carefully to one another, and seek responsible pathways
towards peace, stability and development.

We meet at a time when the world is confronted with multiple
risks and uncertainties: more connected yet more vulnerable; more
technologically sophisticated yet more exposed to misuse; more deeply
interdependent yet increasingly susceptible to pressure and coercion. While all
nations continue to speak of peace, stability and cooperation, the strategic
environment is marked by a growing lack of trust, fragmentation and unchecked
competition. Therefore, what we need is to reach and advance a shared vision –
essential no matter how minimal it may be – to safeguard peace, trust and
development for humankind in the 21st century. At the same time, we must strengthen
our capacity to prevent crises early and from afar as experience repeatedly
reminds us that many major crises began with misunderstandings left unresolved,
signals wrongly interpreted, and preventive mechanisms not activated in time.

It is in this spirit that I wish to share some reflections
on the theme: proactively shaping peace, stability and development in a world
of turbulence.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Turbulence is a constant feature of the world. Whether it is
allowed to escalate into conflict or transformed into a catalyst for peace
depends on the strategic choices by nations and the international community.
Looking at today’s world, I believe the current instabilities reflect the
convergence of three fundamental crises, unfolding simultaneously and
reinforcing one another, namely a crisis of the international order, a crisis
of development models, and a crisis of strategic trust.

First, the crisis of the international order. The
international order is never static. A just order can evolve to reflect the
changing realities of the world. Yet such adaptation must occur through rules,
dialogue, mutual accommodation and self-restraint – not through coercion,
unilateral imposition, threats of force, or the creation of “faits
accomplis”.

The crisis of the international order begins when rules are
still invoked yet their binding force erodes; when commitments are repeatedly
affirmed yet undermined in practice; when fundamental principles of
international law are interpreted selectively, applied inconsistently, or
subordinated to the logic where might makes right and the strong prey upon the
weak. In such an environment, states, particularly small and medium-sized ones,
face mounting pressure to choose sides and are increasingly vulnerable to
coercion in the economic, technological, financial and security domains. At the
same time, the very connective spaces such as seas and oceans, cyberspace,
supply chains, digital infrastructure and undersea cables risk becoming arenas
of strategic contestation. Recent tensions along strategic maritime routes in
the Middle East remind us that conflict at a single flashpoint can rapidly
disrupt trade, energy supplies, logistics and socio-economic life across the
globe.

Second, the crisis of development models. For decades,
globalisation, trade and investment flows, technology diffusion and
supply-chain connectivity have created extraordinary development opportunities
for many countries, including developing nations. Yet these very engines are
now under unprecedented strain. Growth is slowing. Public debt and the cost of
capital are rising. Climate change is threatening the livelihoods of millions
of people. Emerging technologies create immense opportunities, but also new divides.
Trade, finance, tariffs, energy, food, data and technology increasingly risk
becoming tools of pressure.

For many nations, development is not secondary to security.
Development is the very foundation of enduring security. When development
pathways are disrupted, when opportunities for developing countries’
advancement are narrowed, economic fragility can quickly evolve into social and
political instability, and even strategic uncertainty.

Third, the crisis of strategic trust. This may be a silent
yet dangerous crisis, because it causes states to interpret one another’s
actions through the lens of mistrust and anxiety. When trust declines,
defensive measures may even be perceived as provocation; a difference of
interest may escalate into confrontation; and a minor incident may trigger
spirals of reactions in the absence of dialogue, communication and restraint.
Strategic trust does not require eliminating 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 mistrust.

Emerging technologies are making this challenge even more
complex. Big data, artificial intelligence, cyberspace, quantum technologies,
automatic systems and digital infrastructure are expanding development
capacities. Yet they also have the potential to amplify suspicion, enable
information manipulation, shorten decision-making time and increase the risk of
miscalculation. When technological advances outpace the evolution of rules and
human control, strategic stability becomes more fragile. Therefore, overcoming
this crisis requires a strategic framework for trust-building, one that includes
rapid communication channels in times of incidents. It also demands
transparency, dialogue, substantive information-sharing to reduce
misperceptions, clear codes of conduct to prevent collision, and sufficiently
robust technological norms to ensure that human beings remain ultimately
responsible for decisions carrying grave security consequences.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The above-mentioned three crises are converging most visibly
in the Asia-Pacific. 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 risks at sea; a region that has benefited profoundly
from globalisation yet now faces mounting pressure from supply-chain
fragmentation, climate change, technological transition and emerging
geo-economic competition. Precisely because it is where these challenges
converge, the Asia-Pacific must also become where solutions emerge. This region
shares a common interest in peace, connectivity and development; and possesses
deep experience in multi-layered cooperation. It is where ASEAN functions as a
framework for dialogue and balance. And it does have the motivation and resolve
to ensure that competition does not slide into confrontation; that lines of connectivity
do not become lines of division; and that one nation’s security does not become
another’s insecurity.

It is from this perspective that I wish to offer several
recommendations for jointly shaping an Asia-Pacific that is peaceful, stable,
resilient and capable of mitigating risks early and from afar.

First, we must make rules and dialogue truly effective
instruments of risk reduction. The Shangri-La Dialogue should remain a platform
where nations listen carefully to one another, clarify intentions, seek common
ground and manage differences, not merely one for restating positions. Dialogue
must help identify risks early, facilitate information-sharing, preserve
communication channels during moments of tension, and prevent disagreement from
escalating into crisis. Likewise, a rules-based order does not belong to any
single grouping of countries. It is the common foundation upon which large,
medium and small states alike can coexist peacefully, grounded in international
law and the UN Charter, with full respect for independence, sovereignty,
territorial integrity, non-use or threat of force, peaceful settlement of
disputes, and equality among nations. Rules acquire real meaning only when they
are implemented consistently and translated into operational mechanisms such as
early warning mechanisms, emergency communication channels, incident-management
protocols, self-restraint and verifiable actions.

This is particularly vital for seas and oceans. The seas and
oceans do not only stand for resources; but they are also the shared spaces of
connection and the lifelines of global trade, energy, food and supply chains.
No country benefits when these routes become theatres of coercion,
confrontation or displays of power.

With regards to the East Sea, Vietnam’s position remains
clear, consistent and principled. Vietnam supports the peaceful settlement of
all disputes and disagreements on the basis of international law, particularly
the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Vietnam respects the legitimate
rights and interests of other states, while remaining resolute and persistent
in safeguarding its own independence, sovereignty, and sovereign rights and
jurisdictional rights in accordance with international law.

Second, we need to shape an open, inclusive regional
architecture with ASEAN at its centre. As new mechanisms and initiatives
continue to emerge, we need to build a regional architecture capable of
connecting interests, reducing mistrust and reinforcing existing arrangements.
All initiatives that contribute to peace, stability and development should be
welcomed, provided they are transparent, respect international law, complement
one another, and do not weaken ASEAN’s centrality or turn Southeast Asia into
an arena of confrontation among blocs. ASEAN’s centrality is neither taken for
granted nor self-sustaining. It can only be preserved through unity, strategic
autonomy and the capacity to shape a common agenda. Inclusiveness must be
matched by effectiveness; dialogue must generate actions; and consensus must
enable timely regional responses to shared challenges. In this regard, Vietnam
supports and stands ready to work closely with the Philippines as ASEAN Chair
in 2026, together with all other member states, to strengthen peace and
security, expand corridors of prosperity, advance connectivity, inclusive and
sustainable development, and keep ASEAN’s people firmly at the centre of our
common endeavour.

Third, we must place human security and societal resilience
at the core of sustainable security. Instability today does not arise solely
from military conflict, but also from fractures in development itself.
Therefore, strengthening national defence is legitimate, but sustainable
security cannot rest on military power alone. Still less can it be built through
arms races or by increasing developmental insecurity for others. What we need
instead is a development foundation capable of withstanding systemic shocks,
one supported by open and diversified supply chains, seamless infrastructure
connectivity, and cooperation in finance, technology and human capital. At the
same time, we must advance practical collaboration in disaster relief, health,
water security, food security, energy security, cybersecurity, critical
infrastructure protection and search-and-rescue operations. When cooperation
tangibly enhances safety, safeguards livelihoods and improves the people’s
quality of life, strategic trust is renewed and strengthened.

Fourth, we must shape responsible norms for emerging
technologies and the defence industry. Artificial intelligence, big data,
quantum technologies, automatic systems, space technologies, cybersecurity and
hi-tech supply chains are reshaping international security. These technologies
can significantly expand our capacities for development, risk forecast and
governance. Yet they can also be misused to launch cyberattacks, manipulate
information, automate conflicts, enable unlawful surveillance, or create new
forms of coercion. In the defence and security domain, the critical question is
not how powerful technology may become, but the extent to which humanity can
retain control over it. We must therefore deepen dialogue on AI in the defence
and security domain; ensure human’s ultimate responsibility in decisions
carrying grave consequences; develop clearer norms of responsible conduct in
cyberspace; strengthen protection for undersea cables and critical data
infrastructure; and promote greater transparency regarding technologies
affecting strategic stability. The defence industry should serve legitimate
self-defence and regional stability, not to fuel arms races.

Fifth, we must strengthen societal foundation and
resilience, protect the information space and elevate public awareness. In a
world of deep digital interconnection, instability no longer stems only from
armed conflicts, supply-chain disruption or cyberattacks. It may begin with the
erosion of trust within societies themselves. Fake news, information
manipulation, extremist incitement, social polarisation and coordinated
influence operations can weaken national cohesion, distort public
understanding, deepen societal divisions and accelerate the spread of crises.
Safeguarding peace in the new era therefore also means safeguarding truth,
strengthening social trust, enhancing the capacity of strategic communications,
educating digital citizens, promoting the accountability of technology
platforms, and deepening international cooperation to counter false and
malicious information. A society capable of discerning truth from falsehood,
maintaining cohesion amid turbulence, and resisting manipulation by fear,
hatred or distortion provides one of the strongest foundations for sustainable
security.

Sixth, we must strengthen the capacity for preventive
diplomacy, mediation and conciliation in the region. Many crises erupt not
simply because of conflicting interests, but because the parties concerned lack
trusted channels for communication, lack space for de-escalation, and lack
mechanisms capable of steering confrontation back towards dialogue. The
Asia-Pacific must therefore treat preventive diplomacy as a strategic
capability, not merely as an improvised response after a crisis has already
erupted. We need more diverse channels of consultation, more flexible mediation
mechanisms, incident contact mechanisms, quasi-formal exchange platforms, and
broader confidence-building initiatives linking defence establishments,
security agencies, maritime law-enforcement bodies, scholars, businesses and
social organisations. The objective is to create credible “diplomatic
off-ramps” before parties become drawn into spirals of escalation that heighten
the risk of conflict.

To partners with significant influence both within and
beyond the region, Vietnam wishes to convey a sincere message as follows: The
Asia-Pacific is an open space, and all countries with legitimate interests can
have a role to play in contributing to its peace, stability and development.
The region welcomes engagement that is transparent, responsible, respectful of
international law, supportive of ASEAN centrality, and conducive to reducing
tensions. What the region seeks is neither the mere presence nor absence of any
major power. What it seeks is responsible commitment. We recognise that
competition is an enduring reality of international relations, but competition
must remain bounded by law, guided by transparency, and exercised with
restraint.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The three crises confronting our world today are not
inevitable realities that we are bound to accept. What matters is that we
confront them squarely, without allowing them to obscure opportunities for
action. The crisis of the international order shows that international law and
self-restraint must be reinforced. The crisis of the development models points
to the need to renew growth drivers in ways that are inclusive, sustainable,
and people-centered. The crisis of strategic trust calls for dialogue,
transparency, responsibility, and more substantive mechanisms for cooperation.

These answers will not emerge on their own. They can only
become reality if nations work together to uphold and shape rules, connect
interests, strengthen trust, and build practical mechanisms that effectively
reduce risks. In a world of turbulence, the challenge lies not only in external
instability, but also in our insufficient preparedness to manage risks. What is
needed is a shift from passive response to proactive shaping; from merely
reiterating principles to operationalising mechanisms; and from managing crises
after they erupt to mitigating risks before they escalate.

Therefore, the choice facing the Asia-Pacific today is not
between competition and no competition, because competition is an inherent reality
of international relations. The more important choice is between unchecked
competition and responsible coexistence; between division and dialogue; between
mistrust and coercion and an rules-based order and trust. Vietnam believes that
our region possesses both the mettle and the shared stakes to choose the path
of peace, cooperation, and prosperity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Vietnam clearly understands the value of peace through its
own history, and the value of development through its own journey of Doi Moi
(Renewal) and international integration. From that experience, we have come to
recognise profoundly that our national interests are intertwined with the
peace, stability and prosperity of the region. Contributing to regional peace
is also a way of safeguarding Vietnam’s long-term interests. Expanding
cooperation, reducing risks and intertwining legitimate interests are likewise
how Vietnam fulfils its responsibility to the international community.

Peace, stability and development are the common denominator
of all nations and peoples. But they carry meaning only when translated into
concrete action: restraint in the face of disagreement; dialogue when
divergences deepen; cooperation when challenges transcend borders; and the
building of practical mechanisms capable of reducing risks in real terms.

Vietnam therefore stands ready to work with countries both
within and beyond the region to reinforce rules, nurture trust, promote
dialogue, enhance cooperation, mitigate risks, and together shape an
Asia-Pacific that is safer, more resilient and more prosperous.

Thank you very much
for your attention!

VNA-