The Paradox of Vietnamese Media’s Reporting on Color Revolutions

Hoàng Dạ Lan wrote this Vietnamese article, published in Luật Khoa Magazine on August 26, 2024. Lee Nguyễn translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

The Vietnamese government describes the resistance wars against the French (1946–1954) and the United States (1955–1975) as righteous, violent revolutions against colonialism and imperialism. During these violent struggles, the Communist Party of Vietnam has consistently portrayed itself as a core force within the global communist movement.

Historical narratives, school curricula, and state-controlled media frequently glorify revolutionary violence as a justifiable means of seizing power or overthrowing regimes—regardless of the inevitable death and bloodshed. The party-state has long exploited these wars as symbols of patriotism and national unity to bolster its legitimacy.

In stark contrast, color revolutions and the Arab Spring—nonviolent protest movements sparked by authoritarian rule, corruption, and human rights abuses—are portrayed in Vietnamese media as dangerous, destabilizing forces that threaten national security and social order. These movements are also routinely framed as orchestrated plots by “hostile forces” aimed at regime change.

On the one hand, the state emphasizes “people’s war,” national unity, patriotic values, and the keys to independence. On the other hand, it brands color revolutions and the Arab Spring as “riots,” “anarchy,” or “counter-revolution,” despite their grassroots nature and participation from all levels of society.

Why does this double standard exist? Are these uprisings not reminiscent of Việt Nam’s anti-colonial resistance in their desire to end oppression and build freer, more just societies?

Moreover, would revolution even be necessary if citizens could remove ineffective or corrupt governments through free and fair elections? Revolution is often the last resort when legal avenues for reform are closed.

After General Secretary and President Tô Lâm’s state visit to China in 2024, both countries issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to “strengthen information sharing, combat interference and separatism, prevent color revolutions, and jointly safeguard political and regime security.”

Vietnamese and Chinese propaganda often depict color revolutions and the Arab Spring as “dangerous,” “subversive,” and the result of “malicious conspiracies” by foreign powers.

This article examines three dominant propaganda narratives found in Vietnamese state-controlled media.

Discourse 1: 'The Western Conspiracy'

Nearly 50 years after reunification, Việt Nam continues to use war-era rhetoric such as hostile forces,” “ideological front,” “sabotaging the revolution,” and “defending the party’s ideological foundation.”

Leaders claim color revolutions—including the Velvet Revolution and so-called street uprisings—are manifestations of peaceful evolution, a Western imperialist strategy to overthrow non-compliant governments.

In 2021, VTV4 aired “Facing the Threat,” in which one episode was titled “Identifying Color Revolutions – Is Việt Nam Facing Risk?” This program has since gained over 1.5 million views. In it, the narrator says:

“Hostile foreign forces remain determined to subdue states they deem non-compliant with their standards. If they cannot persuade or pressure the ruling government, they will seek to overthrow it and replace it with one more obedient to their norms.”

The video portrayed protesters as puppets manipulated by domestic and foreign reactionary elements and the revolutions themselves as moves in a geopolitical power game. These depictions seek to discredit the legitimacy of such movements.

International media, like Al Jazeera, offer a more balanced perspective. Its article “Colour Revolutions: Symbols of Change” describes these uprisings as the result of frustration with stagnation, corruption, and overly close ties to Russia. The article notes the shifts toward the West without labeling these developments as positive or negative.

Likewise, in “How Economic Hardship Fuelled the Arab Spring 10 Years Ago,”Al Jazeera’s Abubakr Al-Shamahi attributes the uprisings to neoliberal reforms, privatization, weakened welfare systems, crony capitalism, and a disconnect between education and job opportunities. The explanation highlights internal socio-economic pressures rather than external manipulation.

Discourse 2: 'Our Situation Is Different'

Another common narrative stresses that Việt Nam’s political stability and economic growth contrast with the chaos seen in countries undergoing uprisings.

This rhetoric reinforces the idea that the Communist Party leadership ensures peace and prosperity, often accompanied by national sovereignty and non-interference messages.

For example, during Venezuela’s 2019 crisis, the newspaper Công an Nhân dân (People’s Police Newspaper) published an article urging readers not to compare Vietnam with Venezuela. The article claimed that Việt Nam’s achievements—thanks to Đổi Mới (the economic and political reform policy launched by the Vietnamese government in 1986, marking a shift from a centrally planned economy to a socialist-oriented market economy) had brought peace, prosperity, and steadily improving living standards. It emphasized these successes due to the party’s and people’s commitment to socialism.

Discourse 3: 'A Bleak Post-Revolution Future'

Vietnamese media frequently publishes negative assessments of the color revolutions and Arab Spring, particularly a decade after the latter two began.

Headlines like 'A Decade of Grief' (Tuổi Trẻ Newspaper), 'The Arab Spring – 10 Years Later' (Quân đội Nhân dân Newspaper), and '10 Years After the Arab Spring – A Decade of Loss' (VTV) frame the events as leading only to poverty, war, terrorism, and extremism.

These stories suggest that challenging the state leads to catastrophe—and that stability is paramount.

While Vietnamese media laments the fate of the Middle Eastern people, regional sources like Al Jazeera offer different views. In 'The Arab Spring Has Been Misunderstood,' Safwan Masri argues that overthrowing oppressors is just the beginning. Real democratic transition requires internal societal transformation and youth-led civil engagement.

Masri notes that authoritarian regimes in the Arab world have stifled minds with ultranationalist, exclusionary, and dogmatic rhetoric. He calls for a process of deprogramming and learning to coexist with diverse views to prevent the return of autocracy.

Vietnamese state narratives, by contrast, often present the chaos in Libya and Syria as proof that revolutions bring nothing but destruction. Meanwhile, the government labels those who hold progressive views as advocates of color revolutions—fostering fear and suppressing discourse.

However, not all public movements yield the same results. Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003) and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004) were politically effective and relatively peaceful. In contrast, Belarus’s Jeans Revolution (2005) and Russia’s Snow Revolution (2011–2013) did not achieve regime change.

Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution (2010–2011) ousted an authoritarian president and began democratic reforms. However, President Kais Saied's recent actions have raised fears of democratic backsliding.

Egypt, Syria, and Libya continue to struggle with conflict, authoritarian resurgence, or societal collapse. These outcomes highlight that revolutions succeed only through inclusive political rebuilding and long-term commitment to democratic principles.

Stanford Professor Joel Beinin observed that the French Revolution took a century and endured two monarchical restorations before the republic was solidified. The United States—despite its democratic heritage—took over 70 years to secure women’s voting rights (1920) and nearly two centuries before African Americans could vote freely (1965).

Change takes time.

Did You Know?

According to Freedom House’s "Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy,” most countries now rated “not free” were once considered “partly free.” Việt Nam remains one of 12 nations that have never moved out of the “not free” category.

This group includes one-party states (Cuba, China, North Korea, and Việt Nam), authoritarian-led states (Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, and Saudi Arabia), and nations mired in conflict (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Iraq, and Chad).