The myth that Vietnam supports a “free and open Indo-Pacific” is based on the false perception of Vietnam as the US’s deputy in South-East Asia. It is time we recognise Vietnam’s autonomy, and respect that they are just as pragmatic as the US or China.
A recent piece published by East Asia Forum perpetuates the myth that Vietnam supports the core tenet of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” – unfettered freedom of navigation. Vietnam has long had restrictions for warships to enter its territorial waters – similar to those of China. In particular, Vietnam has both a territorial sea baseline and a prior notification regime that have been the direct target of U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) with warships in the recent past.
Moreover, U.S. challenges of prior permission for warships to undertake innocent passage in territorial waters around the Paracels are directed not only at China but also at Vietnam who also claims them. Further, the U.S. does not recognize Vietnam’s claims to Spratly features that are not naturally above water at high tide and presumably oppose their militarization just as it does those occupied by China. This clash of legal interpretations and policies regarding “freedom of navigation” is symptomatic of the more fundamental strategic mismatch between the two.
Of course, both the US and Vietnam want to use each other against China. That is the end-all and be-all of their “strategic relations”. Vietnam supports the presence of the U.S. Navy “as long as it contributes to peace and stability” – meaning as long as it deters China from “bullying” it.
Vietnam is simply being opportunistic and warming to its former enemy driven purely by self-interest for as long as it is needed. There is no alignment of fundamental interests with the U.S – other than to contain China – and really very little coincidence of values between its Communist authoritarian system and that of the liberal democratic U.S. Moreover, Vietnam is steadfastly non-aligned. Indeed, its long-standing policy is the “three nos” – no participation in military alliances, no foreign military bases on Vietnamese territory, and no reliance on one country to fight against another. That is not likely to change significantly.
Vietnam’s pandering to a mortal enemy that has yet to fully atone for what many consider its racially motivated atrocities during the war, is disingenuous, distasteful and unworthy. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of US strategy for the region as well as disrespect for the millions of Vietnamese who suffered and died to reject and eject US ideological and political influence. As Vietnam’s leaders should well know, China will always be ‘there’ – an unpredictable giant on its northern and maritime borders – while the U.S. presence in the region is comparatively fickle and fleeting.
Vietnam and China continue to have strong Party to Party and economic relations and seem to have reached a modus vivendi –albeit shaky and tense – regarding their South China Sea disputes. While Vietnam’s position may seem to be currently anti-China, pro-U.S., this is likely to be ephemeral. Indeed, it seems doubtful that Vietnam’s leadership will truly side long term with the U.S. – a declining power – against China – its permanent neighbour and inexorably rising regional and world power.
Mark J. Valencia is an internationally known maritime policy analyst focused on Asia and currently Adjunct Senior Scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China. He is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Huayang Institute for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance, Sanya , China.
Comments
7 responses to “Why wouldn’t Vietnam want US warships in their waters?”
With the reallocation of 31 billon dollars in Tourism Assistance the ADF could establish and maintain 125,000 paratroopers for five years for quick deployments repelling communist influence.
With the reallocation of 31 billon dollars in Tourism Assistance the ADF could establish and maintain 125,000 paratroopers for five years for quick deployments repelling communist influence.
Sir, I must say that I have never been disappointed with any of your contributions to P&I. Thank you. However, there is one point that I can’t fully agree with you and that is that Vietnam “…demonstrates a lack of understanding of US strategy for the region …” I suspect that they do understand the US strategy but attempt cleverly to use the US strategy against China for their own territorial claims in the SCS as you explained. Sometimes, they can be too clever for their own good. First they used China against the US during the Vietnam War. Then they turned against China and fought a border war with China. Now they are attempting to use the US against China. One could see their manoeuvres as mischief making or as a small country trying to make its way between giants, playing one against the other. On the other end of the spectrum is of course Australia that goes wherever the US takes it without question.
(Vietnam) used China against the US during the Vietnam War? What an extraordinary claim. It would be far more accurate to say that China used Vietnam against the US, allowing Vietnam to take the brunt of the fighting while China provided material assistance. China’s invasion of Vietnam in 1979, after China had become a de-facto US ally (it lasted until 1989) was a remarkable act of treachery against an already war-ravaged and impoverished neighbour. The alliance between China and the US in support of the anti-Vietnamese Pol Pot tyranny in Cambodia was truly one of the most evil and cynical things seen in that evil time.
Sir,
We can be both right and both wrong as well. Who uses who is mere conjecture. Whatever the case, I believe that the Vietnamese are cleverer than most people think. Good on them.
“Unfettered freedom of navigation” is the American propaganda term for the unopposed right of US aircraft carriers to prowl around your coasts and attack you. There was plenty of that unfettered freedom on display during the savage bombing of Vietnam during the war, and you can be sure they have not forgotten it. The Chinese have in recent years been building their defences in the South China Sea in anticipation of a repeat of that, and their moves in that direction have clashed with Vietnam’s own maritime territorial claims, a situation which the US has been keen to exploit. But never forget that the main factor now is what it has been since 1945: US determination to maintain its military dominance in the region. That is the source of the conflict, nothing else.
Thank you Mark for an excellent review. While the USA plays the belligerent clown with its satraps in tow, Vietnam demonstrates a diplomacy and maneuvering of precision and awareness of its foundation interests. In the past it has been invaded by both China and the USA with its gang of killers. Vietnam certainly exhibits a sophistication and intelligence sorely lacking in Australian ‘diplomacy’. The hubris and ignorance of the US Navy is amply demonstrated in its occasional collisions with giant merchant vessels in the sea of Japan and the incapacity to design and deliver current generation warships. The latter being a trait it now shares with Australia it seems.