Though the current situation in West Asia has pushed the Gaza Peace Plan into the back burner, this remains critical to achieve stability and peace in the region. PM Modi, while speaking at a joint news conference in Israel, revealed India’s policy: “India’s stance is clear: Humanity must never become a victim of conflict. A path to peace has been created through the Gaza Peace Plan. India has fully supported these efforts.” While India attended the meet as an observer, indicating its desire to de-hyphenate its relations in the region, Vietnam participated in it to share its experiences to have peace in the region.

The article attempts to assess the salience of Lam’s (General Secretary of the Vietnamese Communist Party) participation in the inaugural meeting of the Gaza Board of Peace. Vietnam framed its participation as support for peace in principle without endorsing any side, which is shaped by its long-standing foreign policy and pragmatism. Its history of reconstruction success after the devastating war in Vietnam and its consistent advocacy of peaceful settlement gave it more room without appearing partisan. Very few countries have the same diplomatic positioning. Its engagement reflects a broader transformation: from a war-affected state to a confident middle power that contributes to global peace discourse. Vietnam’s Ambassador to the US Nguyen Quoc Dung correctly remarked that Vietnam, having endured many devastating wars, has a deep understanding of the value of peace, reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction.

While this was the first international conference attended by Lam after the 14th National Congress of the VCP, at the core of Vietnam’s participation lies consistency. Since Đổi Mới, Vietnam’s foreign policy has been anchored in principles of independence, multilateralism, peaceful conflict resolution, and respect for international law. By attending a peace conference on one of the world’s most sensitive conflicts, Vietnam demonstrated that these principles are not confined to rhetoric or regional concerns but are applied globally. This consistency enhances credibility. In international relations, reputation is built less on power than on predictability and trust, and Vietnam’s actions reinforce its image as a responsible and principled actor.

Lam focused on ending the conflict in Gaza, protecting civilians, ensuring safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, rebuilding essential infrastructure, and promoting a credible political process toward lasting and sustainable peace in West Asia. Vietnam has been consistent in supporting the policy of resolving conflicts peacefully, based on international law, the UN Charter, and respect for the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved. International media and leaders there commended Vietnam’s role in the conference. While the Washington Times highlighted Vietnam’s proactive contributions to global peace and stability, its strong commitment to peace, pursuing an independent foreign policy, and diversifying its external relations, the host and other leaders appreciated Lam’s participation in the meeting, affirming their deep respect for Vietnam with an increasingly significant role and influence in regional and global affairs.

Vietnam’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Le Hoai Trung stated that in the coming period, Vietnam would conduct specific studies to identify areas in which it can participate and make practical contributions, including engagement in peacekeeping activities to help ensure stability in the Gaza Strip, as well as humanitarian relief efforts and post-conflict reconstruction activities.

Lam utilised this opportunity to strengthen Vietnam’s relations with other countries. Lam held separate meetings with senior leaders from participating countries, including those from Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. They agreed to strengthen cooperation in various fields with Vietnam, including the economy, trade, science and technology, digital transformation, green transition, transport, and addressing common challenges. Several agreements were signed with the US in key areas such as science and technology, digital transformation, aviation and healthcare (a total value of up to USD 37.2 billion). The most tangible outcomes were economic and bilateral agreements, which demonstrate how diplomatic engagement can catalyse broader cooperation.

From a structural perspective, Vietnam’s presence highlights its successful transition from rule-taker to agenda participant. While Vietnam did not set the agenda of the conference, it helped shape the tone: emphasising humanitarian concerns, civilian protection, and long-term political solutions rather than narrow security narratives. This ability to participate constructively without aligning rigidly with any bloc demonstrates diplomatic maturity. Vietnam positioned itself as a bridge-builder, engaged but not partisan, supportive but independent. Such positioning is a hallmark of rising middle powers seeking influence through moderation and dialogue.

The reputational gains from participation are also significant. In a polarised international environment, many states avoid controversial peace initiatives to minimise political risk. Vietnam’s decision to attend signalled confidence and diplomatic self-assurance. Rather than retreating into cautious neutrality, Vietnam chose active neutrality, engagement without entanglement. This reinforces its image as a peace-loving nation that is willing to shoulder international responsibility.

Vietnam’s participation further underscores its integration into high-level multilateral diplomacy. Engagement in global peace discussions complements its growing roles in ASEAN, the United Nations, and other international forums. These overlapping layers of participation reflect structural ascent: Vietnam is no longer confined to regional issues but increasingly contributes to global conversations on security, peace, and development. This broadening diplomatic footprint enhances Vietnam’s bargaining power, visibility, and network capital – key elements of influence in the contemporary international system.
Finally, Vietnam’s participation illustrates the strategic confidence of a country comfortable with its place in the world but ambitious about its future role. It neither overreached nor remained passive. By engaging constructively, Vietnam demonstrated that rising influence does not require confrontation or dominance; it can be built through reliability, principled engagement, and steady contribution to global public goods such as peace and stability.

In essence, while the success of the Gaza Peace Conference depends on several imponderables, Vietnam’s participation in it represented a quiet but meaningful step in its ascent within the global structure. It reinforced Vietnam’s identity as a responsible, peace-loving nation, strengthened its soft power, and confirmed its emergence as a respected middle power capable of contributing to global diplomacy. While modest in scale, the significance lies in what it signals: Vietnam is no longer on the margins of international affairs but is increasingly present, trusted, and heard in discussions that shape the global order.

END OF ARTICLE