A MEMOIR ABOUT TEACHING AT HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY

DURING THE IMMEDIATE POST WAR YEARS. [bcrry641@gmail.com]

By Robert (Bob) Curry

Professor Emeritus, Economics and International Affairs, California State University Sacramento.

Shortly after I retired from California State University Sacramento in 1997 I became the first American economist to teach at Ho Chi Minh City University since the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. My teaching job was on a voluntary basis. The UHCMU covered my travel and other expenses. I needed no salary because I was receiving a pension and social security. My assignment began in 1998 and took place periodically through 1999, 2001 and 2002. My HCMCU teaching assignment began and lasted during an exciting period during the country’s modern history. The period started with Saigon’s fall and ended two decades later when on August 6, l995 the United States opened both its Embassy in Hanoi and its Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. From 1975 through 1995 the former wartime enemies participated in two decades of serious, honest, often contentious and ultimately successful discussions and negotiations regarding the shape of Vietnam’s future. The negotiations resulted in reconciliation and then normalization between the two. Diplomatic normalization began to flourish as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam began opening embassies and consulates throughout the World. This was good news for both countries, especially for Vietnam. Normalization led to a “decade of opportunities” that ended the country’s isolation, repaired its war damages, rebuilt its shattered economy, became a part of the Southeast Asian region and constructed a modern education system.

My journey coincided with start of this “decade of opportunities.” My first step took place in l998 when I visited the newly opened Vietnam Consul General’s office in San Francisco to obtain travel and residency documents. It opened in October of 1997 and everything about my visit was new. The office was helpful. The staff welcomed me and arranged for me to receive both an entry permit and a resident visa that would permit me to teach in a Vietnamese university. However, I could not obtain them in San Francisco. The Consul General’s office could authorize my trip but it could not supply me with the final documentation. That had to come directly from the appropriate ministry in Hanoi. The process worked this way: the Consul General assured me that the visa and permit would be waiting for me when I checked into immigration at the airport in Bangkok, Thailand. He explained why the process was necessary and issued me an official travel document that would get me to Bangkok.

He was right---the documents were indeed waiting for me in Bangkok. Everything worked perfectly and I was off to Ho Chi Minh City aboard a Vietnam Airways carrier that appeared to be a very old plane provided to Vietnam by the Soviet Union. Upon landing in HCMC I headed to immigration. This posed a bit of a problem because it had to be conducted in two languages. There was no long established format to follow because everything was quite new and different.

I was the only Caucasian in line so I was easily spotted by two officials from the university who I learned were responsible for designing the certificate program that I was going to offer at HCMCU. They explained why they chose me to offer it. They were accompanied by two young female faculty members who would be my interpreter/translator team. Each taught English in HCMCU’s foreign language department and held a Ph.D. in English from Griffith University in Australia. I might add that they were enormously helpful throughout the certificate program. I was ushered through customs and immigration and when we were finished, we were on the way to the private home where I would stay.

On our way the two answered in more depth the two questions I had: that is, why the program and why me? The answer to “why me” was simple: the university officials were scholars who knew Dr. Royce Shaw, my CSUS colleague who served as the head of the CSUS international studies program. Dr. Shaw learned about the certificate program due to his professional contact with the Vietnamese scholars. He was convinced I was “right” for the job. He knew that I had been Senior Fulbright Scholar at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore where I focused on Southeast Asia’s regional economy and subsequently wrote scholarly essays on Vietnam’s potential for playing a role in it.

The answer to “why the program” took much more time to explain. I was told that the idea for a certificate program came about because of a new national focus on Vietnam’s future. It was called “Doi Moi.” The words meant nothing to me. I hadn’t previously heard them spoken but it soon became clear that “Doi Moi” was the reason for my being in Vietnam. In effect, “Doi Moi” was an approach to national development that called for a massive “remaking of Vietnam.” It called for renovations that would drive the country from being a complete socialist command economy to one that would be socialist in orientation but driven by market forces. It was much more than a new academic exercise. It came from the Party and the Government. It was real and it was announced by the Communist Party of Vietnam at its 6^th Party Congress in 1986. In it Party members called for these critical renovations: use free market forces: coordinate economic activity between private enterprises and state owned enterprises; allow private enterprises to operate on the basis of a profit motivation; and establish a stock exchange for both private and state enterprises.

Wow! All of this coming from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam---a solid Communist Party run state. However, the Government and the Party made a crucial and fundamental choice. It chose not to take a pathway similar to the one taken by North Korea. That pathway led to isolation, exclusion, dependency and permanent economic suffering forced on a majority of the country’s population. The road taken by the Government and Party was different. It included engagement, inclusion, cooperation along with self-reliance, and broadly shared socio-economic development. The choice happened because Government officials and Party members knew that something fundamental had to be done in order to prevent the country’s economy from completely collapsing. So they came up with some innovative and appropriate measures---they called it “Doi Moi.” The Party and the Government knew that the status quo was not the answer. The economy was truly in a mess: low productivity; low levels of production, output and income; lagging economic growth; seriously high levels of poverty and unemployment and underemployment; persistent and rampant Inflation, food insecurity ranging from hunger and malnutrition to starvation and morbidity; dwindling private and public capital stock levels; and isolation from trade and flows of capital and international aid. The future looked bleak as sanctions were being strictly enforced by the United States. Vietnam turned to the Soviet Union for assistance. In 1978 it joined COMECON (Council for Mutual Assistance) which was dominated by the Soviet Union. By continuing to accept this relationship, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam would have chosen to maintain isolation from a booming regional economy and continue to be highly dependent on the Soviet Union.

They chose “Doi Moi”: it paved away for Vietnam to move out of COMECON in 1991 when it collapsed as an institution. This permitted Vietnam to move partially away from its virtually complete reliance on the Soviet Union. The Government in Hanoi, with Party’s approval, moved the country in a new direction. In 1995 it became one of ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In 1998 it became one of 23 members of the Asia- Pacific Economic Community (APEC)—a multilateral institution that included the United States. Because of these moves, by 2000 two-way foreign trade, travel, labor migration, capital investments, financial flows and aid (official development assistance (ODA)) were flowing into the country. The Clinton Administration in Washington lent support to these moves. President Clinton made a super move: he chose Pete Peterson, a three term Florida member of the House of Representatives to be the United States first Ambassador to post war Vietnam. Prior to going to Congress, Peterson was an Air Force pilot who was shot down and spent six years in captivity in Hanoi. He was an extraordinary diplomat: he learned the Vietnamese language and married a Vietnamese. He was an ideal American face in Vietnam.

An important point for me to understand was that “Doi Moi” and all of the activity surrounding it had an impact on higher education throughout Vietnam. Government and Party leaders knew that current university graduates were destined to become the mid-level managers, engineers and architects that would make “Doi Moi” work. In preparing them for that challenge, students needed to be given appropriate intellectual tools and they were not getting them. In economics, for example, students were learning from talented, competent and dedicated faculty members who in large measure were educated at graduate institutions such as Moscow State University. Their tool kits were not suited to preparing students for what was yet to come. Over the years younger faculty began to be trained at a broader array of institutions and more senior faulty were retraining. But there was a short-term gap to fill and I found myself in the middle of the Vietnamese effort to close that gap.

Something began to dawn on me: mine was not to be a trivial academic “drop-by” filled with happy “chit chat.” Instead, I was going to be on a mission! My mission was to present a certificate program that focused on offering students a basic understanding of microeconomics, macroeconomics and international economics and then apply them to the emerging “Doi Moi” that would shape their country and their lives. In effect, my students would be among the wide-ranging cadre of Vietnamese who would turn “Doi Moi” from an abstraction to a success story. But there was a problem and I had to be very careful. “Doi Moi” had a distinct private market focus. But I could not simply be a cheerleader for capitalism. That’s where the socialist aspect of socialist market theory came into play. I knew that in Vietnam, just as elsewhere, private markets could degenerate into monopolies or oligopolies. Noncompetitive markets forces would generate inefficiencies in production and inequalities in distribution. Social policies would be needed in order to treat these market imperfections and failures. A completely balanced “Doi Moi” would need to prevent or treat these imperfections and failures. That’s what Vietnam’s version on market socialism was all about. My background in anti-trust economics came in handy: I had written a lead article on the subject in the Antitrust Bulletin and offered a statement to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly.

Back to day one: on the way from the airport to the home at which I would be staying, I was struck by the first example of the despair and hopelessness that many Vietnamese felt. We passed by a vacant and barren lot filled with cyclos (bicycle rickshaws) and their drivers many of whom were unemployable veterans who served on the losing side of the war between North and South Vietnam. Reconciliation between the two sides was far from complete. The men were in their late 40’s to early 50’s and spent their days---indeed their lives--sunning themselves, taking naps, being completely unproductive and having no access to either work, income or personal dignity. Their lots in life were vivid signs that post-war reconciliation between two former warring parties was far from complete. “Doi Moi” had a lot to do and one was to make North and South Vietnam become the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and make its economy work.

The next morning was my first day of class. It began in a first-floor classroom with open windows. It was packed, mostly with “regular” students but with others who were there specifically for the course. They were young, well dressed, fifty-fifty male and female accompanied by some older students and an elderly gentleman (who became the Class Spoke-person). They packed the classroom—every seat was taken, some sat on the floor and others leaned-in from the open windows. I was introduced by a senior faculty person who also introduced the translator. As I opened the lecture the students were completely silent. So I went back to square one and repeated the material I had covered and with that I got some questions—all directed to me in Vietnamese via the translator. It was a foothold that I built upon during the morning and afternoons sessions. The first class went rather well. Students had real reasons to be there. It turned out that one of them was competing for Miss Vietnam and she wanted to win the title with a monetary reward so she could send her two younger brothers to school.

The second day of class shocked me. Students were everywhere so we were given a larger classroom as student numbers grew from about 60 to somewhere nearly 100. After the move, things went really well and I decided to take a risk. I welcomed the Government Monitor who I knew would be in the class---and he was. I spotted him. He was a bit older, very well dressed, spoke English and was driven back and forth to and from class in a car with a driver. (More on him later}. After welcoming him to the class, I asked him for a favor: please wait until after the class was complete prior to giving his report. It seemed to go over well and more importantly I was getting comfortable with the students and them with me. I was getting used to working with translators. I was also comfortable being the only “white guy” in the room because I previously was Fulbright lecturer twice during the 1970s—once to Liberia and once to Zambia. The class actually attracted more students in the afternoon and by the next morning there were many more than 100. We moved to the campus auditorium where class was conducted until the final day. I gradually recognized students and learned their intentions. Three female students from Vietnam Airways and Vietnam Travel along with two journalists wanted to know as much as they could about Western economies and other national economies. I was as much an attraction as the course because I was the first American many of them encountered. I was the only American teaching on campus. I recall that when the students learned I was from California I was asked a lot of questions about the state—including whether I knew Michael Jackson.

Something else happened. There were no computers on campus but computer services and international television began to make their appearance at jam-packed coffee shops, etc. that were popping up around the campus---al owned by overseas Vietnamese, referred to as Viet-Qs. The students were very, very interested in the “outside World.”

Nothing unusual happened as we moved along to the final days of class. I might add that there were no tests. The certificate was awarded based on attendance---and no test was needed to spur student commitment to the subject matter. At the end of the program each student participant would receive a Certificate. I was given a copy of it for approval prior to the award program. I almost fainted when I received the model copy. On a white sheet of paper were words and decorations in red and blue colors—not the traditional colors of Vietnam. It was a conscious and thoughtful act by the university. I signed the document on behalf of CSUS President Dr. Donald Gerth. At the event, the students were “dressed up” with the females wearing “ao dai”, a traditional dress. The certificate program was a joint project of HCMCU and CSUS and it was likely the first U.S.-Vietnamese university project following the end of the Vietnam War. One other point: during the class I kept thinking about Senator John McCain and his fellow prisoners. They would be happy to know the direction that Vietnam and its people were heading.

The older man was the class spokesperson and he was quite good in English. He oversaw the process whereby each student contributed to a fund from which many gifts were bought and given to me. I was floored: actually had to buy a small trunk in order to get them home. The man who I suspected was a government agent came up to me and in English, he explained his assignment and asked me if I would be interviewed over the country’s only TV channel. The interviewer asked me questions in English and then translated them for the viewing audience. So I don’t know what I actually said to the viewers. But all the questions I was asked were intelligent, non-provocative and pertinent to the era through which the country was passing. It was really one of the best days of my life. I will never forget it. I might add that during my entire stay in Vietnam I was never asked about the war.

Following the initial class conducted in 1998, I gave additional short courses at HCMCU in 1999, 2001 and 2002. As well, I gave other short courses at colleges and universities located throughout the country, especially in and around Hanoi. Over the period I witnessed the Socialist Republic of Vietnam move from an impoverished, war torn country to one that was growing, developing and transforming itself into a regional partner within Southeast Asia and a friendly state with global ties. But I do remember the dark days---one in particular. As an economist I’ve read a great deal about poverty, its causes and its consequences. None of those readings hit me as hard as something I saw in HCMC in l998. I witnessed a badly crippled, elderly man wearing only shorts crawling on his stomach on the roadside next to the curb on Den Bien Pho Avenue, one of the city’s main roads. Balanced on the old man’s back was a boy about four years old who was begging from passers-by as the two moved along the gutter. When the man/boy combo got to me, the child reached out and with surprising strength grabbed onto my pants and wouldn’t let go until I made a contribution---which I did willingly. I will never forget the look on boy’s face---the old man didn’t look up, he just kept pushing along. That episode said it all about what poverty really is.

During 2001 and 2002 things were changing both in HCMC and the University. Downtown (still referred to as Saigon District One) life was booming. I particularly recall the Wrex Hotel. On its fifth floor there was a terrific bistro with a delightful mix of Vietnamese and French food. From the restaurant the view of the city was terrific. In fact, I was told that from its balcony it was possible to see the final helicopter lift-off from the U.S. Embassy at the end of the war. The sidewalks were busy, so were the shops, bars, restaurants, etc. and the streets were packed---not only with bicycles and motor bikes but also with cars and trucks---and even with a growing number of taxis. HCMC and the other universities at which I taught were also changing. More of the younger faculty were connecting with overseas universities, particularly in countries such as Australia and even the United States. More foreign faculty were teaching on a regular basis. And everything on the campuses was upbeat. Vietnam was on its way and soon there became no need to fill a gap with short-term lecturers. My mission was accomplished.

The Government (and the Communist Party) were stretching out. Their Vietnam was becoming part of the region. The country was a member of both ASEAN and APEC as well as other international multilateral institutions. Bilateral relationships were developing. Air Vietnam linked with Singapore Airlines, Vietnam’s communication networks linked with Singapore Telecom. Development teams from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other institutions were in the very early stages of assisting with the country’s development. The teams were everywhere. I might add that there remained a huge Russian presence in the country especially in the petroleum sector.

However, prior to becoming a member of the Southeast Asian community Vietnam was estranged from the region. First, It was at war with Cambodia. Its forces invaded and occupied parts of the country in part in retaliation to the Pol Pot regime murdering some 3,000 Vietnamese who were working and farming in the country. The occupation prevented Vietnam from joining ASEAN. In addition, China invaded Vietnam at its norther border and this caused a war between the two countries. Each war ended due to long and deliberate discussion and negotiation. Vietnam’s reconstruction then continued unabated and this had caused a change in the focus of my classes. No long was it on “Doi Moi” as a basic principle, but rather on the practical economic policies that were guided by that principle---especially in the areas of public finance and monetary economics. And trade and economic regionalism were key subjects.

My living conditions were changing. They were provided by HCMCU, My early stays in Vietnam began in a private home. In 1998 hotel accommodations were limited but by 2001 they were becoming quite adequate. By the way, I think the guy in whose home I was assigned was a Viet Cong officer. Over a counter in his front room was a magnificent plague and some shiny stars. They were his decorations for military service. As a former U.S. Marine during the Korean War I knew what that meant. In his home at the time when I first arrived there was a Swiss journalist, a young American volunteer and several local people. The home was near the lot that was once occupied by scores of unemployed former soldiers and their rickshaws. Gradually they began to disappear as normalization eventually included integrating them into the new Vietnam’s labor force. Near his home there was a bar and bistro and the guys and I visited them often. We were the first post war foreigners to do so and we were welcomed---including the money we were gladly spending. It was a delightful experience enjoyed in two languages that occasionally connected

Speaking of money, in 1998 when I first went to Vietnam I brought a pack of 100 dollar travelers checks. Each dollar was worth 1,300 Dong, the Vietnamese currency. I needed to cash the checks at The Bank of Vietnam and in Dong units as low at l00 in denomination. They brought me my money in a shopping bag that was stapled at the top. I lugged it “home” via a rickshaw.

During my 2021 stay I met Dr. Tran T. Ut who earned her doctorate at the University of the Philippines and did research at the Rice Institute located in Manila. She heard of the U.S. Fulbright Program and I helped her to apply. She was successful and I sponsored her program in agricultural economic development. She took classes at both CSUS and UCD (in its Agriculture Development Program) during 2002. That was the year of my final volunteer teaching in Vietnam. The country’s university system no longer needed stop-gap, short tours from foreign scholars and teachers. Vietnam’s higher education system was flourishing and was in its early stages of growth, development and modernization. All of its member institutions became part of the country’s official national education system. The system continues to flourish today. So my mini-mission was accomplished. And I was able to do something else: share my Vietnam experience with CSUS students who took my classes on economic development and international economics during the two years that I taught under the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP)