Vietnam’s Foreign Policy in an Era of Rising
Sino-U.S. Competition: Providing Equity to the Major Powers While Pursuing
Proactive International Integration
Carlyle A.
Thayer
Vietnam’s Foreign Policy in an Era of Rising Sino-U.S. Competition: Providing Equity to the Major Powers While Pursuing Proactive International Integration
Carlyle A. Thayer
Introduction
Vietnam is a semi-authoritarian one-party state
ruled by the Vietnam Communist Party (VCP). Vietnam’s political system
parallels that of China and other Marxist-Leninist states that have now
passed into history. Vietnam’s political system is a mono-organizational
socialist system.[1] This
is a system in which the party exercises hegemonic control over state
institutions, the armed forces and mass organizations in society through the
penetration of these institutions by party cells and committees. Senior party
members form the leadership nucleus of the state apparatus, National Assembly,
the People’s Armed Forces and the Vietnam Fatherland Front (VFF, Mat Tran To
Quoc).
The VFF is an
umbrella organization grouping twenty-nine registered mass organizations
(women, workers, peasants, youth) and special interest groups (professional,
religious etc.). The leaders of mass organizations normally serve on the party
Central Committee. All organizations affiliated with the VFF are funded by the
state.
In late 1986
Vietnam adopted a reform program known as Đổi Mới or
renovation. Vietnam opened its doors to
foreign investment and gradually transformed its Soviet-styled centrally
planned economy into a “market economy with socialist characteristics.” Vietnam’s
opening up resulted in an expansion of Vietnam’s external relations beyond
those of the socialist bloc and non-aligned movement to Japan, Australia, the
United States and Europe.
As Vietnam began to integrate itself in the
global economy it sought development assistance from its new partners and international
non-governmental organizations (INGOs). Foreign aid agencies and INGOS attempted
to apply their own model of development to Vietnam in the hopes of creating
space for civil society by privileging the role of domestic “non-governmental
organizations” (NGOs).[2]
In practice this meant pursuing “bottom up” approaches that stressed
participatory development and gender and ethnic equality.
This approach to development was problematic in
the sense that there were no autonomous NGOs in Vietnam. All mass organizations
and their affiliates were state-sponsored and funded and formed part of the VFF’s organizational
matrix.[3] In
other words Vietnam’s mass organizations were not authentic representatives of
civil society.
As the reforms ushered in by Đổi Mới began to take hold state-society relations
began to alter. In the 1990s there was an upsurge of organizational activity at
all levels in Vietnam.[4]
A plethora of networks and groups emerged. In particular, an explosive growth
of non-government voluntary community-based associations (CBOs) took place at
grassroots level. They took a leading role in managing natural resources,
combating environmental pollution, promoting sustainable development, income
generation, and disseminating knowledge. These new groups may be grouped into
nine categories: political, mass organization, business, commercial and
professional, science and technology, arts and culture, social welfare/NGO,
religious, friendly associations and public affairs.[5]
Vietnamese so-called
NGOs and CBOs viewed their role quite differently from their foreign
counterparts. First, they saw themselves as partners working on development
projects in support of state policy. Second, they viewed themselves as
advocates for improved state services. And finally, they viewed themselves as
representative of marginalized groups and lobbied the state to change policy.
In this role Vietnamese NGOs attempted to negotiate and educate state officials
rather than confront them as a tactic to bring about change. In other words,
the activities of Vietnamese “NGOs” were in direct support of existing
government programs or in support of larger state-approved policy goals
(national development or poverty alleviation). Over time, however, Vietnamese
“NGOs” expanded their role to include advocacy for their constituents. They
began to directly engage government agencies to advise them on new techniques
and ways of achieving government objectives.
The growth of grassroots organizational
activity outpaced Vietnam’s ability to develop a regulatory framework that was
relevant to such a diversity of groups. Some CBOs operated relatively
independently of the state. Although their legal status was ambiguous they were
generally tolerated. But they were always at risk if their activities touched on
politically sensitive issues [6]
This effervescence
in Vietnamese society led to the weakening of Vietnam’s mono-organizational
socialist system and opened space for individuals and small groups to challenge
Vietnam’s one-party system.[7] In
the mid-to late-1990s Vietnam witnessed public protests on such highly
sensitive political issues as religious freedom, human rights and democratic
reform. The introduction of the internet provided the means for individuals and
groups to overcome their physical isolation and form networks in cyber space.[8]
By 2006 at
least eleven identifiable organizations could be identified: Alliance for
Democracy, Association of Former Political Prisoners, Committee for Human
Rights, Democratic Party of Vietnam, Free Journalists Association of Vietnam,
National Salvation Committee, People’s Democratic Party of Vietnam, 21st
Century Democracy Party, United Workers-Farmers Association, Vietnam Populist
Party and the Vietnam Progress Party. Generally, these groups were small and lacked
a large geographic footprint but they marked the first steps in the emergence
of political civil society in Vietnam. Because these groups stood outside the
legal framework for “NGOs” and CBOs and were considered illegal by the state.
In summary, the
development of political civil society in Vietnam created a nexus between
public opinion from below and the one-party state. As Vietnam opened up and
integrated itself in the global economy Vietnamese political activists sought
to influence foreign policy by enlisting public support on a number of issues
ranging from religious freedom, human rights, democracy, environmental issues,
and territorial disputes with China in the East Sea (South China Sea).
The linkage
between domestic factors and foreign policy in Vietnam is discussed below in
six parts. Part one provides an overview of the key elements of Vietnam’s
foreign policy framework. Part two discusses domestic factors that impact on
foreign policy. Part three identifies key issues driving Vietnam’s foreign policy.
Part four reviews how Vietnam conducts its relations with the major power. Part
five views Vietnam’s efforts to promote international integration. Part six
concludes the paper with an evaluation of the implications of these
developments for the United States.
Part 1 Foreign Policy Framework
This section discusses four major themes that
form Vietnam’s foreign policy framework: independence and self-reliance, multilateralization
and diversification of external relations, struggle and cooperation, and proactive
international integration.
The first major theme of Vietnam’s current
foreign policy is the stress on independence and self-reliance. This is based
on three historical legacies (1) resistance to foreign intervention during the
colonial and post-colonial era, (2) as a member of the socialist camp when
Vietnam was caught in the crossfire of the Sino-Soviet dispute, and (3) as an
ally of a declining Soviet Union during its decade-long intervention in
Cambodia. Vietnam was left isolated when
the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991. According to Vietnam’s Defense White
Paper, “Vietnam consistently realizes the foreign guideline of independence
[and] self-reliance…”[9]
This is exemplified by its national defense policy of three no’s: “Vietnam
consistently advocates neither joining any military alliances nor giving any
other countries permission to have military bases or use its soil to carry out
military activities against other countries.”[10]
The second major theme of Vietnamese foreign
policy is the multilateralization and diversification of external relations. On May 20, 1988,
the VCP Politburo adopted a seminal policy document known as Resolution No. 13
entitled, "On the Tasks and Foreign Policy in the New Situation."
This policy document codified Vietnam’s foreign policy objectives by giving
priority to economic development and calling for a “multi-directional foreign
policy” orientation with the goal of making “more friends, fewer enemies” (them ban bot thu). Specifically,
Resolution 13 called for Vietnam’s extrication from the conflict in Cambodia in
order to normalize relations with China, develop relations with members of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Japan, Europea and
“step-by-step” normalize relations with the United States.[11]
The next iteration of Vietnam’s
“multi-directional foreign policy” took place at the VCP’s Seventh National
Congress held from June 24-27, 1991. The Seventh Congress now called for
Vietnam to “diversify and multilateralize economic relations with all countries
and economic organizations . . . regardless of different socio-political
systems.”[12] The
Political Report gave priority to relations with the Soviet Union, Laos,
Cambodia, China, Cuba, other “communist and workers’ parties,” the “forces struggling
for peace, national independence, democracy and social progress,” India, and
the Non-Aligned Movement.
Significantly the Political Report called for
the development of “relations of friendship” with Southeast Asia, mutually
beneficial relations with northern and Western European countries, Japan, other
developed countries and the normalization of relations with the United States.[13]
Vietnam achieved success in meeting these objectives. During the period from
1991-95 Vietnam normalized its relations with all members of ASEAN, China,
Japan, Europe and the United States.[14]
By 1995 Vietnam expanded the number of countries it had diplomatic relations
with from twenty-three in 1989 to 163.
Vietnam’s policy of multilateralizing and
diversifying its foreign relations was endorsed by all subsequent national
party congresses from the eighth (1996) to the most recent. For example, the
Political Report to the twelfth national congress held in January 2016 stated,
“To ensure successful implementation of foreign policy and international
integration… consistently carry out the foreign policy of independence,
autonomy, peace, cooperation and development... [and] diversify and
multilateralize external relations.”
The third major theme of Vietnam’s foreign
policy is “cooperation and struggle.” Vietnam’s Resolution No. 13
on May 1988 introduced the concept of national interest (loi ich dan toc) for the first time. After relations with China
were normalized in 1991 it soon became apparent that the two socialist states
had differing national interests, particularly over the South China Sea
(discussed below). After the normalization of relations with the United States
in 1995, it also became apparent that socialist Vietnam and the U.S. had
convergent national interests.
In July 2003, the
VCP Central Committee issued Resolution No. 8, “On Defense of the Homeland in
the New Situation.” This resolution noted that there were often instances of
friction and disagreement with friendly countries and areas of cooperation and convergent
interests with opposing countries. Resolution No. 8 adopted the twin concepts
of “objects or partners of cooperation” and “objects of struggle,” doi tac and doi tuong, respectively.[15] Prior to the
adoption of Resolution No. 8 China was classified as a friendly country because
it was socialist and the United States was viewed as an opponent. Resolution
No. 8 sanctioned cooperation with both friendly and opposing countries and
struggling against any country that harmed Vietnam’s national interests.
In 2013, on the
tenth anniversary of Resolution No. 8, the VCP Poliburto conducted a review of the
implementation of this resolution and reaffirmed the policy of “cooperation and
struggle.”
The fourth major
theme of Vietnam’s foreign policy isthe promotion of international integration.
As noted above, Vietnam first promoted economic integration and then extended
this to political-economic integration. In 2011, the eleventh national party
congress endorsed Vietnam’s proactive international integration. The Political Report to the twelfth and most recent
national congress in 2016 stated, “To ensure successful implementation of
foreign policy and international integration… [Vietnam must] be proactive and
active in international integration; to be a friend, reliable partner, and a
responsible member of the international community…”
Part 2 Domestic Factors
This section discusses three major factors that
influence the foreign policy decision-making process in Vietnam: (1) the
sources of political legitimacy of Vietnam’s one-party state, (2) elite
factionalism within the VCP, and (3) new domestic actors
The origins of the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (SRV) date back to establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam
(DRV) in 1954 following the partition of Vietnam. In 1975 Vietnam was
reunified. Since 1954 the VCP has based its claim to political legitimacy on
three sources: patriotism and nationalism, legal-rational authority and
performance legitimacy.
The VCP was founded in 1930 and successfully
mobilized the Vietnamese people to resist and defeat successive foreign
interventions, as noted above. The VCP appealed to patriotism and nationalism
to overcome regional and religious differences. However, after reunification
the VCP’s appeals to nationalism fell on deaf ears to Vietnamese both inside
Vietnam and abroad who had supported the southern Republic of Vietnam
(1955-75); they were denigrated as American puppets.[16]
In 1976 Le Duan, party leader from 1960-86,
declared that, “this nation and socialism are one.”[17]
However, during the period from 1976-86 patriotism and nationalism, while still
important sources of regime legitimacy, were overtaken by the VCP’s emphasis on
legal-rational legitimacy. During this period the VCP imposed its
mono-organizational socialist model on the south. This was exemplified by the
adoption of Vietnam’s 2nd Five-Year Plan (1976-81) and the promulgation of a new
state constitution in 1980.
After 1986, Marxist-Leninist ideology was
watered down as the VCP began promoting “the thoughts of Ho Chi Minh” to
undergird its legitimacy.[18]
The VCP’s emphasis on economic renovation soon became the regime’s prime source
of legitimacy, performance legitimacy. During the 1990s Vietnam’s Gross
Domestic Product grew at nearly seven percent a year and averaged 6.47 percent
from 2000 until 2016.
The second factor influencing foreign policy is
elite factionalism. Despite the alteration in state-society relations due to
the explosive growth of grassroots-level organizations and the creation of a
growing private sector as a result of high economic growth, the inner workings
of Vietnam’s power structure remain opaque. Scholars and other analysts have
used elite factionalism as a heuristic device to analyze policy changes.
During the Cold War scholars and analysts debated
whether there were pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese factions in the VCP.[19]
After reunification, scholarly attention turned to discerning whether there
were conservative or reformist factions within the VCP; one scholar posited
three groups: ideologues, rent seekers and modernizers.[20]
As Vietnam’s territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea took center
stage (see below), scholars and analysts began debating how to characterize
leadership alignments in Vietnam’s one-party state. Some argued that they
discerned pro-China and pro-U.S. factions. This author has argued that there
are no pro-China and pro-American factions in Vietnam and the leadership is
divided on how to manage relations with these two powers (see discussion on the
HD 981 crisis below).
In the lead up to the VCP’s twelfth national
congress it became clear that Vietnam’s leadership was divided over the issue
of democratic centralism and collective leadership within the party itself.
During the ten-year tenure of Politburo member and Prime Minister Nguyen Tan
Dung, the Office of the Prime Minster (and the state apparatus) emerged arguably
as a more powerful institution than the VCP. The Prime Minister presided over a
period of high economic growth and pushed a “Vietnam first policy” of building
up huge state enterprises known as conglomerates. As a result a patron-client
network emerged under Dung and some its beneficiaries became corrupt.
When Prime Minister Dung attempted to prolong
his hold on office by seeking special exemptions to age restrictions and tenure
limitations to become party Secretary General, an “anything but Dung” coalition
formed behind the incumbent party leader Nguyen Phu Trong.[21]
Dung lost and retired. Trong was appointed for an unprecedented third term on
the expectation that he would step down when a suitable replacement was found.
The third factor influencing foreign policy has
been the emergence of new domestics actors including retired officials and
members of what may be loosely termed political civil society.
Since reunification in 1976 the political role
of retired party members, state cadres and military veterans has become more
prominent especially as the sources of the VCP’s political legitimacy have
altered.[22]
Increasingly retired cadres and networks of retired officials have become
active writing petitions and open letters to the top party and state leaders on
a number of hot button policy issues, including environmental issues and
relations with China. As will be discussed in part three below, retired
officials played a prominent role in opposing bauxite mining and Chinese
violation of Vietnamese sovereignty in the South China Sea.
Between 2004-06, building on the effervescence
of organizational activity discussed previously, an unprecedented number of
political associations were formed consisting of little more than a handful of
non-party individuals. These new political groupings promoted democracy, human
rights, religious freedom and workers’ rights and confronted Vietnam’s
one-party state.[23]
In 2006, in a major new development, pro-democracy
activists and political groups coalesced into an identifiable network, marking
a new development in Vietnamese politics.[24]
On April 6, 2006, one hundred and sixteen persons issued an Appeal for Freedom
of Political Association that they distributed throughout Vietnam via the
Internet. On April 8, one hundred and eighteen persons issued a
Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam.[25]
These statements called upon the Vietnamese state to respect basic human rights
and religious freedom and to permit citizens to freely associate and form their
own political parties.[26] These pro-democracy petitioners became known
as Bloc 8406 after the date of their founding manifesto.
Bloc 8406 represented a diverse network of
professionals primarily concentrated in urban centers throughout the country,
particularly in Hue, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Hanoi, Da Nang and Can Tho.
Bloc 8406 produced a fortnightly publication, Tu Do Ngon Luan (Free Speech) in both hardcopy and electronic
format. By year’s end foreign observers reported that the support base for Bloc
8406 had expanded to over two thousand, many under the age of thirty.[27]
In August 2006, Bloc 8406 publicly announced a
four-phase program for democratization including the restoration of civil
liberties, establishment of political parties, drafting of a new constitution
and democratic elections for a representative National Assembly.[28] Next, in October 2016 Bloc 8406 issued an open
letter to government leaders who were due to attend the annual summit of the
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Hanoi at the end of the year.
This appeal asked for their help in promoting democracy in Vietnam. Shortly
after Bloc 8406 formed a coalition with the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam
and the Vietnam Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights.
After the APEC Summit security authorities began
cracking down on Bloc 8406 by arresting several of its high profile leaders.
They were given perfunctory trials and imprisoned. As a result by 2009 Bloc
8406 was eviscerated.
In sum, Vietnam’s Đổi Mới reform program shifted the main basis of VCP
legitimacy from nationalism and legal-rational authority to performance
legitimacy. This widened the scope for elite factionalism as the state
apparatus gained control over more resources and weakened the hegemonic role of
the VCP. Retired party members, state cadres and military veterans increasingly
voiced their views on both domestic and foreign policies. In addition, voices
from outside the traditional power structure began to agitate for democratic
reforms, religious freedom and other concerns.
Part 3 Key Issues Driving Foreign Policy
Throughout the period of the Sino-Soviet
dispute (1956-89) Vietnam’s foreign policy was the province of political elites
who made decisions without having to take into account public opinion. As noted
above, in 2006 pro-democracy and human rights activists made the first major
attempt in Vietnam to link domestic political reform with foreign policy when
they petitioned government leaders in advance of the APEC summit in Hanoi.
This section reviews why relations with China
have become the key domestic driver in Vietnam’s current foreign policy.
Domestic activists in Vietnam have seized on at least two major issues
regarding relations with China, environmental concerns over resource extraction
and China’s threat to Vietnam’s sovereignty in the South China Sea. As
relations with China have assumed salience in domestic politics a number of
lower order issues have become embedded in this controversy, such as China’s
huge trade surplus, shoddy Chinese goods, the low quality of infrastructure
projects, and the importation of Chinese labor into Vietnam.
Public opinion regarding relations with China
has become so toxic that it poses a serious challenge to the political
legitimacy of Vietnam’s one-party regime. Anti-China activists accuse their
leaders of not standing up strongly enough to Beijing’s assertiveness in the
South China Sea. This undercuts the regime’s claim to patriotism and
nationalism as one of their main sources of political legitimacy.
Bauxite Mining Controversy. In 2009 Vietnam’s leaders were confronted by a widespread elite coalition opposed to their plans to develop a bauxite mining industry in central Vietnam in collaboration with a Chinese company. Environmental issues related to toxic pollution of downstream waterways in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities became entwined with national security concerns about permitting a Chinese presence in Vietnam’s Central Highlands.
In 2006 Vietnam issued a tender for bauxite
mining. The bid was won by the China Aluminum Company (CHALCO) in partnership
with the Vietnam National Coal Mineral Industries Group (VINACOMIN). A
framework agreement between the two companies was signed in November 2006 on
the sidelines of the APEC Summit and was witnessed by China’s President Hu Jintao.[29]
CHALCO agreed to build two alumina plants, one at Nhan Co, Dak Nong province
and the other at Tan Rai, Lam Dong province.
During 2008 small numbers of Vietnamese
environmentalists and scientists voiced disquiet over plans to develop bauxite
mining in the absence of an environmental impact study. Their voices were
largely brushed aside. Then, in January 2009, the bauxite issue suddenly became
a national issue when General Vo Nguyen Giap issued the first of three open
letters (January 5, April 9, 2009 and May 20, 2009). He argued that bauxite
mining would ruin the environment, displace indigenous ethnic minorities and,
most significantly, threaten national security with the influx of Chinese
workers into the strategic Central Highlands and by providing China with
economic leverage.
On April 30, 2009 an anti-bauxite petition
signed by one hundred and thirty-five scholars and intellectuals was delivered
to the National Assembly. The petition stated, “China has been notorious in the
modern world as a country causing the greatest pollution and other problems.”[30]
On May 7, 2009 the fifty-fifth anniversary of
the battle of Dien Bien Phu, General Giap told visiting leaders who came to
wish him well, “I hope you pay attention to bauxite mining in the Central
Highlands. This is a strategic site of the country, which is very important in defense
and security, not only for Vietnam but for Indochina.”[31]
Giap was joined by retired General Nguyen Trong Vinh, former ambassador to
China, who wrote an open letter calling on the Politburo to reconsider plans to
let China establish a permanent presence in the Central Highlands.[32]
According to one detailed study of the bauxite
controversy:
The
public debate on bauxite mining developed into a national and international
controversy. The Prime Minister and other state authorities almost immediately
set in motion processes to control and clamp down on the public debate. Their
measures were both responsive and repressive. They included an injunction on
the domestic press from further reporting on the topic of bauxite mining in
January of 2009 and, later, arrests of bloggers and other more directly
repressive measures in the last half of 2009. However, state response also
included different types of dialogues with its critics, including a closed-door
seminar organized by the central branch of the Vietnamese Communist Party and
chaired by two Politburo members in February of 2009, a ‘Scientific Workshop’ co-organized
by the government’s Vietnam Union for Science and Technology Associations and
the Ministry of Industry and Trade in April 2009, and an explosive debate on
bauxite mining in the bi-annual meeting of the National Assembly in May and
June of 2009.[33]
By mid-2009, the anti-bauxite
network of the previous year had grown into a national coalition including
environmentalists, local residents, scientists, economists, retired military
officers and veterans, retired state officials, social scientists, other
academics and intellectuals, elements of the media, and National Assembly
deputies. These critics were all mainstream elite. They were joined by
bloggers, political dissidents and religious leaders representing the banned Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam and Redemptorist priests involved in land disputes
with local authorities in Hanoi the previous year.
On May 3t 2009, Cardinal Pham Minh Man, the
Archbishop of Saigon, issued a Pastoral Letter condemning the exploitation of
natural resources that damaged the environment and called on Catholics to protest
such development plans.[34]
In June, lawyer Cu Huy Ha Vu filed a
lawsuit against the prime minister in the Hanoi People’s Court.[35]
When the Court rejected this request on the grounds that it lacked competency
in this mater, Cu Hay Ha Vu filed an appeal to the People’s Supreme Court on
July 3rd. This quixotic legal protest was similarly dismissed.[36]
The anti-bauxite controversy of 2009 presented
a novel public challenge to state authority. For the first time the competency
of the government to decide on large-scale development projects was called into
question by a broad national coalition of mainstream elites including
environmentalists, scientists, economists, social scientists, and retired
officials.[37]
In addition domestic critics raised the politically sensitive allegation that
China’s involvement in bauxite mining was a national security issue.
In sum, the bauxite mining controversy
represented a major challenge to the performance legitimacy of Vietnam’s
one-party state. As a result, the government was forced to modify its plans to
take environmental concerns and the impact on ethnic minorities into account.
The government agreed to permit the National Assembly, ministries and local
authorities to conduct regular reviews of how bauxite mining was being
implemented. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and other government officials
asserted that bauxite mining was “a major policy of the party and state” and
would proceed.[38]
In May, in a token gesture, six Chinese companies were fined for failing to
obtain work permits for Chinese laborers at bauxite sites.[39]
South China Sea Dispute. No foreign policy issue has raised such
strong domestic public opinion as Vietnam’s territorial dispute China over the
South China Sea. The South Chia Sea dispute emerged in 1992 shortly after
Vietnam normalized relations with China following a decade-long estrangement
during the Cambodian conflict.
In February 1992, China’s National People’s
Congress passed the Law on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone that claimed all
islands in the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos.
China’s law now put it on a collision course with Vietnam regarding sovereignty
claims in the South China Sea. This took the form of a series of maritime
incidents in the 1990s precipitated by China’s efforts to explore for oil in
waters falling within Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ.[40]
It was not until 2007, however, that China’s
assertiveness in the South China Sea became a domestic issue. In late 2007
Vietnam witnessed the first of regular public protests in Hanoi and later in
other metropolitan centers in response to Chinese actions in the South China
Sea, such as harassment of Vietnamese fishermen. Generally the regime showed a
degree of tolerance, allowing protesters to demonstrate outside the Chinese
Embassy in Hanoi or China’s Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, before being
escorted away by public security officials.
From 2007 to the present, a number of bloggers
have taken to the internet to criticize not only China but their own government
for failing to stand up to China to protect Vietnam’s sovereignty. During this
period when China harassed Vietnamese fishermen or when Chinese fishermen
intruded into Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the government responded
by issuing diplomatic protests. On occasion Vietnam would deploy its Maritime
Police to chase Chinese fishermen out of Vietnamese waters and “muscle” Chinese
maritime enforcement ships operating in Vietnam’s EEZ.
HD 981 Crisis. No incident was more serious than the crisis
that erupted in early May-mid-July 2014 when Vietnam deployed the mega-oil
drilling rig the Hai Yang Shi You 981 (HD 981) in Vietnam’s EEZ accompanied by an armada of
warships, Coast Guard vessels, tug boats and fishing trawlers that reached over
one hundred in number at the height of the crisis. China also dispatched
military aircraft to over fly the area.
Vietnam responded by sending its much smaller
Coast Guard ships and Fishery Surveillance Force vessels to confront the
Chinese and order them out of Vietnam’s EEZ. China responded aggressively by
ramming Vietnamese ships and vessels and used high-powered water canons to
de-mast radio communications antennae from the bridges of Vietnamese ships.
Vietnamese maritime law enforcement vessels continued their unequal daily confrontation
but added a new twist by embedding foreign journalists on its ships to film and
report incidents at sea. Vietnam won a global propaganda war against China when
film was broadcast showing large Chinese vessels deliberately ramming smaller
Vietnamese boats.
The maritime crisis between Vietnam and China
continued for six weeks. During this period Vietnam’s adopted a defensive
posture by keeping it warships well out of the area where the daily
confrontation occurred. Vietnam also tried in vain to activate its hot line
with China. Over thirty Vietnamese demarches in May alone went unanswered
including a request that China receive a special envoy.
Nearly a week after China deployed the HD 981 the
VCP Central Committee convened its long scheduled ninth plenum from May 8-14. Although the agenda
included a number of domestic issues the meeting was overshadowed by the
growing maritime crisis.[41]
A heated debate erupted about how Vietnam should respond to China’s challenge
to Vietnamese sovereignty. However, the final communiqué issued after the
plenum resolved to closely monitor
the maritime standoff and called for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. This
gave the impression that “it
was business as usual” and gave no hint of internal party disagreements over
South China Sea policy.
On May 11, while the
Central Committee was in session, peaceful anti-China protests took place in
Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and other urban areas in response to graphic domestic
TV coverage of the confrontation. More seriously, anti-China protests by
Vietnamese workers on three industrial estates in Binh Duong, Dong Nai and Ha
Tinh provinces turned violent on May 13-14. Nearly four hundred Chinese (and other foreign-owned)
enterprises were severely damaged or burned to the ground. China responded by
evacuating several thousand of its workers, demanded compensation and imposed
economic sanctions. Chinese tourism to Vietnam plummeted.
After the ninth plenum,
and in the face of Chinese diplomatic stonewalling, pressure continued to build
up within Vietnamese party and society at large to take legal action against
China. Prime Minister Dung became the most public advocate of this action but
stated that timing was crucial. Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh went on
record at the Shangri-La Dialogue that legal action was “a last resort.” On June 18 China dispatched State Councilor
Yang Jiechi to Hanoi for testy consultations with Deputy Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh.
In early July the VCP Politburo reportedly
voted overwhelmingly to hold a special meeting of the Central Committee to discuss
the HD 981 crisis and to consider taking international legal action against
China and, reportedly, consider dropping its defense policy of “three no’s.” On July 15, China announced that it was withdrawing the HD 981 from
Vietnamese waters. This took the wind out of the sails of those calling for a
special Central Committee meeting. Nevertheless, on July 28 sixty-one leading Vietnamese
personalities signed an open letter criticizing the government for its handling
of relations with Beijing and called for legal action and a lessening of
Vietnam’s dependence on China by exiting China’s orbit (thoat trung).
China’s actions in withdrawing the HD 981 a
month earlier than announced defused the crisis and led to the return to
diplomacy and difficult efforts to restore political trust.[42]
The
2014 HD 981 crisis demonstrated the efficacy of Vietnam’s policy of struggling
and cooperating with China. The daily confrontation between Chinese and
Vietnamese maritime law enforcement vessels demonstrated that Vietnam was
capable of “struggling against“ China to demonstrate resolve in defending its national
interests. However, Vietnam was also concerned to
prevent any maritime incident from escalating to the point of an armed clash
with superior Chinese military forces and/or provoking China to seize a feature
that Vietnam presently occupied. The response by Vietnam’s government of
“cooperating and struggling” were carefully calibrated acts designed to
underscore Vietnam’s sovereignty without unduly provoking China.
The resolution of the HD 981 crisis did little
to diffuse widespread anti-Chinese sentiment among the Vietnamese public. The
Vietnamese party-state responded to public opinion by being more proactive in
permitting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue protests in response to
Chinese actions that are perceived as infringing Vietnamese sovereignty,
territorial territory or peace and stability in the South China Sea. Vietnamese
textbooks are being gradually revived to take the gloss off official historical
accounts of Sino-Vietnamese relations. The Vietnamese media has been given greater leeway to publish news that is
critical of China.
Part 4 Providing Equity to the Major Powers
Vietnam’s policy of “multilateralizing and
diversifying” its foreign relations took the strategy of negotiating strategic
partnership agreements with a range of countries. Between 2001 and 2016 Vietnam
succeeded in reaching strategic partnership agreements with sixteen countries
and agreements on comprehensive partnerships with ten others, including
Australia and the United States. These agreements were broad in scope and
included among other things provisions for cooperation in foreign affairs and
defense and security. These agreements also included a joint mechanism to
manage bilateral relations and they were often accompanied by multi-year Action
Plans.
Vietnam sought to avoid being caught in the
middle of strategic rivalry between a rising China and the United States by pursuing
a multi-polar balance among five major powers – Russia, India, Japan, China and
the United States. The purpose of strategic partnerships was to give each
country equity in Vietnam to prevent Vietnam from being pulled into a rival’s
orbit and to enable Vietnam to maintain its strategic autonomy. The sections
below briefly examine Vietnam’s strategic partnerships with the major powers.
Russia. Vietnam negotiated its first strategic
partnership agreement with the Russian Federation in March 2001 during the visit
of President
Vladimir Putin to Hanoi.[43]
This agreement set out broad-ranging cooperation in eight major areas:
political-diplomatic, military equipment and technology, oil and gas
cooperation, energy cooperation for hydro and nuclear power, trade and investment,
science and technology, education
and training, and culture and tourism. In July 2012, Vietnam and Russia raised
their strategic partnership to a comprehensive strategic partnership on the
occasion of a state visit to Moscow by President Truong Tan Sang.[44]
The breadth of
Vietnam-Russia relations was illustrated in April 2015 when Vietnam and Russia
signed eight cooperation agreements in the fields of energy (oil, gas, and
nuclear), investment, banking (use of national currencies to promote bilateral
trade), health care, transport (aviation and rail) and agriculture.[45]
Russian arms sales to Vietnam are the largest
and most significant component of the strategic partnership, followed by energy
(oil, gas, hydropower and nuclear). The Russian Federation is Vietnam’s largest
provider of military equipment and technology. This assistance enables Vietnam modernize
its armed forces and enhance its capacity to defend Vietnam’s sovereignty.[46]
Japan. In October 2006, Prime Ministers Shinzo
Abe and Nguyen Tan Dung issued a Joint Statement Toward a Strategic Partnership
for Peace and Prosperity in Asia.[47]
A year later during an official visit by Vietnam’s president, Japan and Vietnam
issued a Joint Statement that included a forty-four point Agenda Toward a
Strategic Partnership. This was divided into seven substantive areas:
exchanges, cooperation in policy dialogue, security and defence; comprehensive
economic partnership; improvement of the legal system and administrative
reforms; science and technology; climate change, environment, natural resources
and technology; mutual understanding between the peoples of the two countries;
and cooperation in the international arena.[48]
In March 2014, Vietnam and raised their
bilateral relations to an Extensive Strategic Partnership.
India. In July 2007, India and Vietnam adopted a 33-point Joint Declaration on Strategic
Partnership that mapped out cooperation in five major areas: political, defense
and security cooperation; closer economic cooperation and commercial
engagement; science and technology cooperation, cultural and technical
cooperation and multilateral and regional cooperation.[49]
The Vietnam-India strategic partnership set out
six areas for cooperation: (1) strategic dialogue at vice ministerial level;
(2) defense supplies, joint projects, training cooperation and intelligence
exchanges; (3) exchange visits between their defense and security
establishments; (4) capacity building, technical assistance and information sharing
with particular attention to security of sea lanes, anti-piracy, prevention of
pollution and search and rescue; (5) counter terrorism and cyber security; and
(6) non-traditional security.[50]
In 2016, during the course of an official visit
by Prime Minister Modi to Hanoi, Vietnam and India raised their bilateral
relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership.
China. In June 2008, seventeen years after the
normalization of relations, the leaders of Vietnam and China agreed to raise
their bilateral relations to a strategic partnership. A year later this was upgraded to a
strategic cooperative partnership. [51]
In 2013 Vietnam and China raised their
bilateral relations to a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership, the
highest designation among all of Vietnam’s strategic partners.
As strategic partners China and Vietnam have
developed a dense network of party, state, defense and multilateral mechanisms
to manage their bilateral relations including a Joint Steering Committee at
deputy prime minister level. There was a hiatus in bilateral relations during
the HD 981 crisis. After tensions were diffused the two sides resumed
high-level political, diplomatic and military exchanges. The China-Vietnam
Joint Steering Committee, the highest level coordination mechanism that oversees
bilateral relations, has continued to meet.
United States. Between 2010 and 2013 officials from Vietnam
and the United State mulled the idea of reaching an agreement on strategic
partnership. In the end both sides stepped back from this commitment and
decided instead to adopt a Joint Statement on Comprehensive Partnership during the state visit by President
Truong Tan Sang to Washington in July 2013.[52]
The Vietnam-US comprehensive partnership basically codified
nine major areas of long-standing cooperation: political
and diplomatic relations, trade and economic ties, science and technology,
education and training, environment and health, war legacy issues, defence and
security, protection and promotion of human rights, and culture, sports, and
tourism.[53]
The Joint Statement incorporated existing mechanisms for bilateral
cooperation such as the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement Council; the
Joint Committee for Scientific and Technological Cooperation; the Defense
Policy Dialogue; and the Political, Security, and Defense Dialogue, as well as
a new political and diplomatic dialogue mechanism between the U.S. Secretary of
State and Vietnam’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. There was no accompanying
multi-year Plan Action.
Subsequently, Vietnam and the United States adopted three seminal
documents that supplemented their comprehensive partnership: Joint Vision Statement on Defense Cooperation
(June 1, 2015) between their defense ministers,[54] Joint
Vision Statement between President Barack Obama and Secretary General Nguyen
Phu Trong (July 7, 2015), and Joint Statement (May 23, 2016) between President
Tran Dai Quang and President Obama. During Obama’s visit to Vietnam in May 2016
he announced the lifting of all restrictions on the sale of weapons to Vietnam.
When taken as a whole, Vietnam’s web of
strategic and comprehensive partnerships serve to insulate Vietnam from Sino-US
competition and provide Vietnam with the means to maneuver among the major
powers in order to protect its independence and self-reliance.
Part 5 Proactive International Integration
Vietnam’s foreign policy to
promote international integration is long standing. For example, Vietnam joined
APEC in 1998, the World Trade Organization in 2007 and was elected non-permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2008-09 term. In 2011,
the eleventh national party congress endorsed Vietnam’s “proactive, active
international integration.”
On April 10, 2013, the VCP
Politburo issued Resolution No. 22-NQ/TW on International Integration. It declared
that, “Proactive and active international integration is a major strategic
orientation of the Party aimed to successfully implement the task of building
and protecting the socialist Fatherland of Viet Nam.”[55]
Resolution No. 22 underscored the need for Vietnam to
Deliver on international
commitments in parallel with proactive, positive participation in developing
and making use of international rules and practices and participate in
activities of the regional and international communities; proactively propose
initiatives and cooperation mechanisms under the mutually beneficial principle;
consolidate and enhance our country's position in the regional and
international communities, actively contributing to the struggle for peace,
national independence, democracy and social progress in the world.[56]
After Politburo Resolution No.
22 was issued the Cabinet adopted an Action Plan and the Prime Minister issued
Directive No. 15/CT-TTg. This led to the establishment of the National Steering
Committee on International Integration headed by the prime minister. Two major
inter-agency Steering Committees were set up, one on international integration
in politics, security, and national defense, the second had responsibility for
international integration in the areas of culture and society, science and
technology and education and training.
Vietnam was a keen
participant in the negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well
as ASEAN’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). Vietnam recently
joined Eurasian Economic Union comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Russia.
In 2015, Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
issued a Diplomatic Bluebook that
reviewed Vietnam’s efforts at proactive international integration over the past
year. As a member of the United Nations, Vietnam was elected to the Board of
Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (2013-15), Human Rights
Council (2014-16), the Executive Board of the United Nations
Organization for Education, Science and Culture or UNESCO (2015-19), and the UN’s Economic and
Social Council (2016-18). Vietnam has also announced that it will be a
candidate for non-permanent member of the Security Council for the 2020-21
term.
The center-piece of Vietnam’s regional
integration is ASEAN and ASEAN-centered multilateral institutions. Vietnam
became a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1994 and a full member of ASEAN
the following year. Vietnam has actively participated in the ASEAN Defense
Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), the ASEAN Maritime Forum (AMF), the Expanded AMF, Asia-Europe
Meeting (ASEM), and the East Asia Summit. In 2010 Vietnam hosted the inaugural
meeting of the ADMM-Plus. Vietnam was the coordinator for ASEAN-European Union
relations for 2012-15 and is currently coordinator for ASEAN-India relations
(2015-18).
At the bilateral level Vietnam has signed
strategic partnership agreements with five of ASEAN’s ten members: Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, the
Philippines and Malaysia. After the election of new state leaders in May 2016,
President Tran Dai Quang visited Brunei and Singapore.
Part 6 Implications for the United States
Since 1995 Vietnam has emerged as a key member of ASEAN and
both Vietnam and the United States have shared interests in strengthening ASEAN
as a regional association. Likewise, both Vietnam and the United States have
shared interests in maritime security in the South China Sea, including freedom
of navigation and overflight. Both share the same policy position that
territorial disputes should be settled peacefully without the threat of use of
force on the basis of international law, including the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Vietnam and the United States share similar views on
international issues such as nuclear non-proliferation, countering violent
extremism, and mitigating the effects of climate change.
Both Vietnam and the United States share a common interest
in Vietnam’s stability and economic development. The United States is Vietnam’s
largest export market and Vietnam enjoys a massive trade surplus of U.S. $30.9
billion (compared with a trade deficit with China of U.S. $32.3 billion). Vietnam
was a keen participant in TPP negotiations, a major goal of President Obama’s
rebalance to Asia policy.
Despite wide area of convergence U.S. and Vietnamese
interests are not congruent.[57]
For example, Vietnam wants the U.S. formally to designate Vietnam as a market
economy so it can have greater access to the American market. The United States
has not done so because it is concerned about the privileged role of
state-owned enterprises in Vietnam’s socialist market economy. The U.S. views
the promotion of democratic values, human rights and religious freedom as
reinforcing political stability and development. Vietnam, however, harbors
suspicions that the United States seeks to overthrow Vietnam’s one-party system
through “peaceful evolution.”
Even in the area of defence and security, where U.S. and
Vietnamese strategic interests have increasingly converged in recent years,
their interests are not congruent. Vietnam seeks to leverage its strategic
partnerships with the major powers to bolster its foreign policy of
independence and self-reliance. Vietnam generally has supported President
Obama’s policy of rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific. Senior Vietnamese
officials welcome the presence of the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea as long
as it contributes, in Hanoi’s view, to regional peace and security. However, Vietnam’s
defense policy of “three no’s” restricts the extent to which it will cooperate
with the United States to constrain China.
Vietnam and the
United States are both wary of Sino-Russian collaboration in the Asia-Pacific.
Vietnam, however, has good relations with Moscow while Washington does not.
Russian naval vessels have been given special access to the military port at
Cam Ranh Bay, while the other major powers are permitted to visit the Cam Ranh
International Port and presently are restricted to one naval port visit a year.
In 2015 Vietnam’s defense policy of “three no’s” was put under strain when
Russian military refuelling aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay serviced Bear bombers that
conducted provocative flights near U.S. military facilities on Guam.[58]
The comprehensive partnership between Vietnam and the United
States provides a firm foundation for the future development of bilateral
relations under the next U.S. Administration. This was illustrated by the visit
of Dinh The Huynh to Washington from October 24-30, 2016 at the invitation of
Secretary of State John Kerry.[59]
Huynh is the standing member of the VCP Central Committee’s Secretariat and a
likely candidate to become the next party Secretary General.
Huynh called on the United States to “foster comprehensive
cooperation for development by increasing visits at all levels, expanding
consultation mechanisms on issues of shared concern and boosting the
effectiveness of existing cooperation mechanisms.”[60]
Huynh specifically called for the enhancement of “economic, trade and
investment partnerships” and the strengthening of cooperation in “science,
education, health care, environment, infrastructure connectivity, renewable
energy, and climate change response… defence-security links… people-to-people
exchanges, while prioritising the settlement of war consequences and
humanitarian aid.”[61]
Huynh noted that Vietnam’s National Assembly was preparing
to ratify the TPP and called on the United States to accelerate its
ratification. Huynh also expressed the hope that the United States “will soon
recognise Vietnam’s economy as a market economy, open its market to more
Vietnamese agricultural products, and reduce trade barriers.”[62]
Huynh reiterated Vietnam’s willingness “to work with the US
and relevant countries to boost ASEAN’s central role and build ASEAN-led
mechanisms to form regional architecture in the 21st century.”[63]
Significantly Huynh welcomed “the active role of countries inside and outside
the region, including the US, in keeping peace and stability in the East Sea”
and urged the U.S. to continue its collaboration with countries in the
Asia-Pacific region.[64]
Finally, Huynh invited the next U.S. president to visit Vietnam in 2017 when
Vietnam hosts the APEC Summit.
In sum, Vietnam and the United States share a convergence of
strategic interests but these interests are not congruent. While Vietnam’s
policies towards the United States seem clear it is up to the next U.S.
president to clarify whether there will be continuity or marked change in the
U.S. policy of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific.
Bibliography
[1] Carlyle A. Thayer, “Mono-Organizational Socialism and the
State,” in Benedict J. Tria Kerkvliet and Doug J. Porter, eds., Vietnam’s Rural Transformation. Boulder:
Westview Press. 39-64.
[2]Oscar Salemink, “Translating, Interpreting, and Practicing
Civil Society in Vietnam: A Tale of Calculated Misunderstandings”, in David
Lewis and David Mosse, eds, Development
Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies (Bloomfield,
CT: Kumarian Press Inc., 2006), p. 102.
[3] Vietnamese
officialdom shied away from using the term NGO for domestic organizations
because, when literally translated into Vietnamese (to chuc phi chinh phu)
it sounded very much like the Vietnamese word for anarchy, vo chinh phu. In
other words, in Vietnamese the term NGO implied estrangement if not opposition
to the state.
[4]An
empirical survey conducted in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City recorded more than
seven hundred “civic organizations” most of which had been established after
1986; Joerg Wischermann and Nguyen Quang Vinh, “The Relationship between Civic
and Governmental Organizations in Vietnam: Selected Findings”, in Ben J. Tria
Kerkvliet, Russell H. K. Heng and David W. H. Koh, eds., Getting Organized in Vietnam: Moving in and around the Socialist State
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2003), p. 186.
[5]Thayer,
“Mono-Organizational Socialism and the State,” 54.
[6]Key
legal documents included: Decree 35/CP (1992) “On Some Measures to Encourage
Scientific and Technological Activities”; Decree 29/1998/ND-CP (May 11, 1998);
Decree 71/1998/ND-CP (September 8, 1998); Decree 07/1999/ND-CP (February 13,
1999); Decree 177 (1999) on charity and social funds; and Law on Science and
Technology (2000).
[7] Carlyle
A. Thayer, “Political Dissent and
Political Reform in Vietnam, 1997-2002,” in Claudia Derichs and Thomas Heberer,
eds. The Power of Ideas: Intellectual
Input and Political Change in East and Southeast Asia (Copenhagen S: Nordic
Institute of Asian Studies Press, 2006), 115-132.
[8] In May 2007, it
was estimated that there were 15.8 million Internet users in Vietnam or
nineteen per cent of Vietnam’s population. This figurew was higher than the
world average of 16.9% per cent. Since 1997 when connections were made to the
global computer network, usage has risen at an annual rate of thirty-six per
cent. Of Vietnam’s 15.8 million users, 4.4 million were subscribers including 677,000
on broadband. The Ministry of Public Security did its best to block political
sites that covered such issues as democracy, human rights, religious freedom
and the China-Vietnam border. Curiously, sites featuring pornography were
unaffected. In 2008 there were an estimated 1.1 million bloggers in Vietnam,
according to Le Doan Hop, Minister of Information and Communications (Thanh
Nien, August 7, 2008, 3).
[9]
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of National Defence, Vietnam National Defence (Hanoi: Nha
Xuat Ban The Gioi, December 2009), 23.
[10]
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam
National Defence, 21-22.
[11]
Gareth Porter, “The Transformation of Vietnam’s Worldview: From Two Camps to
Interdependence,” Contemporary Southeast
Asia, 12:1, June 1990, 1-19; Carlyle A. Thayer, “Indochina,” in Desmond
Ball and Cathy Downes, eds., Security and
Defence: Pacific and Global Perspectives (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1990),
403.. Nguyen Huu Cat, “Viet Nam Hoi Nhap vao Khu Vuc vi Hoa Binh va Phat
Trien,” Nghien Cuu Dong Nam A,
February 1996, 28-29; Chu Van Chuc, “Qua trinh doi moi tu duy doi ngoai va hinh
thanh duong loi doi ngoai doi moi,” Nghien
Cuu Quoc Te, 2004, 3:58, 9, 3-11; Luu Doan Huynh, “Vietnam-ASEAN Relations
in Retrospect: A Few Thoughts,” Dialogue
+ Cooperation, 2004, 1, 23-31; Nguyen Dy Nien, “Chinh Sach Van Hoat Dong
Doi Ngoai Trong Thoi Ky Doi Moi,”Tap Chi
Cong San, 17(740), September 2005, 31-37; Phan Doan Nam, “Ngoai Giao Viet
Nam Sau 20 Nam Doi Moi,” Tap Chi Cong San,
14(760), July 2006, 26-30; and Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnamese
Foreign Policy: Multilateralism and the Threat of Peaceful Evolution,” in
Carlyle A. Thayer and Ramses Amer, eds., Vietnamese
Foreign Policy in Transition (Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1999), 1-24
[12] Communist Party of Vietnam, 7th National Congress Documents (Hanoi:
Vietnam Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1991), 134; Carlyle A. Thayer,
“Indochina,” in Ramesh Thakur and Carlyle A. Thayer, eds., Reshaping Regional Relations: Asia-Pacific and the Former Soviet Union (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), 221; and Vu
Khoan, “Mot so van de quoc te cua dai hoi VII quan,” in Bo Ngoai Giao, Hoi nhap quoc te va giu vung ban sac (Hanoi:
Nha xuat ban chinh tri quoc te, 1995),
75.
[13]
Communist Party of Vietnam, 7th National
Congress Documents, 135.
[14] Carlyle A. Thayer, “Internal
Southeast Asian Dynamics: Vietnam’s Membership in ASEAN,” in Hadi Soesastro and
Anthony Bergin, eds., The Role of
Security and Economic Cooperation Structures in the Asia Pacific Region: Indonesian
and Australian Views (Jakarta: Centre for Strategic and International
Studies, 1996), 78-88 and Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnamese Diplomacy, 1975-2015:
From Member of the Socialist Camp to Proactive International Integration,” Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities,
1(3), 2015, 194-214.
[15] Carlyle A. Thayer, “The Tyranny of Geography:
Vietnamese Strategies to Constrain China in the South China Sea,” Contemporary Southeast Asia,
33(3), 2011, 348-369 and Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnam’s Strategy of ‘Cooperating and
Struggling’ with China over Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea,” Journal of Asian Security and International
Affairs, 3(2), 2016, 200-220.
[16]
Carlyle A. Thayer, “South China Sea: Memorializing the 1974 Battle of the
Paracels,” Thayer Consultancy Background
Brief,
January
13, 2014.
[17] Tran Van Dinh, ed., This Nation and Socialism Are One: Selected
Writings of Le Duan, First Secretary, Central Committee, Vietnam Workers’ Party
(Chicago: Vanguard Books, 1976).
[18]Thaveeporn Vasavakul,
“Vietnam: Changing Models of Legitimation,” in Muthiah Alagappa, ed., Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The
Quest for Moral Authority (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995),
263-264. Vasavakul argues that legitimacy at this time was based on collective
leadership in the party based on “power sharing among key personalities and
political institutions.”
[19] Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnamese
Perspectives on International Security: Three Revolutionary Currents,” in
Donald H. McMillen, ed., Asian Perspectives
on International Security (London:
Macmillan Press, 1984), 57-76.
[20] Alexander L. Vuving, “Vietnam: A Tale of Four Players,” in Daljit
Singh, ed., Southeast Asian Affairs 2010
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010), 367-391.
[21] This phrase
was coined by David Brown a Vietnamese speaking former U.S. diplomat.
[22] Carlyle A. Thayer,
“Political Dissent and Political Reform in Vietnam, 1997-2002,” in Claudia
Derichs and Thomas Heberer, eds. The
Power of Ideas: Intellectual Input and Political Change in East and Southeast
Asia, NIAS Studies in Asian Topics No. 36 (Copenhagen S: Nordic Institute
of Asian Studies Press, 2006), 115-132.
[23] Carlyle A., Thayer, ”Political Legitimacy of
Vietnam’s One Party-State: Challenges and Responses,” Journal of Current Southeast Asian
Affairs [Hamburg: Institute of Global and Area Studies], 2009, 28(4), 47-70 and
Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnam and the Challenge of Political Civil
Society,” Contemporary Southeast Asia,
31(1), April 2009, 1-27.
[24] Carlyle
A. Thayer, “Vietnam’s Regional
Integration: Domestic and External Challenges to State Sovereignty,” in
Stephanie Balme and Mark Sidel, eds., Vietnam’s
New Order: International Perspectives on the State and Reform in Vietnam
(London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 31-50; Thayer, ”Political Legitimacy of
Vietnam’s One Party-State: Challenges and Responses,” and Thayer, “Vietnam and the Challenge of Political Civil
Society.”
[25]“Tuyen Ngon Tu
Do Dan Chu Cho Viet-Nam Nam 2006,” April 8, 2006. One
signatory to the April 6th appeal withdrew, and three new
signatories were added for a total of 118.
[27] Matt
Steinglass, ‘Dissident Numbers Grow in Vietnam’, Voice of America, October 16,
2006.
[28]
Luisetta Mudie, ‘Vietnam Nervous Over Emerging Pro-Democracy Voices’, Radio
Free Asia, September 29, 2006.
[29]
Reuters, “Vietnam, China in $1.6 bln bauxite/alumina deal,” November 22, 2006. http://uk.reuters.com/article/sppage023-han216295-oisbi-idUKHAN21629520061122.
[30] Seth
Mydans, “War Hero in Vietnam Forces Government to Listen,” The New York Times, June 28, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world/asia/29iht-viet.html.
[32]
Nguyen Trong Vinh, “Kinh gui: Cac dong
chi uy vien Bo Chinh Tri, dong kinh gui: Thu Tuong va cac Pho Thu Tuong China
Phu” (To Comrade mem-bers of the Politburo, copy to the Prime Minister
and Deputy Prime Ministers), http://www.diendan.org/viet-nam/thu-cua-thieu-tuong-111ai-su-nguyen-trong-vinh/.
[33] Jason
Morris, “The Vietnamese Bauxite Mining Controversy: the Emergence of a New
Oppositional Politics,” PhD Thesis, The University of California at Berkeley,
2013, 169.
[34] “Protecting environment is a
Christian’s duty, Cardinal says,” VietCatholicNews, May 29, 2009 and “Harsh
treatment of Vietnam government against Catholics, why?,” VietCatholicNews, August 3, 2009.
[35] Deutsche Presse Agentur, ”Vietnamese court rejects lawsuit against prime minister,” June
23, 2009.
[38] Deutsche Press Agentur, “Vietnam prime minister back controversial aluminium project,” August 19, 2009 and Vietnam
News Agency, “PM asks bauxite mining to ensure sustainable development,” August 19, 2009.
[39] Deutsche Press Agentur, “Authorities fined six Chinese companies for failing to obtain work
permits for workers at controversial bauxite project,” May
13, 2009.
[40] Bill
Hayton, The South China Sea: The Struggle
for Power in Asia (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2014), 124-130.
[41] The agenda included the
review of the implementation of previous resolutions on developing an advanced
culture and a vote of confidence on government ministers, the pilot project on
holding direct elections to people’s committees at ward level, and draft policy
documents and electoral procedures for the forthcoming twelfth national party
congress.
[42] Carl Thayer, “4 Reasons
China Removed Oil Rig HYSY-981 Sooner Than Planned,” The Diplomat, July 22, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/4-reasons-china-removed-oil-rig-hysy-981-sooner-than-planned/.
[43]
Carlyle A. Thayer,“Vietnam On the
Road to Global Integration: Forging Strategic Partnerships Through
International Security Cooperation,” in Vietnam
on the Road to Integration and Sustainable Development, The Fourth International Conference on
Vietnamese Studies. Hanoi: Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences and Vietnam
National University, 2012. 206-214.
[44]
Carlyle A. Thayer, “The Russia-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership,” East Asia Forum, October 9, 2012. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/10/09/the-russia-vietnam-comprehensive-partnership/.
[45] Tran
Van Minh, “Medvedev: Vietnam Close to Deal with Russian-Led Trade Area,”
Associated Press, April 6, 2015; Truong Son, “Vietnam, Russia set to enhance
cooperation in all fields,” Thanh Nien
Daily, April 7, 2015; “Vietnam, Russia agree to deepen all-around ties,
especially in trade, energy,” Tuoi Tre
News, April 7, 2015; “Medvedev Says Time for Russia, Vietnam to Use National
Currencies in Trade,” Sputnik, April
7, 2015; Paddy Harris, “Gazprom Neft and Petrovietnam ink upstream and
downstream collaboration,” Oil & Gas
Technology, April 7, 2015; Andrew Tully, “Russia Reaches Oil and Gas
Agreement With Vietnam,” Oil Price,
April 7, 2015; Yury Slyusar, “Vietnam Is a Launch Pad to Enter the Aviation
Market in South-East Asia,” BAviation,
April 7, 2015; Prensa Latina, “Russian Prime Minister concludes visit to
Vietnam,” April 7, 2015; and Vietnam News Agency, “Russian PM advocates
advancing bilateral ties,” VietnamNet,
April 8, 2015.
[46] Carlyle A. Thayer, ““Russia-Vietnam Relations,” Global Insider, World Politics Review,
June, 8, 2011. http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/9099/global-insider-russia-vietnam-relations; Carlyle A. Thayer, “Russian Subs in Vietnam,” U.S. Naval Institute,
August 21, 2012. http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/russian-subs-vietnam; Carl Thayer, “With Russia’s Help, Vietnam Adopts A2/AD Strategy,” The
Diplomat, October 8, 2013. http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/10/08/with-russias-help-vietnam-adopts-a2ad-strategy/.
[47] Carl
Thayer “Vietnam’s Extensive Strategic
Partnership with Japan,” The Diplomat,
October 14, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/vietnams-extensive-strategic-partnership-with-japan/.
[48] Point four
of the Agenda addressed defence cooperation including exchanges of military
delegations, high-level defence officials’ visits, and goodwill ship port calls
by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.
[49] Carl Thayer, “How Vietnam
Woos China and India Simultaneously,” The
Diplomat, October 28, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-vietnam-woos-china-and-india-simultaneously/; and Carl Thayer, “India and
Vietnam Advance Their Strategic Partnership,” The Diplomat, December 11, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/india-and-vietnam-advance-their-strategic-partnership/.
[50] Since
2007, defense cooperation has included high-level visits, an annual Defense
Strategy Dialogue, naval port visits and
two lines of credit totaling US$600 million for defense acquisitions including
Offshore Patrol Vessels.
[51]
Thayer, “How Vietnam Woos China and India Simultaneously.”
[52]
Carl Thayer, “The
U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership: What’s in a Name?,” The Strategist, Australian Strategic
Policy Institute Blog, July 31, 2013, http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-us-vietnam-comprehensive-partnership-whats-in-a-name/ and Carl
Thayer, “The U.S.-Vietnam
Comprehensive Partnership: What’s in a Name?,” cogitASIA, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 30,
2013. http://cogitasia.com/the-u-s-vietnam-comprehensive-partnership-whats-in-a-name/.
[53] In
October 2011 Vietnam and the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding
Advancing Bilateral Defense Cooperation that covered main five areas: maritime security, search
and rescue, United
Nations peacekeeping operations; humanitarian
and disaster relief, and exchanges between defense universities and research
institutes.
[54] This
statement included twelve areas of cooperation: enhancement of trust and mutual understanding; collaboration in multilateral fora and organizations for common interest
(ASEAN); sstrengthening capabilities of defense
institutions and militaries to enhance cooperation, promote security, and
address non-traditional security threats; eexpand defense trade, potentially including cooperation in production of
new technologies and equipment were possible under current law and restrictions; eexpand collaboration in maritime security and maritime domain awareness,
port visits, voyage repair visits and facilities; eexpand training and educational opportunities at military academic
institutions; search and rescue , and HA/DR; ccapacity building for UNPKO; and iinformation exchanges and best practices, science and defense technology
exchanges
[55]
Communist Party of Vietnam, Central Executive Committee, Resolution of the
Politburo on International Integration, No. 22-NQ/TW, Hanoi, April 10, 2013, 4.
[56]
Communist Party of Vietnam, Resolution of the Politburo on International
Integration, 5.
[57] Carlyle A. Thayer, “Vietnam and
the United States: Convergence but not Congruence of Strategic Interests in the
South China Sea,” Keynote Address to The Fourth Engaging With Vietnam – An
Interdisciplinary Dialogue Conference, Australian Night, co-sponsored by the
Australian Consulate General, Monash University, and the East-West Center,
Wailana Room, The Hawai’i Imin International Conference Center, East-West
Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, November 8-9, 2012 and Carlyle Thayer, “Vietnam
and the United States: Convergence but Not Congruence of Strategic Interests in
the South China Sea,“ ISN ETZ Zurich, International Relations and Security
Network, February 13, 2013. http://isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Articles/Special-Feature/Detail/?lng=en&id=159647&contextid774=159647&contextid775=159646&tabid=1453526659.
[58] Carl Thayer, “Vietnam’s
Cam Ranh Bay Caught in US-Russia Crossfire,” The Diplomat, March 13, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/vietnams-cam-ranh-bay-caught-in-us-russia-crossfire/.
[59] Carlyle
A. Thayer, “Vietnam-US Relations: The Duterte Factor,” Thayer Consultancy
Background Brief, October 30, 2016.
[60]
“Relations with CPV critical to boosting US-Vietnam ties: John Kerry,”
VietnamNet, October 26, 2016.
[61]
“Relations with CPV critical to boosting US-Vietnam ties: John Kerry.”
[62]
“Relations with CPV critical to boosting US-Vietnam ties: John Kerry.”
[63]
“Relations with CPV critical to boosting US-Vietnam ties: John Kerry.”
[64]
“Relations with CPV critical to boosting US-Vietnam ties: John Kerry.”
No comments:
Post a Comment