Le Minh Khai's SEAsian History Blog (+ More)

On Nationalism

By Nguyễn Bá Trạc

The unprecedented Great War in the world erupted with a roar on the European continent. Tracing its cause, it was triggered by a single crucial issue. What is this issue? It is the question of nationality. Should the nations of the world each be granted the right to independence, or should the small nations be subject to the conquest of the great powers? This is a conundrum that theorists of all ages have failed to resolve. Unexpectedly, today, the powerful states of Europe have resorted to arms—shields, spears, guns, and cannons—as the ultimate arbiter.

Now, consider the two warring factions. Faction A (the Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia) acts on behalf of the principle of independence. Faction B (the Triple Alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary) acts on behalf of the policy of annexation. Viewed from the perspective of Faction A, their cause is the protection of nationalism. Viewed from the perspective of Faction B, their cause is the opposition to nationalism. The combatants of Faction A aim to raise the banner of independence for all small nations after victory. The combatants of Faction B aim to conquer all small nations and make them vassals after victory.

Alas! In this tempest of wind and thunder that convulses the earth, the great and righteous principles of the world are still being contested in a forest of guns and rain of bullets. Does this nationalism have any hope of victory? What does this portend for our people? We who live in this era must also unveil and clarify this matter, to express our sense of solidarity with the advanced nations of the world who champion humanity and universal love. Now, I shall unveil the meaning of the nation and its efficacy.

The Definition of a Nation

A multitude of people living together in one territory, sharing the same language, the same customs, the same history, the same form of government, and one set of laws—this is called a country. If the people of this country are also of the same race, they are called a nation. However, such a definition of a country and a nation is merely an exposition on a theoretical level. Looking at the reality of things, has there ever been a country, past or present, that has been established possessing all the elements above? If cohabitation in a single territory defines a nation, then what of the French in Vietnam today, or the British in India? Have they shed their connection to their ancestral nations to merge with the nations of their lands of residence? If a common language and a common race define a nation, then why do the people of Switzerland speak different languages? And why are the people of the United States racially distinct? As for customs, they vary by region. As for religion, it varies by faith. None of these can serve as a definitive criterion. While history is a most crucial element of a country, a country must exist before it can have a history; one cannot say that a country exists because it has a history. The same is true of government and law. Whether constitutional, republican, open, or repressive, these are merely the superficial forms of a country. Government and law cannot create a country, and at times can even be a great impediment to it.

If this is the case, then land, language, customs, history, religion, race, government, and law are all insufficient to define the standard of a nation or a people. In essence, beyond all these various elements, there exists another, a transcendent and supreme quality belonging to the spirit, no different from the soul that resides in the body. This supreme quality is called the “national soul” (國魂). It is through a nation’s intellect and feeling that a country knows itself as a country, and is able to rouse its strength and cultivate its vital energy. If at any time its other parts should gradually wither and perish, so long as this single point remains, the life of the country will not be extinguished from the face of the earth.

Consider the Jewish people. For two thousand years they have been scattered and dispersed, living in various lands with no country of their own. Yet because this national soul has not been extinguished, they have on several occasions requested that the nations of the world designate a piece of land for them to establish their own country, though they have not yet succeeded. Or consider the Polish people. For several hundred years their land was partitioned and their people scattered like ants, yet in their hearts they always harbored the thought of self-governance and self-establishment. They fell and rose again, time after time, enduring hardship without complaint. From this, one can see the great magical power of the spirit upon which the destiny of a nation depends.

A famous French scholar, Mr. Renan, once delivered a speech explaining the meaning of a nation. He said:

A nation’s life has a soul, a spiritual principle. This soul, this spiritual principle, is constituted of two things. One belongs to the past, the other to the present. That which belongs to the past is the entire nation continuing the legacy of all its old memorials. That which belongs to the present is the common consent of the multitude, the shared enjoyment of this public inheritance. A nation, then, is a great body of solidarity, constituted by the debts that each person exchanges and bears. Old debts are paid, and new debts arise. That which belongs to the past is also that which belongs to the present.

And what is meant by the present is the common consent of the multitude, their collective and public desire. The heart is ever driven by the circumstances of the world’s survival. The survival of an individual is a daily struggle for life, which is their true hope. The survival of a nation is the same. A nation’s survival is a daily plebiscite (衆民投票), which is its true hope. (After Germany occupied the two provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, it abolished this practice, which is why the people of those two provinces hold much resentment.) Based on this true hope, no monarch, no country, has the right to say to another province, another county, another country, “Your land is my land; I have the right to take it from you.” I imagine that a province, a county, or a country depends entirely on the people of that province, that county, that country. To attack or to cede it must be based on the will of the people of that province, that county, that country, for it to be proper. Furthermore, I have never seen a country that could successfully force another country to become its internal possession.

Mr. Renan also said:

In summary, humankind is not the slave of its race, not the slave of its language, not the slave of its religion, nor the slave of its great rivers and mountain ranges. A large aggregate of men, sane in mind and warm of heart, creates a moral consciousness that is called a nation. So long as this moral consciousness proves its strength by the sacrifices that demand the abdication of the individual to the benefit of the community, it is legitimate and has the right to exist. If doubts arise on its frontiers, consult the populations in dispute. They have a right to a say in the matter.

A nation, then, is what it is because its people persist with a common will and a common destiny. Although the elements that constitute a nation are based on the important raw materials of race, geography, history, and politics, the main thing is the national soul. Only by cultivating a national soul do the other raw materials have value. How is this different from a man-made machine? Though all its parts and mechanisms are complete, without the propulsive force of steam, how can it be made to turn at will?

When human society was first formed, the early shoots of the nation appeared along with it. As these shoots grew into branches, trunks, and great trees, so too did the nations and peoples with their own histories appear on the face of the earth. Within this forest of nations, some trees have withered, some are newly sprouting, and some stand tall and straight, clearly showing the past and present forms of each people. However, the concept of a nation and the quality of the spirit that constitutes the national soul had their beginnings only in the last century. Before this, though countries existed, they passed in a flash, with almost no crystallized form. This is because in ancient times, the organization of a country was often represented by a single monarch. Among these ancient monarchs, some forgot their divine duty to the people, and their political thought was confined within the scope of dynasticism. Therefore, although the national soul held firm through a hundred changes, and although the country occasionally encountered peril, the upper and lower classes would share a common sorrow and common cause, putting aside private interests for the public good to save the a-ncestral land. At such times, the essence of the national soul would blaze forth like a fire. But once this passed and peace returned, and the world was tranquil, sentiments would change with circumstances, and this unifying force would again be seen as a cage. The important rights within the country would be entirely controlled by a small group of powerful men, while the foolish and teeming masses of ant-like people, apart from obeying orders, had no connection to the state. In such a situation, to seek the development of a national soul is truly difficult. This, then, can be called the ancient era, when countries existed but nationalism was still obscure and unmanifested.

Since the French Revolution, the tide of freedom has surged a thousand miles in a single day. The peoples of all nations, influenced by it, have felt an awakening. They have come to realize their own position in relation to their country. Those peoples who had already obtained freedom sought to expand their liberalism. Those who had not yet obtained freedom sought to recover their natural right to liberty. This idea became more deeply imprinted in people’s minds with each passing day, and was seen as the most sacred and respected of all aspirations. On May 22, 1790, France made a solemn declaration to the world: “The French nation renounces the undertaking of any war with a view to making conquests, and it will never use its forces against the liberty of any people.” Again, on November 19, 1792, it declared: “The French nation will grant fraternity and assistance to all peoples who wish to recover their liberty.” From this point on, the tide swelled daily, and its force grew ever stronger, becoming the driving force behind all changes in the world. To this day, there is not a single country that does not act in accordance with the hopes of its people. If these hopes meet with resistance, the calamity of war arises. The war in Europe today is a clear proof of this. Now, I would like to narrate the history of nationalism since the French Revolution.

The Swelling of Nationalism

The greater part of modern European history is the history of the struggle for survival among various peoples. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the countries of Europe went through a tumultuous period. At that time, the conflict between various parties was driven by two main principles. One was the principle of restoring the old order. The other was the principle of fulfilling the hopes of the various peoples. The former principle sought to reorganize the nations of Europe according to the old system; in essence, it sought to maintain the rights of the various imperial lines. This principle received the support of the powerful politicians of the time, and its result was the treaty concluded at Vienna (the Austrian capital) in 1815. The latter principle did not receive the approval of the powerful and noble, and still belonged to the realm of sentiment, not yet realized in practice. However, the more sentiment is suppressed by pressure, the more ferocious its driving force becomes.

Consider the nations that were sacrificed by the Treaty of Vienna and subsequent treaties, such as Italy, Belgium, Poland, and the peoples of southern Germany. They all held a special hope for establishing constitutional government and preserving their nationality. Belgium resisted the Netherlands in 1830 and 1831, and by 1839, it had obtained a strong treaty publicly recognizing its independence. Italy, from 1859 to 1870, repeatedly initiated wars with Austria before it could achieve the great work of unification. As for Poland, its situation was much more difficult than that of other nations because it was severely constrained by European diplomacy. The shadowy figures of European diplomacy at that time were the famous King Frederick of Prussia and Empress Catherine of Russia. These two had long harbored the wild ambition of partitioning Poland and were just waiting for an opportunity. The first partition of Polish territory was in 1772. The second partition of Polish territory was in 1793. These two periods were the work of Russia and Prussia. In 1795, for the third partition, Austria joined forces with Russia and Prussia to pursue its own interests. At that time, Tsar Alexander I had initially promised a constitutional government for the part of Poland belonging to Russia. However, due to the agitation in Poland and the obstruction of the Austrian minister Metternich, this proposal was abandoned, which provoked the internal rebellions in Poland in 1831 and 1863. In the midst of this, Austria annexed the small republic of Cracow. Prussia, for its part, assisted Russia in a hundred ways to suppress the Poles. Later, the Berlin government greatly extended its barbaric methods to inflict heavy suffering on the Polish people under its rule. However, no matter how cruelly Prussia treated them, it could not suppress the opposition of the Polish people. When the Russian Democratic Party was gradually making progress, the hearts of the Poles held out hope for the success of this party, believing it would be their guide. They knew for certain that if the Russian Democratic Party could one day hold the reins of political power, the future of Polish freedom and independence would have a glimmer of light.

The Finnish people under Russian rule were in a similar situation. They had long been exploited by the Russian monarchist party, so the people leaned towards the Russian democratic party. Although they were repeatedly tempted by the Germans, their will did not change. They held to a single conviction of loyalty and endured their attachment to Russia, seeking a final reward. Recently, this people has been particularly humiliated, but this is merely a submission to the power of the Russian bureaucracy. If the political system in the Russian capital is reformed, this people will have its day in the sun.

In short, comparing the Russian and German sides in the current war, the future hope for these various peoples to rise is more reliable with a Russian victory than with a German one. How do we know this? Because in 1866, the Prussians forcibly seized the territory of Denmark, the state of Schleswig. This act was already clear evidence of the expansion of a single country’s hegemony.

Not only that, but in 1871, Germany also annexed the two French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. This act was protested by both the German Republican and Progressive parties, who did not want other peoples to join and create future conflicts. Even the German Chancellor Bismarck had foreseen this, admitting that taking French territory was a last resort due to the necessities of war. However, German military men, such as General Moltke and General Stoff, consistently viewed the occupation of this land as a proactive measure. They believed that after occupation, when war with France broke out, they could reduce their military force by four armies. From this perspective, the German authorities acted entirely out of military considerations, driven by the necessity of seizing French land. Even if, at that time, the German military officers had shown some respect and had been able to restrain the wild ambitions for the two coerced provinces, then in the future, the compliant people of German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine would have gradually assimilated to the new German system and willingly submitted. This was not impossible. But instead, Germany not only took the land of others but also imposed the rule of its bureaucracy. The newly acquired territories were treated with nothing but harsh measures. How could this not make the people of these two provinces view them as thorns in their hearts and eyes, and in turn give rise to thoughts of the old days?

Moreover, what of the loss of France’s Thiers and Gambetta? This was like suffering another grievous wound. Since it was unbearable, they had to endure in silence. This is why many in the world say that the relationship between France and Germany hides a startling danger in the problem of Alsace-Lorraine. In 1887, because a German official mistreated the French consul Schnaebelé, the problem of these two provinces was already on the verge of becoming a difficult crisis. At that time, due to the mediation of Tsar Alexander III of Russia, the matter was settled without incident. But at that time, Kaiser Wilhelm I also knew to heed the claims of public justice and restrain the arrogance of the military party, so the mediation was easily successful. Then, in 1888, the heroic Wilhelm II (the current German Kaiser) came to the throne. The military party gained favor, and shortly after his ascension, he announced that he would never recognize the autonomy of the two French provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. From then until now, although the methods of ruling the two provinces have sometimes shown a slight hope of reconciliation, by 1913, all the people of Europe were well aware that the final resolution of the problem of these two provinces depended entirely on the actions of the German military party. And so, in 1914, the flames of war erupted from this. Is this not a case of Germany consistently trampling on nationalism as its proactive policy, leading to this tragic and bizarre spectacle?

Now, let me turn to the Balkan Peninsula. The modern history of this peninsula can be called a history of ethnic and religious competition. Before this, Turkey’s power was greatly shaken, and the unity of the Turkish state began to decline. In the summer of 1912, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece formed an alliance to break the oppressive power of the Turkish state. Germany, as a result, became suspicious of Russia’s advocacy and developed a deep animosity. Although Russia had ethnic ties with these various states, these small nations, due to the trampling of the Turks, had joined forces to seek release from the yoke and to find salvation. The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 was also nothing more than a way for these small nations to seek their own survival. And yet the Germans were so insistent on blaming Russia. How is this different from one who, wishing to cast out another, must first find a pretext to treat them with hostility?

Moreover, the demon of the small nations of Eastern Europe is not just the old Turkey. In their midst, there is also the boisterous and swaggering Austria-Hungary. In 1908, this country annexed the two provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina. One province blocked Serbia’s access to the Adriatic Sea, and they also increased tariffs, trapping Serbian commerce in a desperate situation on all four sides. Thus, in the autumn of 1908, Serbia and the various small Slavic nations were on the verge of going to war with Austria. From this, it is clear that they were all deceived and driven out together. The source of calamity for the small nations of Eastern Europe was none other than Turkey, Germany, and Austria-Hungary.

However, the mistake of Germany and Austria-Hungary was that during the 1912 Balkan War, when the various Balkan states joined forces to attack Turkey, these two countries did not offer a helping hand to Turkey. Was it perhaps because these two countries expected Turkey to have the ability to win? Unexpectedly, Turkey was first defeated by Italy and then by these small nations. In 1913, after the Balkan states had defeated Turkey, Austria regretted its previous failure to support Turkey and devised a plan to incite Bulgaria to go to war with Serbia, leading to the conflict of 1913. Their intention was to separate these small nations so that they could not join forces to conspire against Turkey. For Germany and Austria-Hungary had long been eyeing the Balkan Peninsula like hungry tigers. What love did they have for Turkey that they would favor their old ancestor? Was it not that they saw the dying Turkey as the current heir to the legacy of the peninsula? They wanted to preserve Turkey to maintain the inheritance of the old heir, so that in the future, when the second succession came, who else would there be but themselves? In short, in the Eastern European theater, from 1908 to 1913, all the wars were due on the one hand to the struggle for survival of the small nations, and on the other hand to the instigation of Germany and Austria-Hungary in their support of Turkey, with Russia having no involvement at all. Therefore, I dare to make a definitive statement: the chaotic situation in the Balkan Peninsula was created by Germany and Austria-Hungary’s desire to destroy nationalism.

However, in this world, all righteous and光明正大 (open and honorable) principles are bound to have a formidable magical power. The more they are attacked, the more they fight back; the more they are suppressed, the more they swell. The great Mazzini once said, “The national soul is a sacred thing and cannot be violated.” Looking at the history of the past and present, and the strong nations of Europe today, all of them have striven for the development of nationalism. From this, we know that in the future, the various peoples of the world will one day walk hand-in-hand in the ultimate paradise of freedom. Alas! Those who bear the responsibility of this age should also nurture and create this, so as not to go against the natural and righteous way of heaven. Are the lessons we descendants have received from history truly mistaken?

The Future of Nationalism After the European War

From the above, it is clear that the current calamity of war is indeed due to the hostility of the German-Austrian alliance towards nationalism, and the protection of nationalism by the Anglo-French alliance. This is beyond doubt. So, what will be the positions of the various parties at the end of this war? From Germany’s perspective, according to recent reports from European and American newspapers, the Germans initially intended to merge Belgium and the northern part of France, and to conquer the Balkan states, in order to create a vast sphere of influence on the European continent. From there, they would reach Constantinople (the Turkish capital), control the straits of Europe and Asia, and facilitate their access to the Eastern roads. The Germans were not content with just the Near East; they were also proceeding with a world policy, driving far and wide, with the intention of suppressing the peoples of the Far East. However, to this day, the naval forces of the Allied Powers have encircled them in various seas. On the European continent, the Germans have fallen into a desperate situation on all four sides. In terms of external power, the South African colonies already belong to Britain and France, and the foothold in Qingdao has been returned to Japan. Therefore, for the Germans, their only option is to exhaust all means to preserve the fate of their empire. Thus, although the outcome of the war is not yet decided, it can be predicted that Germany’s evil dream of conquering the world will surely not see a day of success.

We can then speculate on the outcome of a victory for the Allied Powers. Since the Allied Powers today have gambled their lives and fortunes to contend with Germany and Austria-Hungary, they have done so with nationalism as the vanguard of their cause. The price they demand in return will also be paid in the currency of nationalism. After the victory, the restoration of Belgium goes without saying, and the various small nations will have a hope of being established. Consider the book “The Balkans, Italy and the Adriatic” published by the European scholar P. W. Seton-Watson. It states that after the victory, it is imperative to establish a South-Slav state based on the principle of nationality, with Serbia and Montenegro as its core, and also to expand the territory of Romania. The intention behind these words is clearly to cultivate the various peoples of the Balkan Peninsula and to enable them to permanently escape from the sphere of influence of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Furthermore, recently the new government in the Russian capital has been established, and the Polish people have achieved their hope of freedom. This year, Britain has also announced a plan for Irish Home Rule. In the future, in the Eastern European and Anglo-Russian spheres, there will undoubtedly be great developments for these two small nations. As for France, it has long been the advocate of nationalism. Now it is the protector of nationalism. Therefore, after the victory, it will surely recover the two provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to preserve the inherent part of its own nation. These two provinces were originally French territory and its people, and they are eager to be reunited with their motherland. This is the common sentiment that the people of these two provinces look forward to day and night. However, for forty years, these two provinces have been governed under German law. If they are now to return to French rule, France should establish a temporary constitution for these two provinces to maintain the rights of their people. This is also an inevitable course of action. Alas, if the advocacy of nationalism is so completely just, then how can any people in the world who are worthy of being called a nation not enjoy the happiness of humanity through the development of this principle?

Nationalism After the War and its Relation to Annam

If what is said above is true, then after this war, all the small nations of Europe will have a fulfilling outcome. And the one who cast this beautiful cause to reap this beautiful fruit is Great France, which deserves the foremost credit. Since Great France is the protector of nationalism, then how can those who rely on the political banner of Great France not be able to protect their own rights and fulfill their own hopes? My Vietnam is also a nation of the Far East. Since Great France came to the South fifty or sixty years ago, it has not only reformed our politics and opened up our academics, but it has also been able to free our people from the rule of strong neighbors. I recall that year when Li Hongzhang publicly acknowledged to the French envoy, “Annam has always been an autonomous state.” Alas, without Great France on our southern soil, how could our country have obtained the honor of such a statement? Therefore, Great France has surely made a not insignificant contribution to our South.

A note from a sojourner in the past, remembering that year. Thus, Great France has surely made a not insignificant contribution to our South.

Someone might challenge me, saying, “The competition of things, the survival of the fittest, is the universal law of the world. Throughout history, the way victorious nations have taken their due from conquered lands has never involved abandoning rights and speaking only of obligations. Now you say that Great France came to the South entirely for the protection of our southern nation. If so, would not the rights of the a victorious nation be an empty purse?” I say, no. The reason Great France protects our South is precisely to fulfill its noble obligation, and in doing so, it is also able to maintain its own long-term interests. What you call the rights of a victorious nation is merely what is commonly seen in the actions of ambitious powers that conquer small nations, such as Germany’s actions in the two lands of Alsace-Lorraine and Austria’s in the two provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is a clear proof. As for Great France’s relationship with our southern country, it is quite different.

The beginning of Franco-Vietnamese relations was in November 1797, and the treaty of 1808, which was not fulfilled. In the early days, the interactions between the two sides were based on reason and principle. Later, in 1856 and 1858, the warships at Hue and Saigon went back and forth, but this was merely a demand to implement the treaty. It was not long before the treaty of June 5, 1861, ceding the three provinces of Cochinchina was concluded. And not long after, the treaty of 1874 (the second year of the Tự Đức Emperor, March) was concluded. Throughout, the interactions were on the diplomatic stage, not a victory won on the battlefield. Although in the beginning, there were some misunderstandings, and those who held onto old ways were not yet reconciled, and their hearts were somewhat divided, so the act of “raising poles and cutting wood” was sometimes seen among the common people. But this was merely the national spirit of the early years of the nation. At the court level, the gates were opened and bows were exchanged; no blood was shed. From this, one can see the great and harmonious relationship between the two countries. How could there be any worry of war? Moreover, Great France’s enterprise in the Far East has gained a friendly Vietnam, a country to serve as a foothold, to establish itself as a powerful host in the East. What conflict of interest is there? This theory of a victorious nation conquering its people is something I do not believe.

Therefore, today we should rely on a single, definite concept and hope for this from Great France. That is, “Great France protects our nation of Vietnam, all for the sake of the Vietnamese nation.” We should plan for the establishment of our nation in the future. Based on this one statement, we can announce it to the world. Based on this one statement, we can align ourselves with Great France. And based on this one statement, we can maintain it in the will of our people, with the two words “peace” as the guiding principle for saving our nation. And the clear evidence of this peace is now plain for all to see. The war in Europe has broken out, and our Great France is at the very heart of it. Yet on our Vietnamese soil, not even a chicken or a dog has been alarmed. The rebellious have submitted. Even the people have been brave in enlisting, and the soldiers happy to serve, expressing a sense of deep intimacy with Great France. This is because the people of Annam today are already well aware that this war will surely bring great benefit to the small nations of the world, and the blessings that our people will receive from Great France will not be shallow.

In February of this year, the French government sent Minister Sarraut to visit our South again. The people were overjoyed, and their feelings were extremely warm. The speeches of the people of the southwest all loudly proclaimed, “Our South is the France of East Asia.” And the newspapers also gave this phrase special prominence. How great! Is there truth in this statement? The people of the southwest are of the same mind. Will Vietnam in the future be able to become the France of East Asia? This I dare not know. But I do know for certain that in ten or twenty years, Vietnam will have the qualifications for self-governance and self-establishment. In that case, what would Great France have to regret? It would not hesitate to encourage, support, and open the way, and publicly recognize it, in order to achieve the complete goal of nationalism. As for what remains, the reason for the long-term plan and not daring to act yet is that the protector government’s original intention is to use a gradual method, to first sort out the political, legal, educational, and economic problems of our country, in order to seek a day when our country’s qualifications are complete. If that is the case, the happiness of our Vietnam will be without limit. As I speak of this, I cannot help but think back on the inherent qualifications of our people.

What is the nature of our nation? Let me now list the various elements of our people. In terms of race, although there are distinctions such as Jiaozhi, Champa, and Zhenla, by now they have merged into a formless whole, and there is a special Annamese race, without the boundaries of racial separation. In terms of language, the people from Cao Bằng and Lạng Sơn in the north to Hà Tiên and Rạch Giá in the south can sit and talk in one room without any linguistic barriers. In terms of customs, the rites of mourning, sacrifice, capping, and marriage are no different from those of Luoyang. In terms of moral teaching, the heart that respects its elders is the same. Moreover, there is no class discrimination in the country. A commoner’s son with talent can be appointed to the highest ministerial posts. Alas! For several thousand years, the Annamese people have been nurtured in history. How equal they are! They have expelled the Yuan soldiers and captured the Ming invaders several times. How enterprising is their national spirit! As for the country’s literature, although it is too weak and effeminate, and cannot escape being rejected by today’s latecomers as old-fashioned pedantry and rotten Confucianism, in ancient times, loyalty, filial piety, and integrity were born from it, and the social and ethical order was established on it. Consider that on the first of April this year, the Plenipotentiary High Commissioner, visiting the Temple of Literature in Bac Ky, pointed to the stelae of the various sages and worthies and said, “These are the Confucian gentlemen. How great is their culture, renowned throughout the world.” It has been a long time. Why has it been so delayed that today it still requires the protection of our Great France? There are reasons for this. Let me now list the most prominent ones.

One is due to the extreme narrowness of our country’s foreign relations. In ancient times, the country’s borders were not open, and boats and carts could not reach far. For the land of Yue-shang to communicate with China, it took two or three years and multiple translations before one could arrive. How difficult was its transportation! Because of this point of difficulty, it rarely had contact with the world. Externally, there was no comparison with others. Internally, it was left to its own devices. The rivers and mountains of the southern country formed a world of their own. People ate their fill and patted their bellies, living in peace and growing old in their own way. What was meant by competition? What was meant by superiority and inferiority? And why would it be necessary to advocate for nationalism? This was the difficulty of discovering the idea of a nation in ancient times. This was a national trait, and it was not a failing unique to our South alone. After communicating with China, although the people began to know that there was a distinction between countries, if we look at our neighbors, their land and power were on a par with ours, like Siam or Burma. In comparison, they were not able to control us. But it was not so. Our small, newly established state was adjacent to a vast and powerful country. Looking left and right, there was no other country to ally with to seek a balance of power. Thus, in the face of an unequal contest, we were sometimes restrained. We were subordinate to the Han, the Jin, the Sui, the Tang, the Song, and the Ming. For several thousand years, although there were times, such as under the Trung Sisters in Lingnan, or when Ding Xianhuang proclaimed independence, or when Ly Thuong Kiet repelled the Song army, or when Tran Hung Dao pacified the Yuan invaders, and a new generation of heroes would rise after a period of change, which was enough to display the unique character of our southern nation, it was all fleeting and difficult to sustain for long. During the period of internal subordination, China’s treatment of us was focused on annexation. “You submit to me, you are my subject,” was its one and only method. It was not like today’s Great France, which is able to teach and guide, and to plan for the future of our nation for our sake. Alas! The thousand-year-old country, having first sunk into an unconscious state, then continued to reside in the position of a vassal receiving investiture. How could it not cause our nation to ultimately suffer from being stripped and ground down, to the point of being nearly wiped out in a state of pessimistic despair?

The second reason is due to the undeveloped intellect of the people. In the chaotic times of antiquity, this was a given. And in the middle ages, although there was learning, its theories were all based on a single “heaven-fearing” principle. The people were content to be humble and stay in their place. They only sought advancement for themselves. With such an attitude from below, who would know what a nation was? And from above, in the world of politics and foreign relations, one’s own country was seen as nothing more than a vassal state of China, an outer province. Alas! A man must first debase himself before others will. Since we were called a vassal of the Heavenly Dynasty, we were mistakenly considered to be the people of the Heavenly Dynasty. This is why the idea of a nation had such difficulty taking root in the minds of our people.

That our southern nation, for these two great reasons, was unable to rise early in the world—this is a matter of the past, and there is no need to recriminate now. Now that we are under the banner of Great France, the difficulties of the past have been completely overcome. The hope for the future is gradually becoming attainable. However, I have thought about it again and again, and I cannot but consider the future of our nation and the way to progress.

Based on a definite concept, Great France’s protection of our South is entirely for the guidance of nationalism. If I am to be independent, there is no need to worry that there will be no day of development. However, looking at the current state of our nation, it makes one even more anxious and fearful. Perhaps someone will say, “I say our nation has been established for four thousand years. It has gone through several dangerous transformations and has not yet fallen into ruin. Now our territory is gradually expanding, and our population is gradually increasing. With this, we can sustain ourselves for ten thousand generations. What’s more, we have a powerful protector government to guide and support us. Why should we embrace the worries of the man of Qi?” I say, no. The times of today are different from the past. The competition is fierce. The world does not tolerate, does not insult the weak, does not indulge the stubborn. If we let our people just barely gasp for breath in the arena of natural selection, then what? A good doctor, however skilled, cannot cure an unwilling patient. A diligent teacher cannot transform an unwilling student. If we let our people, etc., we must exhaust our knowledge to rouse ourselves, to reform ourselves. Then, even if the protector government has difficulty guiding and supporting us, its efforts will also be in vain. This is what we must do. We must fulfill the mission of our nation, which is to remedy our own shortcomings and also not to fail the good intentions of the protector government. If our people today wish to achieve complete hope for themselves and to support the true principles of Great France, we must think from the perspective of the nation. And if we are to think from the perspective of the nation, we must know the most important shortcomings of our nation at the present time.

Now, if we compare our nation with the various nations of Europe, what are our shortcomings? They are innumerable. But these innumerable shortcomings are also primarily born from two important shortcomings. These important shortcomings are the learning and the economy of our people. If this fundamental problem is not resolved first, then even if we talk about the nation every day, it will be of no use.

For the present, the plan is this: one, we must engage in learning to advance the intellect of our people; two, we must engage in economy to advance the constant livelihood of our people. The ancient sage spoke of “a constant mind and a constant livelihood.” These two problems are not to be solved by setting up a separate topic for detailed study. This is not something that can be exhausted in a single phrase. But in short, the goal is to cultivate a nation of knowledgeable people in our South, and also to cultivate a people of means, in order to create a good national character. Then the one who teaches and instructs us, Great France, will surely have a day of gratification. At that time, the reputation of Great France and the hopes of our people—how much more will we have to yield to the Americans in their treatment of the Philippines, or to the words of Ushijima Shō? For this, I am now burning incense in prayer, that the war in the East may be won soon, so that nationalism may achieve its final result. And this principle was created with the blood of Great France, and is preserved by the blood of Great France. And afterwards, it is also with the torch of Great France’s civilization and the bell of freedom that the dreaming people of Vietnam, who have lifeblood and breath, will be awakened.