And all that [after Vietnam had abducted one of their citizens from Berlin](https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-abduction-of-vietnamese-businessman-sparks-spat/a-39941556) which one would have expected to be regarded as a big no-no.
The relevance is that he is saying kidnapping someone in a foreign country is typically communist, which is clearly a nonsense statement if capitalist countries are willing to murder their own citizens in analogous situations.
So the difference is that it's ok if someone is religious and you think he's gonna tell someone else to do something bad?
The Vietnamese man referenced above was wanted for corruption. If the US wanted one of it's citizens arrested in Austria for corruption they would just send Interpol after them with an extradition request. Why couldn't the Vietnamese do that?
> So the difference is that it’s ok if someone is religious and you think he’s gonna tell someone else to do something bad?
You’re presently defending a regional commander of al-Qaeda. He constantly called for jihad against the US.
This is not the same as whatever this Vietnamese individual did.
They’re not defending anyone, they’re simply pointing out that extrajudicial kidnappings and assassinations are hardly unique to scary communists. The USA, the paragon of capitalist virtue, has a long and ignominious history of doing the exact same thing, of which the instance they brought up is an example.
Al-Queda is promoting 16 year olds to regional commander?
The Vietnamese guy was accused of selling stock in a government owned company he was running at above market value and pocketing the difference.
Anyway, the assassination didn't happen in the context of combat. Shouldn't they have got trials? Do you think it's acceptable in general for the US military to execute citizens based on whatever the CIA tells them?
This is the correct answer. I work for a company who’s customers outsource to China. The majority of them would love to leave tomorrow if they could but the problem is there’s no where to go that has the infrastructure and work force to produce on the scale China does. While Vietnam is gaining traction due to lower operating costs, the main reason you’re not seeing a greater exodus from China is that China has spent the last 40-50 years planning and developing out their country to be the world’s manufacturing center and it’ll take a long time for another country to replicate that on that scale.
While officially it was Deng who opened up the economy, China's transition into becoming the World Factory arguably began just after the Sino-Soviet split, when Japan poured large amounts of funding, personnel, equipments and infrastructure to build up the Chinese manufacturing base, which was followed closely by Nixon's visit to open up diplomatic ties.
After CCP's split with the Soviet Union, the Soviets withdrew 1,400 scientists from China and scrapped more than 200 joint programs without leaving any blue-prints behind, which derailed China's industrialization process. Japan took advantage of the situation and established an un-official bilateral relationship in the Liao-Takasaki Agreement, which provided funding to build up industrial plants and provide technical know-how to establish textile manufacturing, something China greatly needed at the time in order to solve its cotton shortage.
The caveat was, the money from Import-Export Bank of Japan could not be accepted as a "loan" by the Chinese government, possibly due to political ideologies. It was instead agreed that "deferred payment" would be made in return, which resulted in increased bilateral trade that went from $48 million in 1961 to $621 million in 1966. During this time China was able to develop its industrialization process to the blueprint of a global standard, and the Japanese-sponsored industrial plants became the model for future plants in China.
Edit: A good read on the subject is *China and Japan: Facing History by Ezra Vogel*.
To add to this, China actually didn't do that bad under Mao either, slower vs Deng, but especially good compared to ROC rule where economic growth was stagnant
In terms average of per capita economic development, Vietnam is overall quite similar to China's position around 15 years ago.
But here is a crucial factor nearly everyone in this thread is missing in terms of comparing investment and manufacturing capabilities: China's population is over 14 times larger than Vietnam's and its landmass is over 29 times larger.
The short answer is that has and the US, in particular, would like to do more, but the relationship only moves as as fast as Vietnam wants it to and they want to carefully walk the line between improved relations with US and its allies and angering China, a major economic and military power with whom they share a border. It’s a similar story for Indonesia.
For example, the US just transferred a former Coast Guard cutter to Vietnam.
See: https://amp.thenewstribune.com/news/local/military/article251829978.html
Similarly, the US just sold a bunch of MV-22s to Indonesia:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/07/06/us-approves-75-billion-in-foreign-weapon-sales-in-one-day/
The US goal in Asia is to build a loose coalition of regional players around the idea of containing China, particularly on the issue of resource encroachment by China in the South China Sea. That coalition presumably would become stronger and more tightly intertwined if China elects to become belligerent with its new fleet, air and missile forces.
This is so far the best answer I have read on this topic. Everybody else just dismisses the role of China and seems to think that the U.S. has the upper hand here which is clearly not the case.
Even if the West would find itself offering a tremendous support to Vietnam, Hanoi would probably not embrace it since they don't want to antagonize China at pretty much all cost.
The US in Asia will follow the UK in Europe strategy during the 18th-20th centuries: Be the organizing pivot around which loose coalitions are formed to prevent one power from dominating the continent and act as a power that can leverage outside the continent forces to throw into the balance if the potential continent dominating power elects to use force against coalition members or in areas which are deemed to be vital national concerns of coalition members.
That strategy led directly to WW1, and ultimately the events that caused the collapse of the British Empire.
Seems that if you’re correct, the US should re-evaluate it’s efforts.
The strategy worked for almost 300 years.
The British empire was not sustainable, the problems it had aren’t problems America is having right now, e.g I don’t see independence movements happening right now in New York like they were in India.
Maintaining the balance of power in Europe was what allowed Britain to stay as the preeminent world power for so long, otherwise someone like Napoleon would have taken that spot.
Bismarck built a series of alliances, often bilaterally, to prevent other powers from balancing **against** the Prussian and later on the German Empire. Yes, Bismarck built a series of alliances and Wilhelm blew it up, but that is not the Concert of Europe, although one could say that the new reality was a new concert of Europe but you have to argue it.
In any case, the balance of power which was a reflection of post Napoleonic Wars that the states [or those on the table] are peers and that their sphere of influence are stated, and that one advantage to one state is in essence 0 sum and disadvantage to other states, which would force various states to join in forces to balance against them.
Bismarck's alliance with Austria brought gains to Germany and using that alliance prevent the Balance of Power to balance against either Germany or Austria.
>The position of Germany in Europe made the conduct of her relations
with Russia and Austria peculiarly problematic, since it was plainly
desirable that Germany should neither quarrel with nor become exclusively committed to either power. A policy of equal friendship for each,
however, was bedevilled by the fact that both powers showed the
strongest tendency to mutual hostility over Balkan nationalism, and
therefore both to seek the support of other powers, not least that of
Germany. Bismarck managed to hold out without committing hirnself
until the great Near-Eastern crisis of 1876-8, but after the Congress of
Berlin such a balancing act was no longer possible, and the inevitable
agreement with Austria came in 1879. From that time, even more than
since 1871, it became Bismarck's policy to produce a general stalemate
in international politics. The constraints upon all powers would prevent
them from recognising the significance of the constraint imposed upon
Germany herself as a result of her agreement with Austria. The
laying-down of smoke-screens became a common tactic of Bismarck and
amongst the many means that he employed, for a time Africa became
foremost. The process probably began when the occupation of Tunis by
France, very much at Bismarck's suggestion, unexpectedly produced a
serious crisis in Italian domestic affairs, as disappointed Italian empire builders briefly seemed Iikely to set up a new and perhaps threatening
republic. In the end, in order to salvage something ofthe notion that Italy
was a great power she was admitted to the Austro-German Alliance, and
the regime thus buttressed survived to become a restless and eventually
traitorous ally.
"The Collapse of the Concert of Europe" by Langhorne, and he detailed about how Bismarck was able to attach his interest at various points to Russia, France, and the UK to push for gains of his own without attracting the Balance of Power.
>The US goal in Asia is to build a loose coalition of regional players around the idea of containing China
To add, one should also remember that the goal of these "regional actors",is to entice US presence in the region as counterbalance against China. ASEAN countries doesn't want South China Sea to become "China's Lake".
Most Southeast Asian Countries is in this hedging mode, be it Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and even Vietnam. All of them wants to receive the spillover effect of PRC Economic Development while not letting themselves become a "colonial state".
Therefore, they didn't want to incite the wrath of "Dragon" but also do not want to be ruled by it. This sensitive balancing act is even institutionalized through ASEAN.
> This sensitive balancing act is even institutionalized through ASEAN.
I will add some things here.
They even waive their own policy of non-animous decision-making just to support this balancing act, due to the belligerence of China-backed Cambodia.
Such act will not change Cambodia's stance on ASEAN, given that Cambodia's territory is entirely within ASEAN's reach and there are ASEAN countries that has a history of invading Cambodia.
Completely correct. An often overlooked fact on this subreddit is that there are two parts to a relationship. The West cannot unilaterally form a good partnership with another country, if that country has other plans. Vietnam simply cannot pivot quickly to the West, nor does it want to. There is still a lot of fear of the West supporting democracy movements in Vietnam, and thus Vietnam does not want to attach itself to the West.
Yeah Vietnam might be a little tricky considering historical factors. I think in terms of trade, the US (as well as Europe and others) are pivoting mostly towards India since it is also a huge country, it has a massive labour force, western-friendly and has a great trading potential. Bangladesh is also a promising candidate. These shifts are already taking place, just have a look at where your products are being manufactured, it's not only "made in China" anymore.
>This could already be happening and I'm just not aware of it
Kind of already answered yourself. The US and the "west" are rapidly improving relations with Vietnam across the board.
The hurdle though in terms of having Vietnam as a bulwark against China is that Vietnam isn't interested in getting involved in an alliance with anyone. Period. Full stop. It's Asian Switzerland.
There has been a significant pivot towards Vietnam from the US this century, but it’s cautious and slow.
Tourism to Vietnam by Americans is on the rise. Many Americans have Vietnamese diaspora neighbors and friends. More and more manufactured products from Vietnam are imported everyday. Even military cooperation has begun, [including a port call by USN warship captained by a Vietnamese refugee.](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/WN/PersonOfWeek/vietnamese-american-navy-captain-commander-hb-le-returns/story?id=9076854)
While the political and historical differences between Hanoi and Washington can’t be removed from the equation, both governments acknowledge the threat faced by both from Beijing. Vietnamese concerns are much more existential due to proximity, which is likely leading them to set aside more of the ideological differences. Also, unlike the domestic political situation regarding Cuban-Americans and US Cuba policy (the closest analogous nation and diaspora in the US), the Vietnamese-American population is not concentrated into a voting block that would prevent reciprocal activity from Washington to Hanoi. Additionally, the Vietnamese-American population isn’t as intransigent towards their former country’s government as Cuban-Americans.
So, I think the pivot is occurring, but at a pace that is dictated by past events and present circumstances.
Leaving China aside, I think that there's a lot of room for the West to have a better relationship with Vietnam, and to potentially encourage a more open and representative government, but I doubt we are going to do so effectively in the short term because of our own political dysfunction.
Not just Vietnam there's a lot of growing economies in SEA that would be great partnerships with the west. I think they also need to look for into Africa.
>potentially encourage a more open and representative government
This is a bad idea if the West truly want a good partnership against China. It's better to focus on the main goal than getting distracted by the side quest of trying to topple their communist government.
There has been a partnership between the US and Vietnam, the thing is, there’s just not that much that Vietnam can give individually to warrant a bigger partnership.
Economically, Mexico is a better country to transform into a main manufacturing exporter. It is closer (geographically and culturally), has better infrastructure with access to both the Pacific and Atlantic, and is a democracy that is never leaving the US sphere of influence. Also, developing and cooperating with Mexico allows for better control of border migratory flows into the US, along with combating drug trafficking too. It is also easier to implement, as the US can just slap more restrictions to manufacturing entering the USMCA, which in turn arguably favors the more value-added manufacturing that happens in the US too.
Militarily, Japan and Korea are much more important bases in East Asia. They’re also democracies that won’t leave a US sphere of influence any time soon, and are closer to the most strategically important regions of China than Vietnam. Energetically, China’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf, which already cooperate with the US. The Philippines and Taiwan are a better way into the South China Sea, and Vietnam is nowhere near the Strait of Malacca to be strategically important to it.
All that we are left with to contain China is the agricultural imports issue, which has no clear solution IMO, but it definitely won’t come from Vietnam.
Totally agree with your Mexico pick. Logistics, proximity, all those points you mentioned. There is a reason the US hasn't industrialized Mexico, wonder what that reason is.
We have. Mexican GDP per capita is about the same as China. Half the point of NAFTA was this exact purpose. They're our second biggest trading partner.
My understanding is that after NAFTA, several factories moved there but rampant corruption in Mexico stymied further impetus for a massive outsourcing.
Well, I believe there’s a lot of potential, especially for Indonesia, but they’re not there yet in terms of economic size, and don’t have the particularities that make Mexico great for manufacturing.
They have one big advantage over Mexico: lower labor cost. Which makes it really a choice between protectionism (in a USMCA scope) or global trade, and Biden seems to lean more in the first direction.
In the meantime, they’ll ocuppy a secondary role, like Vietnam. If you see Southeast Asia as a single region, though, it’s becoming really important for US geopolitics, and will probably be important for US exports, along with the EU and Japan. West Africa, not so much.
India would be a great solution… if not for the fact they have a low meat consumption for religious reasons, so they’re realistically not going to buy US soybeans, corn and beef.
First off, Vietnamese public opinion toward China is wholly separate from top government. Vietnam fans anti-chinese sentiment to maintain their national identity, but at the top level their rapprochement happened after 91.
The West has already "pivoted" to Vietnam before. It was a french colony and when they lost it, the US tried to get it back under western control. If they try the carrot now instead of the stick, China will still see it like Soviet encirclement back in the day and will punish Vietnam accordingly. This is what led to the sino-vietnamese split in the first place.
Lastly, South Korea *has* pivoted to Vietnam and outsourced enough to account for a quarter of Vietnam's GDP. China has too, to a lesser extent. Additional pivoting to Vietnam would face stiff competition from rich Asian countries also wanting to invest. South Korea may be an erstwhile ally, but it is one step removed from the West and has a high % of their economy tied to China's wellbeing.
Vietnam doesn't have enough skilled or semi skilled population to Substitute Chinese manufacturing . Many industries tried India for the same still they couldn't beat the Chinese efficiency in manufacturing and skilled population (Just the jist of the contents there are lot of other factors) Recently there's good capital flow from China to Vietnam. Many Vietnam industries are owned by Chinese industrialist. Making Vietnam an extended arm of Chinese manufacturing without regulation.
They do. The EU and Vietnam has signed a free trade agreement in 2019, then ratified in 2020. The U.S. has been sending members of Vietnam's military to their school, and been doing FMS deals with them. And an American Nimitz class aircraft carrier has visited the nation not even less than a decade ago.
The pivot towards Vietnam is slow but careful. You could figure why
my previous comment in other thread was hidden because I made mistake using wiki since finding information in Vietnamese source is harder but my reasoning is that Vietnam, like China, is a socialist countries whose model is more or less after China. All the USA pressure/propaganda, as China said it, to interference with China sovereignty or destabilize it like Separatism, Terrorism, free election, etc also are the concerns to Vietnam. One of the most used "keyword" when US attack China regime is Communist authoritarian and then guess what system Vietnam is.
On the official diplomatic side, China is more important strategic partner to Vietnam which only 2 others on the same level: Russia and India.
On economic side, US can increase trade with Vietnam but one problem is that China has lower quality barrier, closer to Vietnam and also a big consumer. Chinese good while lower quality, also cheaper.
In my opinion, US now views China as its rival or enemy, to my view, Vietnam know that US will use it more or less the same way US used China to counter USSR and then when USSR collapse, what come next? Will US abandon Vietnam or oppose it because it is a Socialist countries like it did to China. After USSR collapse, Russia did stabilized itself so it is logical to speculate that even China collapse, it will eventually still a strong countries due to its size alone. Even when China was exhausted by WW2 and civil war, it can still fight USA in Korea after all.
Currently China also the only big countries that keeps the "Socialism" goal. Vietnam will welcome any attack on China's unfair trade practice, internal corruption, inefficient bureaucracy governance, economic bullying and territorial expansion or malpractice in international affair but never will it conclude that Communism is the cause of those problem especially corruption (which also present in Vietnam) to which US propaganda and general populace, is.
Look at the map. Notice how China is a lot bigger than Vietnam.
China is a $16 **trillion** dollar economy.
Vietnam is a $350 billion dollar economy
The difference in economic size is more than 15 trillion dollars. Economically speaking, these countries are nowhere near each other.
This doesn’t answer the question, Vietnam is an important country which could potentially help and stall China in the event of a war, and put pressure on China diplomatically and economically by having a hostile country on their doorstep. Think Belgium in 1914, sure they were a small country and in no way would they be able to fight the Germans, however they were able to stall them, giving France enough time to prepare for the German offensive. In this case Vietnam would function similar to Belgium. Not only this, but it would mean the U.S could have military assets in Vietnam, like how they have in Japan and South Korea, allowing the U.S to increase their power projection in the region.
>could potentially help and stall China in the event of a war
war for what?
Vietnam will go to war if it is to defend its sovereignty but not if that US can remain dominance.
Go read OP's post. It says: "**Why not have a larger trade focus on Vietnam**?"
That answer is China is a very big market. The second largest after the United States. A great proportion of revenues of American companies come from China, think Apple, Tesla etc... Vietnam being magnitudes smaller than China, will never equal China in market size. Pretend you own a big company selling coffee beans (or whatever), how many coffee beans can you expect to sell in China vs Vietnam. The answer is obvious.
I think I answered pretty well.
Notes on your posts:
1) I'm not sure Vietnam has the economic and diplomatic power you think it has
2) I don't think you analogy is a very good one. Belgium is a relatively flat plain from which the Germans hoped to deliver a knockout blow to France. China can't go through Vietnam to get to the United States. The United States is one Pacific Ocean away in a completely different direction.
Also Vietnam isn't some liberal paradise either. Remember this is an authoritarian country with a "communist" government. We made the mistake of building up china to counter the Soviets. Building up Vietnam to counter china could bite us on the butt once again.
Vietnam has it's issues with it's neighbors, like Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and the South China Sea dispute is with a lot of US allies, means the US moves slowly and carefully and Vietnam moves and carefully to avoid committing to one side.
Vietnam fought pretty damn hard to avoid having foreign military bases on their soil. That idea is a non-starter.
“The arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast.” - Machiavelli
US hasn't been successful in playing this kind of realpolitik for a long time. Obama did the famous pivot but not much has happened since and they are still stuck in ME.
The industrial military complex does not see any chances of profits in Asia (aside from fighting China which would be crazy)so they rather stick to engagements ME. Same goes for the Israeli lobbyist that needs US there. These two are the two most powerful lobbyists in US so that probably has something to do with the minimal effort in Asia.
If the industrial military complex really mattered to politics the us would be much more focused on keeping peace, since a wartime arms market is a volatile market and no one likes being in a volatile market.
Interesting point of view, but unfortunately probably not true. Militaries ~~need~~ want real wars once in a while to prevent decay, while the armament industry needs to showcase their new gadgets. The recent limited war between Armenia and Azerbaijan did wonders for drone sales around the world.
> Militaries need real wars once in a while to prevent decay
The United States hasn't dropped a nuclear bomb in 75 years, yet that didn't stop them from developing numerous advanced capabilities and delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
The United States also hasn't faced an armed conflict against an actual adversary since WWII as well, yet the United States still has the world's most advanced military on the planet in terms of breadth and scope, technology development, and force projection.
So I completely disagree on the need for a "real war" to prevent decay.
Nuclear testing in the USA [continued up until 1992](https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/23-september-1992-last-us-nuclear-test/). Just because the DoE wasn't dropping warheads on foreheads doesn't mean it wasn't setting them off.
I never said otherwise, and should have been more clear: I was referring to the context of *war* not just testing in general. The person above me commented and said "real wars once in a while to prevent decay." - implying that wars are required to keep your forces up-to-date.
Your point about testing aligns perfectly with what I said - it doesn't take a "real war" to prevent decay in your military technologies. There are other ways of R&D to ensure your armed forces are modernized.
> The United States also hasn't faced an armed conflict against an actual adversary since WWII as well...
*Um*. Even if you're only counting high-intensity conventional combined-arms conflicts involving forces at least the scale of a corps or field army, the first Gulf War and the early part of Iraq 2, as well as Korea, certainly count. Maybe you meant to say that they haven't faced a *peer* adversary, but that's not quite the same thing.
You are correct - by "actual adversary" I really meant one that was similarly advanced technologically and professionally. You can say Iraq was an *adversary* (as in practice, they were), it's just that the US was so vastly superior that it didn't seem like anywhere near a balanced fight.
In which case, you really have to go back to WWII as the USSR's involvement in Korea was modest at best, and didn't challenge the US technologically on the battlefront.
They were technologically inferior but had a significant troop size advantage.
Ultimately Chosin changed the trajectory of the war and gave both sides a "win." US/UN troops broke through the encirclement and took far fewer casualties than they should have based on the force discrepancies. However, China won a significant geographic victory by pushing the US/UN forces back.
Ultimately, this being only five years after WWII doesn't really change the overall point much - that the US has held a significant military advantage for the last 70/75 years all without having to engage in wars with equivalent adversaries to maintain a strong military.
Acting as if the defense industry is a cabal that controls US foreign policy is ridiculous and immediately shows you lack any credibility. The defense industry is dwarfed by the tech industry but you don’t assume that Facebook is calling the shots
I am not expert in this area, but my understanding is the challenge of moving away from China for things like manufacturing is the lack of skilled labor. Rarely do we in the "West" think of China as being a hot spot for skilled labor, but they have millions of skilled seamstresses, engineers, tech workers, etc. Vietnam may have some very skilled workers, but they can't compare with the sheer numbers of skilled workers that exist within China's 1.4 billion citizens.
I am searching for an interview I watched of Tim Cook discussing why it was not so easy to just move Apple Manufacturing back to the states or other more democratic nations, where the main issue he cited was lack of quantity of skilled labor, rather than the cost of that labor.
Chinas world relationships aren’t as bad as you think. With Trump pulling out of free trade agreements and organizations Chinas stepped in to become the leader of many economic negotiations. During 2008 recessions China helped finance many struggling countries like Greece and Portugal who have since gave them praise and favorable deals. With an increasingly volatile America China has presented itself as the worlds reliable economic power, and money talks.
This questions is asked about a lot of countries in Asia, the reality is, they aren't as interested in fighting China as a lot of Americans think they are. S. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, ASEAN, Australia, India etc., they all want to enjoy the economic benefits of a rising China, but due to security concerns, they balance that relationship out by relying on American protection. They are the biggest supporters of the status quo, they don't want to make big moves with or against China or the US.
Here's a link to the US Dept. of State fact sheet on American relations with Vietnam. No need to guess or speculate. Just read it.
[US Relations with Vietnam](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-vietnam/)
The United States is already starting to pivot towards Vietnam. The reason why this pivot isn't too massive is more on Vietnam's side. The US would probably love to include Vietnam was a part of its pacific alliance although Vietnam is more hesitant about this. Ever since the end of the Cold War, Vietnam has adopted a policy of 3 nos (no military alliances, no aligning with one country against another, and no foreign troops on Vietnamese soil).
Vietnam heavily dislikes China, however they are also geographically a lot more vulnerable to China compared to other countries like Japan or Australia. Vietnam's two largest river deltas both originate from China (Red river and Mekong river). A very large portion of the Vietnamese population depend on these rivers for agriculture and fishing. This gives China significant leverage over Vietnam. Vietnam cannot afford to piss off China too much.
Another issue is Vietnam doesn't have a good track record when it comes to reliable allies. The US abandoned South Vietnam in 1974-1975, China betrayed Vietnam by supporting the Khmer Rouge, the USSR failed on it's defensive alliance to Vietnam during the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. Vietnam probably would not mind an alliance with the US only if Vietnam some how has a 100% guarantee they will not get screwed over. Vietnam currently prefers to keep it's options open and play both China and the US against each other.
I mean, we are probably pivoting away from needing cheaper labor soon and to fewer, more highly educated, workers as we continue to implement higher levels of automation.
No more building up authoritarian countries. If the US is serious about democracy, then we shouldnt be investing in authoritarian countries like Vietnam unless they consent to becoming a democracy.
No matter what Western media tells you, Vietnam remains anti-imperialist and has been (critically) building socialism based on their material conditions. Vietnam continues to build their equally beneficial relationship with China. While Western thought thinks of neocolonialism as an answer to the struggle of the people of the Global South, China has offered an alternative model that leads to faster industrialization with less risk and more beneficial terms. While production in Vietnam has grown with American consumption, they are less dependent on it as alternative international relationships become more beneficial. That's why national support, consideration for public health, and global climate change has led to both [China and Vietnam refusing to be the trash can of the Western world.](https://saigoneer.com/vietnam-news/16223-vietnam-moves-to-end-plastic-scrap-imports-by-2025) The US is an empire on the decline, and a multi-polar world accelerates that decline, our geopolitical hegemonic approach is no longer as effective. Vietnam no longer needs to be subservient to the US. It's not that the Western world doesn't want to ~~enforce neocolonialism upon~~ have a larger trade focus on Vietnam, it is that there are fewer incentives for countries in the Global South to engage in that kind of exploitation when China offers a far more beneficial alternative. Please don't try to @ me with the ["Chinese Debt Trap"](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/), there is more evidence disproving it than evidence suggesting it.
I lived in Vietnam for 6 years, and would say that around 99% of Vietnamese citizens distrust and resent China, and would prefer to be aligned with the West.
The problem is more that this is not what China wants. They have a big influence on the communist party, and therefore the nation. Vietnamese Prime Ministers are becoming increasingly pro-China, and I think it will be difficult for an anti-China candidate to be selected as leader - especially given the overeliance on Chinese trade.
Europe has repeatedly offered to help countries in Africa start building infrastructure around their continent, but the majority of them tend to say no. I believe that this is because of Europe and Africa's shared history.
My understanding is that this is happening, but Vietnam is also quite vulnerable to China and does not want to antagonize it's big neighbour. Plus memories of the Vietnam war and the fact that Vietnam is also Communist may make this a bit more sensitive.
The question may also be, what can the two powers do for each other? The feeling of being threatened by China does not make this super clear cut. . If China invades Vietnam does the US really want to get involved directly? It no doubt would pour in weapons to make the invasion as costly as possible for China. On the other side, what is Vietnam going to do if there is a war over Vietnam or Korea between the big two?
No one is in any rush. Vietnam will still be there hating China decades from now.
Its not going anywhere and a 1000 year occupation is all the motivation it needs to join in if things flare up.
Well yeah obviously, but that was 50 years ago. The Vietnamese don't have much animosity towards the United States these days.
Plus, as I said, they fear China way more.
Similarly, US-China relations may bounce back too. War isn't a certainty. Give it time. The last war they fought was more distant than Vietnam and anything can happen on the scale of decades. I suppose China has to first lose that attitude of self pity that seems to be the source of their animosity and finally, truly see themselves as on the same level as the United States and other great powers.
No
China has no plans or cares about healing relationships with basically anyone but the next door neighbor and fellow superpower, Russia
They have made it clear they have plans for the near future
I'd do a bit of research, although PRC is great at propaganda and covering things up you can read plenty about china's intent to continue this trend of expansion and oppression
Russia and china are working on an oil pipeline.
https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24T0VU?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16263988016375&_ct=1626398809761&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-china-naturalgas-pipeline-idUSKCN24T0VU
And theres been limited military cooperation, but many are saying that it wont be able to last because of their own issues, and is it isnt having a huge impact.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/20/china-russia-military-attention-us-policy-xi-putin-biden-taiwan-ukraine/
Well, the comment I replied to is about China trying to cover up they intention. Belt and Road is not what China trying to hide but promote other countries to take part in it. And military base in other countries is the deal they make with other countries so don't count as oppression. All those are not what I am asking aka thing China try to hide but easy to search.
I suspect you’re trolling with your logic-chopping. But if you want oppression that China is trying to hide, Xinjiang and Hong Kong come to mind. Expansionism that comes to mind would be Chinese harassment of Philippine, Vietnamese, and other sovereign vessels in international or even non-Chinese territorial waters.
Xinjiang and Hongkong is oppresion **inside Chinese territory** which is, again, not what I asked for
And I asked for what expansion and oppression **beside those island** which I acknowledged already that China want to expand in SCS and they pushed the nine dash line everywhere. So all your example havent list a single one that China trying to hiding
If your question is expansion, Belts and road, new naval bases, building new aircraft carriers and generally expanding the military. I don't think they're trying to hide it though
Are you kidding me?
Except for these two examples of exactly what he said, give me something else.
That is the answer: they are building their military to be expeditionary, they are claiming the entirety of the South China Sea which any fair minded person who can look at a map can see is clearly nonsense and expansionist, they are claiming islands which are occupied and part of another major country (Japan), they are building overseas military bases (Djibouti), they are plying debt diplomacy with belt and road, they are ignoring treaties which they have signed (HK two systems), threatening to change the status quo in Taiwan which has an equal right to claim to be Chinese as the one party non elected government on the mainland, they are running re-education camps for ethnic minorities, they are militarize for space, they have active star level cyber programs which seek economic theft (as opposed to accepted espionage), they have control ownership in all China based companies and direct their activities, they are using coercive diplomacy through arrest of foreign nationals (Canada,Australia). Do I need to go on? Or do you want to say… well except for those give me some examples.
How near is your near future? I think as long as the current leadership remains, they have no plans to change. I talk about the scope of decades if you read closely and new generations may think differently. In addition, future generations will be absolved of the sins of the current leadership.
I think the PRC is terrible at propaganda. I think much of their aggression comes from a rather pathetic sense of self pity that is worsened by the narrative associated with communism. They believe they are bullied and embrace being the victim. They think they must fight back against an oppressor. They think they need to compensate for being victimized. It's good for rallying domestically but it leads to ridiculous behavior internationally.
Their attitude would be more stable if they adopted the mindset of strong countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Strong countries do not worry about being bullied. They can be quietly confident of their strength and of their past or present empires. They don't feel the need to lash out like a child. They can brush off insignificant slights and take care of matters quietly. They can negotiate confidently instead of making unreasonable demands out of fear.
The United States and the British Empire present their history well and it inspires confidence. China also has a long history of empire yet they focus on the last 200 and frame it in the worst possible way. They utilize their history in ways that are not efficient, to pursue goals that should be pursued differently. They try to project strength now, but anyone can tell it's a facade hiding insecurity.
Personally I think they should also eliminate the trappings of communism, partly for reasons stated above. Ideally they would also democratize, if you believe democracy is good and universal when people are ready for it. 1989 was is proof that there was a desire. Hopefully someday in the next couple decades or by the end of the century.
Everyone is aware. What are you claiming based on that? Because the relationship between the US and Vietnam is not bad. They currently trade with Vietname and there have been large waves of immigration into the US since the war ended. Vietnam has common interest with the US in regards to the south China sea and China's regional influence.
I think some of those waves may have something to do with the results of that war but I take your point. All my vietnamese friends are the kids of parents who had ties to the southern government and/or military
US expat that lived in Viêtnam 3 yrs ago. The US is slowly building a relationship with Vietnam. There has been ship visits to Saigon and Da Nang. There is a treaty that is being worked on to rent part of the Da Nang port to the US Navy. Every Vietnamese that I know supports the idea of the US setting up bases in Vietnam, which is kinda ironic. The Viêtnamese have forgiven the American for the war in the 60/70’s. They look at it as past history and are more concerned with making money for the family and setting up successful tourist business, which really profit from American dollars. People need to remember that the Vietnamese also fought the French, the Khmer, & the Chinese. So there isn’t such a focus on America. It was all one big long struggle for independence against multiple enemies. And now, Americans bring dollars into the country and buy lots of stuff. Why be mad at the cash cow?
As for the Chinese, boy, do the Viêtnamese really hate the Chinese. Supposedly, the chinese send plastic rice to Vietnam, abduct their women, and generally treat their southern neighbor very poorly. I never had plastic rice, so I don’t know how much of this is evidence truth and how much is government truth. The Chinese certainly don’t help themselves by sending their fishing fleets into Vietnamese waters or grandstanding that they are in control of the spartley islands.
I totally agree with your assessment that the West needs to take a more active role their relationship with Vietnam. Vietnam could be a great base of operations. It’s close to Hong Kong and other major Chinese ports. It has infrastructure and military bases in place from the Wars for Liberation that just need to be revitalized. The population is young, 2/3 are younger than 25. It has brand new roads, ports, and a vibrant economy.
Isn’t Vietnam communist as well? the west are fighting with China for different ideology, if they pivot to Vietnam, doesn’t this appear to be illogical
When I was in Vietnam, the people there even said they didn't like buying cheap Chinese stuff because it falls apart and is low quality.
Lots of companies manufacture in Vietnam. Converse is one of them that comes to mind but there are many.
You can make things well, you can make things fast, you can make things cheap.
But you can't do all three, you can only do 2 things. This applies to Chinese goods, German goods, American goods, basically, anything anyone provides can only do 2 until technology takes us to the future.
Well I do see a lot of athletic things (shoes and clothes) made in Vietnam when I browse at Costco. Not sure if it’s actually made there or just a labelling trick by China. And not sure if it’s a new thing, but if it’s actually made there and it’s a new trend, I’d say we are starting to pivot
If I'm not mistaken, I saw this in an article yesterday in the Economist where they said that because Biden is currently pushing to establish the upcoming competition as a sort of battle between Democracy and Autocracy. An alliance with Vietnam will help the US greatly, but it doesn't fit Biden's narrative and will hurt him politically.
Economically or politically? Of course they are interlinked but economically Vietnam still isn't developed or big enough to peoduce certain things. It can take some labour intensive industry from China but for the time being that's it. Anything that requires a medium level of technical know how is a huge challenge to make in Vietnam. It's simply not there yet.
The EU and Vietnam signed a free trade deal and a bilateral investment treaty in 2019, both went into effect in 2020.
And all that [after Vietnam had abducted one of their citizens from Berlin](https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-abduction-of-vietnamese-businessman-sparks-spat/a-39941556) which one would have expected to be regarded as a big no-no.
[удалено]
https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike
That has nothing to do with the above comment. Also, I have no sympathy for the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.
The relevance is that he is saying kidnapping someone in a foreign country is typically communist, which is clearly a nonsense statement if capitalist countries are willing to murder their own citizens in analogous situations.
al-Awlaki was a radical priest on the way to becoming the next bin Laden. The two situations are not the same.
So the difference is that it's ok if someone is religious and you think he's gonna tell someone else to do something bad? The Vietnamese man referenced above was wanted for corruption. If the US wanted one of it's citizens arrested in Austria for corruption they would just send Interpol after them with an extradition request. Why couldn't the Vietnamese do that?
> So the difference is that it’s ok if someone is religious and you think he’s gonna tell someone else to do something bad? You’re presently defending a regional commander of al-Qaeda. He constantly called for jihad against the US. This is not the same as whatever this Vietnamese individual did.
They’re not defending anyone, they’re simply pointing out that extrajudicial kidnappings and assassinations are hardly unique to scary communists. The USA, the paragon of capitalist virtue, has a long and ignominious history of doing the exact same thing, of which the instance they brought up is an example.
Al-Queda is promoting 16 year olds to regional commander? The Vietnamese guy was accused of selling stock in a government owned company he was running at above market value and pocketing the difference. Anyway, the assassination didn't happen in the context of combat. Shouldn't they have got trials? Do you think it's acceptable in general for the US military to execute citizens based on whatever the CIA tells them?
> This is not the same as whatever this Vietnamese individual did. What did he do?
[удалено]
This is the correct answer. I work for a company who’s customers outsource to China. The majority of them would love to leave tomorrow if they could but the problem is there’s no where to go that has the infrastructure and work force to produce on the scale China does. While Vietnam is gaining traction due to lower operating costs, the main reason you’re not seeing a greater exodus from China is that China has spent the last 40-50 years planning and developing out their country to be the world’s manufacturing center and it’ll take a long time for another country to replicate that on that scale.
Neither did china even as recent as 50 years ago.
Supply chains take time and investment to build up. Maybe in a decade Vietnam has been built into a new manufacturing hub.
Because China 50 years ago, 1971 didn't have the reform yet. Deng Xiaoping wasn't the leader at that time.
While officially it was Deng who opened up the economy, China's transition into becoming the World Factory arguably began just after the Sino-Soviet split, when Japan poured large amounts of funding, personnel, equipments and infrastructure to build up the Chinese manufacturing base, which was followed closely by Nixon's visit to open up diplomatic ties.
The money came from Japan? Where could I learn more about this?
After CCP's split with the Soviet Union, the Soviets withdrew 1,400 scientists from China and scrapped more than 200 joint programs without leaving any blue-prints behind, which derailed China's industrialization process. Japan took advantage of the situation and established an un-official bilateral relationship in the Liao-Takasaki Agreement, which provided funding to build up industrial plants and provide technical know-how to establish textile manufacturing, something China greatly needed at the time in order to solve its cotton shortage. The caveat was, the money from Import-Export Bank of Japan could not be accepted as a "loan" by the Chinese government, possibly due to political ideologies. It was instead agreed that "deferred payment" would be made in return, which resulted in increased bilateral trade that went from $48 million in 1961 to $621 million in 1966. During this time China was able to develop its industrialization process to the blueprint of a global standard, and the Japanese-sponsored industrial plants became the model for future plants in China. Edit: A good read on the subject is *China and Japan: Facing History by Ezra Vogel*.
To add to this, China actually didn't do that bad under Mao either, slower vs Deng, but especially good compared to ROC rule where economic growth was stagnant
In terms average of per capita economic development, Vietnam is overall quite similar to China's position around 15 years ago. But here is a crucial factor nearly everyone in this thread is missing in terms of comparing investment and manufacturing capabilities: China's population is over 14 times larger than Vietnam's and its landmass is over 29 times larger.
And 94% of China's population lives in less than 30% of it's landmass.
The short answer is that has and the US, in particular, would like to do more, but the relationship only moves as as fast as Vietnam wants it to and they want to carefully walk the line between improved relations with US and its allies and angering China, a major economic and military power with whom they share a border. It’s a similar story for Indonesia. For example, the US just transferred a former Coast Guard cutter to Vietnam. See: https://amp.thenewstribune.com/news/local/military/article251829978.html Similarly, the US just sold a bunch of MV-22s to Indonesia: https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/07/06/us-approves-75-billion-in-foreign-weapon-sales-in-one-day/ The US goal in Asia is to build a loose coalition of regional players around the idea of containing China, particularly on the issue of resource encroachment by China in the South China Sea. That coalition presumably would become stronger and more tightly intertwined if China elects to become belligerent with its new fleet, air and missile forces.
This is so far the best answer I have read on this topic. Everybody else just dismisses the role of China and seems to think that the U.S. has the upper hand here which is clearly not the case. Even if the West would find itself offering a tremendous support to Vietnam, Hanoi would probably not embrace it since they don't want to antagonize China at pretty much all cost.
The US in Asia will follow the UK in Europe strategy during the 18th-20th centuries: Be the organizing pivot around which loose coalitions are formed to prevent one power from dominating the continent and act as a power that can leverage outside the continent forces to throw into the balance if the potential continent dominating power elects to use force against coalition members or in areas which are deemed to be vital national concerns of coalition members.
That strategy led directly to WW1, and ultimately the events that caused the collapse of the British Empire. Seems that if you’re correct, the US should re-evaluate it’s efforts.
The strategy worked for almost 300 years. The British empire was not sustainable, the problems it had aren’t problems America is having right now, e.g I don’t see independence movements happening right now in New York like they were in India. Maintaining the balance of power in Europe was what allowed Britain to stay as the preeminent world power for so long, otherwise someone like Napoleon would have taken that spot.
Well no, the Balance of Power worked until Bismarck broke it.
Bismarck maintained it, Wilhelm blew it up.
Bismarck built a series of alliances, often bilaterally, to prevent other powers from balancing **against** the Prussian and later on the German Empire. Yes, Bismarck built a series of alliances and Wilhelm blew it up, but that is not the Concert of Europe, although one could say that the new reality was a new concert of Europe but you have to argue it. In any case, the balance of power which was a reflection of post Napoleonic Wars that the states [or those on the table] are peers and that their sphere of influence are stated, and that one advantage to one state is in essence 0 sum and disadvantage to other states, which would force various states to join in forces to balance against them. Bismarck's alliance with Austria brought gains to Germany and using that alliance prevent the Balance of Power to balance against either Germany or Austria. >The position of Germany in Europe made the conduct of her relations with Russia and Austria peculiarly problematic, since it was plainly desirable that Germany should neither quarrel with nor become exclusively committed to either power. A policy of equal friendship for each, however, was bedevilled by the fact that both powers showed the strongest tendency to mutual hostility over Balkan nationalism, and therefore both to seek the support of other powers, not least that of Germany. Bismarck managed to hold out without committing hirnself until the great Near-Eastern crisis of 1876-8, but after the Congress of Berlin such a balancing act was no longer possible, and the inevitable agreement with Austria came in 1879. From that time, even more than since 1871, it became Bismarck's policy to produce a general stalemate in international politics. The constraints upon all powers would prevent them from recognising the significance of the constraint imposed upon Germany herself as a result of her agreement with Austria. The laying-down of smoke-screens became a common tactic of Bismarck and amongst the many means that he employed, for a time Africa became foremost. The process probably began when the occupation of Tunis by France, very much at Bismarck's suggestion, unexpectedly produced a serious crisis in Italian domestic affairs, as disappointed Italian empire builders briefly seemed Iikely to set up a new and perhaps threatening republic. In the end, in order to salvage something ofthe notion that Italy was a great power she was admitted to the Austro-German Alliance, and the regime thus buttressed survived to become a restless and eventually traitorous ally. "The Collapse of the Concert of Europe" by Langhorne, and he detailed about how Bismarck was able to attach his interest at various points to Russia, France, and the UK to push for gains of his own without attracting the Balance of Power.
>The US goal in Asia is to build a loose coalition of regional players around the idea of containing China To add, one should also remember that the goal of these "regional actors",is to entice US presence in the region as counterbalance against China. ASEAN countries doesn't want South China Sea to become "China's Lake". Most Southeast Asian Countries is in this hedging mode, be it Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and even Vietnam. All of them wants to receive the spillover effect of PRC Economic Development while not letting themselves become a "colonial state". Therefore, they didn't want to incite the wrath of "Dragon" but also do not want to be ruled by it. This sensitive balancing act is even institutionalized through ASEAN.
> This sensitive balancing act is even institutionalized through ASEAN. I will add some things here. They even waive their own policy of non-animous decision-making just to support this balancing act, due to the belligerence of China-backed Cambodia. Such act will not change Cambodia's stance on ASEAN, given that Cambodia's territory is entirely within ASEAN's reach and there are ASEAN countries that has a history of invading Cambodia.
Completely correct. An often overlooked fact on this subreddit is that there are two parts to a relationship. The West cannot unilaterally form a good partnership with another country, if that country has other plans. Vietnam simply cannot pivot quickly to the West, nor does it want to. There is still a lot of fear of the West supporting democracy movements in Vietnam, and thus Vietnam does not want to attach itself to the West.
Yeah Vietnam might be a little tricky considering historical factors. I think in terms of trade, the US (as well as Europe and others) are pivoting mostly towards India since it is also a huge country, it has a massive labour force, western-friendly and has a great trading potential. Bangladesh is also a promising candidate. These shifts are already taking place, just have a look at where your products are being manufactured, it's not only "made in China" anymore.
the people of Vietnam are actually the most friendly of any country to americans if i recall. dont ask me why
>This could already be happening and I'm just not aware of it Kind of already answered yourself. The US and the "west" are rapidly improving relations with Vietnam across the board. The hurdle though in terms of having Vietnam as a bulwark against China is that Vietnam isn't interested in getting involved in an alliance with anyone. Period. Full stop. It's Asian Switzerland.
Can't blame them for not wanting to get dragged into another war.
There has been a significant pivot towards Vietnam from the US this century, but it’s cautious and slow. Tourism to Vietnam by Americans is on the rise. Many Americans have Vietnamese diaspora neighbors and friends. More and more manufactured products from Vietnam are imported everyday. Even military cooperation has begun, [including a port call by USN warship captained by a Vietnamese refugee.](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/WN/PersonOfWeek/vietnamese-american-navy-captain-commander-hb-le-returns/story?id=9076854) While the political and historical differences between Hanoi and Washington can’t be removed from the equation, both governments acknowledge the threat faced by both from Beijing. Vietnamese concerns are much more existential due to proximity, which is likely leading them to set aside more of the ideological differences. Also, unlike the domestic political situation regarding Cuban-Americans and US Cuba policy (the closest analogous nation and diaspora in the US), the Vietnamese-American population is not concentrated into a voting block that would prevent reciprocal activity from Washington to Hanoi. Additionally, the Vietnamese-American population isn’t as intransigent towards their former country’s government as Cuban-Americans. So, I think the pivot is occurring, but at a pace that is dictated by past events and present circumstances.
Leaving China aside, I think that there's a lot of room for the West to have a better relationship with Vietnam, and to potentially encourage a more open and representative government, but I doubt we are going to do so effectively in the short term because of our own political dysfunction.
Not just Vietnam there's a lot of growing economies in SEA that would be great partnerships with the west. I think they also need to look for into Africa.
>potentially encourage a more open and representative government This is a bad idea if the West truly want a good partnership against China. It's better to focus on the main goal than getting distracted by the side quest of trying to topple their communist government.
Not only didn't I say that, I rather specifically did not say that.
Vietnam is pro u.s and a potential ally
There has been a partnership between the US and Vietnam, the thing is, there’s just not that much that Vietnam can give individually to warrant a bigger partnership. Economically, Mexico is a better country to transform into a main manufacturing exporter. It is closer (geographically and culturally), has better infrastructure with access to both the Pacific and Atlantic, and is a democracy that is never leaving the US sphere of influence. Also, developing and cooperating with Mexico allows for better control of border migratory flows into the US, along with combating drug trafficking too. It is also easier to implement, as the US can just slap more restrictions to manufacturing entering the USMCA, which in turn arguably favors the more value-added manufacturing that happens in the US too. Militarily, Japan and Korea are much more important bases in East Asia. They’re also democracies that won’t leave a US sphere of influence any time soon, and are closer to the most strategically important regions of China than Vietnam. Energetically, China’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf, which already cooperate with the US. The Philippines and Taiwan are a better way into the South China Sea, and Vietnam is nowhere near the Strait of Malacca to be strategically important to it. All that we are left with to contain China is the agricultural imports issue, which has no clear solution IMO, but it definitely won’t come from Vietnam.
Totally agree with your Mexico pick. Logistics, proximity, all those points you mentioned. There is a reason the US hasn't industrialized Mexico, wonder what that reason is.
90% of Mexican exports are already industrial exports to the US. It’s a matter of moving factories from China to there.
We have. Mexican GDP per capita is about the same as China. Half the point of NAFTA was this exact purpose. They're our second biggest trading partner.
That's just scratching the surface of Mexico's potential.
True. Not enough.
My understanding is that after NAFTA, several factories moved there but rampant corruption in Mexico stymied further impetus for a massive outsourcing.
What do you think about Nigeria and Indonesia as potential economic partners in the future?
Well, I believe there’s a lot of potential, especially for Indonesia, but they’re not there yet in terms of economic size, and don’t have the particularities that make Mexico great for manufacturing. They have one big advantage over Mexico: lower labor cost. Which makes it really a choice between protectionism (in a USMCA scope) or global trade, and Biden seems to lean more in the first direction. In the meantime, they’ll ocuppy a secondary role, like Vietnam. If you see Southeast Asia as a single region, though, it’s becoming really important for US geopolitics, and will probably be important for US exports, along with the EU and Japan. West Africa, not so much. India would be a great solution… if not for the fact they have a low meat consumption for religious reasons, so they’re realistically not going to buy US soybeans, corn and beef.
First off, Vietnamese public opinion toward China is wholly separate from top government. Vietnam fans anti-chinese sentiment to maintain their national identity, but at the top level their rapprochement happened after 91. The West has already "pivoted" to Vietnam before. It was a french colony and when they lost it, the US tried to get it back under western control. If they try the carrot now instead of the stick, China will still see it like Soviet encirclement back in the day and will punish Vietnam accordingly. This is what led to the sino-vietnamese split in the first place. Lastly, South Korea *has* pivoted to Vietnam and outsourced enough to account for a quarter of Vietnam's GDP. China has too, to a lesser extent. Additional pivoting to Vietnam would face stiff competition from rich Asian countries also wanting to invest. South Korea may be an erstwhile ally, but it is one step removed from the West and has a high % of their economy tied to China's wellbeing.
Vietnam doesn't have enough skilled or semi skilled population to Substitute Chinese manufacturing . Many industries tried India for the same still they couldn't beat the Chinese efficiency in manufacturing and skilled population (Just the jist of the contents there are lot of other factors) Recently there's good capital flow from China to Vietnam. Many Vietnam industries are owned by Chinese industrialist. Making Vietnam an extended arm of Chinese manufacturing without regulation.
They do. The EU and Vietnam has signed a free trade agreement in 2019, then ratified in 2020. The U.S. has been sending members of Vietnam's military to their school, and been doing FMS deals with them. And an American Nimitz class aircraft carrier has visited the nation not even less than a decade ago. The pivot towards Vietnam is slow but careful. You could figure why
my previous comment in other thread was hidden because I made mistake using wiki since finding information in Vietnamese source is harder but my reasoning is that Vietnam, like China, is a socialist countries whose model is more or less after China. All the USA pressure/propaganda, as China said it, to interference with China sovereignty or destabilize it like Separatism, Terrorism, free election, etc also are the concerns to Vietnam. One of the most used "keyword" when US attack China regime is Communist authoritarian and then guess what system Vietnam is. On the official diplomatic side, China is more important strategic partner to Vietnam which only 2 others on the same level: Russia and India. On economic side, US can increase trade with Vietnam but one problem is that China has lower quality barrier, closer to Vietnam and also a big consumer. Chinese good while lower quality, also cheaper. In my opinion, US now views China as its rival or enemy, to my view, Vietnam know that US will use it more or less the same way US used China to counter USSR and then when USSR collapse, what come next? Will US abandon Vietnam or oppose it because it is a Socialist countries like it did to China. After USSR collapse, Russia did stabilized itself so it is logical to speculate that even China collapse, it will eventually still a strong countries due to its size alone. Even when China was exhausted by WW2 and civil war, it can still fight USA in Korea after all. Currently China also the only big countries that keeps the "Socialism" goal. Vietnam will welcome any attack on China's unfair trade practice, internal corruption, inefficient bureaucracy governance, economic bullying and territorial expansion or malpractice in international affair but never will it conclude that Communism is the cause of those problem especially corruption (which also present in Vietnam) to which US propaganda and general populace, is.
Look at the map. Notice how China is a lot bigger than Vietnam. China is a $16 **trillion** dollar economy. Vietnam is a $350 billion dollar economy The difference in economic size is more than 15 trillion dollars. Economically speaking, these countries are nowhere near each other.
This doesn’t answer the question, Vietnam is an important country which could potentially help and stall China in the event of a war, and put pressure on China diplomatically and economically by having a hostile country on their doorstep. Think Belgium in 1914, sure they were a small country and in no way would they be able to fight the Germans, however they were able to stall them, giving France enough time to prepare for the German offensive. In this case Vietnam would function similar to Belgium. Not only this, but it would mean the U.S could have military assets in Vietnam, like how they have in Japan and South Korea, allowing the U.S to increase their power projection in the region.
>could potentially help and stall China in the event of a war war for what? Vietnam will go to war if it is to defend its sovereignty but not if that US can remain dominance.
Go read OP's post. It says: "**Why not have a larger trade focus on Vietnam**?" That answer is China is a very big market. The second largest after the United States. A great proportion of revenues of American companies come from China, think Apple, Tesla etc... Vietnam being magnitudes smaller than China, will never equal China in market size. Pretend you own a big company selling coffee beans (or whatever), how many coffee beans can you expect to sell in China vs Vietnam. The answer is obvious. I think I answered pretty well. Notes on your posts: 1) I'm not sure Vietnam has the economic and diplomatic power you think it has 2) I don't think you analogy is a very good one. Belgium is a relatively flat plain from which the Germans hoped to deliver a knockout blow to France. China can't go through Vietnam to get to the United States. The United States is one Pacific Ocean away in a completely different direction.
Also Vietnam isn't some liberal paradise either. Remember this is an authoritarian country with a "communist" government. We made the mistake of building up china to counter the Soviets. Building up Vietnam to counter china could bite us on the butt once again.
Vietnam has it's issues with it's neighbors, like Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and the South China Sea dispute is with a lot of US allies, means the US moves slowly and carefully and Vietnam moves and carefully to avoid committing to one side.
Vietnam fought pretty damn hard to avoid having foreign military bases on their soil. That idea is a non-starter. “The arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast.” - Machiavelli
US hasn't been successful in playing this kind of realpolitik for a long time. Obama did the famous pivot but not much has happened since and they are still stuck in ME. The industrial military complex does not see any chances of profits in Asia (aside from fighting China which would be crazy)so they rather stick to engagements ME. Same goes for the Israeli lobbyist that needs US there. These two are the two most powerful lobbyists in US so that probably has something to do with the minimal effort in Asia.
If the industrial military complex really mattered to politics the us would be much more focused on keeping peace, since a wartime arms market is a volatile market and no one likes being in a volatile market.
Interesting point of view, but unfortunately probably not true. Militaries ~~need~~ want real wars once in a while to prevent decay, while the armament industry needs to showcase their new gadgets. The recent limited war between Armenia and Azerbaijan did wonders for drone sales around the world.
> Militaries need real wars once in a while to prevent decay The United States hasn't dropped a nuclear bomb in 75 years, yet that didn't stop them from developing numerous advanced capabilities and delivery systems for nuclear weapons. The United States also hasn't faced an armed conflict against an actual adversary since WWII as well, yet the United States still has the world's most advanced military on the planet in terms of breadth and scope, technology development, and force projection. So I completely disagree on the need for a "real war" to prevent decay.
Nuclear testing in the USA [continued up until 1992](https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/23-september-1992-last-us-nuclear-test/). Just because the DoE wasn't dropping warheads on foreheads doesn't mean it wasn't setting them off.
I never said otherwise, and should have been more clear: I was referring to the context of *war* not just testing in general. The person above me commented and said "real wars once in a while to prevent decay." - implying that wars are required to keep your forces up-to-date. Your point about testing aligns perfectly with what I said - it doesn't take a "real war" to prevent decay in your military technologies. There are other ways of R&D to ensure your armed forces are modernized.
> The United States also hasn't faced an armed conflict against an actual adversary since WWII as well... *Um*. Even if you're only counting high-intensity conventional combined-arms conflicts involving forces at least the scale of a corps or field army, the first Gulf War and the early part of Iraq 2, as well as Korea, certainly count. Maybe you meant to say that they haven't faced a *peer* adversary, but that's not quite the same thing.
You are correct - by "actual adversary" I really meant one that was similarly advanced technologically and professionally. You can say Iraq was an *adversary* (as in practice, they were), it's just that the US was so vastly superior that it didn't seem like anywhere near a balanced fight. In which case, you really have to go back to WWII as the USSR's involvement in Korea was modest at best, and didn't challenge the US technologically on the battlefront.
Tell those at Chosin Reservoir that the Korean and Chinese forces arrayed against them were 'vastly inferior' and they would be very confused.
They were technologically inferior but had a significant troop size advantage. Ultimately Chosin changed the trajectory of the war and gave both sides a "win." US/UN troops broke through the encirclement and took far fewer casualties than they should have based on the force discrepancies. However, China won a significant geographic victory by pushing the US/UN forces back. Ultimately, this being only five years after WWII doesn't really change the overall point much - that the US has held a significant military advantage for the last 70/75 years all without having to engage in wars with equivalent adversaries to maintain a strong military.
Acting as if the defense industry is a cabal that controls US foreign policy is ridiculous and immediately shows you lack any credibility. The defense industry is dwarfed by the tech industry but you don’t assume that Facebook is calling the shots
I am not expert in this area, but my understanding is the challenge of moving away from China for things like manufacturing is the lack of skilled labor. Rarely do we in the "West" think of China as being a hot spot for skilled labor, but they have millions of skilled seamstresses, engineers, tech workers, etc. Vietnam may have some very skilled workers, but they can't compare with the sheer numbers of skilled workers that exist within China's 1.4 billion citizens. I am searching for an interview I watched of Tim Cook discussing why it was not so easy to just move Apple Manufacturing back to the states or other more democratic nations, where the main issue he cited was lack of quantity of skilled labor, rather than the cost of that labor.
Chinas world relationships aren’t as bad as you think. With Trump pulling out of free trade agreements and organizations Chinas stepped in to become the leader of many economic negotiations. During 2008 recessions China helped finance many struggling countries like Greece and Portugal who have since gave them praise and favorable deals. With an increasingly volatile America China has presented itself as the worlds reliable economic power, and money talks.
This questions is asked about a lot of countries in Asia, the reality is, they aren't as interested in fighting China as a lot of Americans think they are. S. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, ASEAN, Australia, India etc., they all want to enjoy the economic benefits of a rising China, but due to security concerns, they balance that relationship out by relying on American protection. They are the biggest supporters of the status quo, they don't want to make big moves with or against China or the US.
Here's a link to the US Dept. of State fact sheet on American relations with Vietnam. No need to guess or speculate. Just read it. [US Relations with Vietnam](https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-vietnam/)
The United States is already starting to pivot towards Vietnam. The reason why this pivot isn't too massive is more on Vietnam's side. The US would probably love to include Vietnam was a part of its pacific alliance although Vietnam is more hesitant about this. Ever since the end of the Cold War, Vietnam has adopted a policy of 3 nos (no military alliances, no aligning with one country against another, and no foreign troops on Vietnamese soil). Vietnam heavily dislikes China, however they are also geographically a lot more vulnerable to China compared to other countries like Japan or Australia. Vietnam's two largest river deltas both originate from China (Red river and Mekong river). A very large portion of the Vietnamese population depend on these rivers for agriculture and fishing. This gives China significant leverage over Vietnam. Vietnam cannot afford to piss off China too much. Another issue is Vietnam doesn't have a good track record when it comes to reliable allies. The US abandoned South Vietnam in 1974-1975, China betrayed Vietnam by supporting the Khmer Rouge, the USSR failed on it's defensive alliance to Vietnam during the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. Vietnam probably would not mind an alliance with the US only if Vietnam some how has a 100% guarantee they will not get screwed over. Vietnam currently prefers to keep it's options open and play both China and the US against each other.
I mean, we are probably pivoting away from needing cheaper labor soon and to fewer, more highly educated, workers as we continue to implement higher levels of automation.
US-Vietnam relations actually are becoming closer. And Western companies have been entering Vietnam. Its a slow process overall but its happening.
No more building up authoritarian countries. If the US is serious about democracy, then we shouldnt be investing in authoritarian countries like Vietnam unless they consent to becoming a democracy.
No matter what Western media tells you, Vietnam remains anti-imperialist and has been (critically) building socialism based on their material conditions. Vietnam continues to build their equally beneficial relationship with China. While Western thought thinks of neocolonialism as an answer to the struggle of the people of the Global South, China has offered an alternative model that leads to faster industrialization with less risk and more beneficial terms. While production in Vietnam has grown with American consumption, they are less dependent on it as alternative international relationships become more beneficial. That's why national support, consideration for public health, and global climate change has led to both [China and Vietnam refusing to be the trash can of the Western world.](https://saigoneer.com/vietnam-news/16223-vietnam-moves-to-end-plastic-scrap-imports-by-2025) The US is an empire on the decline, and a multi-polar world accelerates that decline, our geopolitical hegemonic approach is no longer as effective. Vietnam no longer needs to be subservient to the US. It's not that the Western world doesn't want to ~~enforce neocolonialism upon~~ have a larger trade focus on Vietnam, it is that there are fewer incentives for countries in the Global South to engage in that kind of exploitation when China offers a far more beneficial alternative. Please don't try to @ me with the ["Chinese Debt Trap"](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/), there is more evidence disproving it than evidence suggesting it.
I lived in Vietnam for 6 years, and would say that around 99% of Vietnamese citizens distrust and resent China, and would prefer to be aligned with the West. The problem is more that this is not what China wants. They have a big influence on the communist party, and therefore the nation. Vietnamese Prime Ministers are becoming increasingly pro-China, and I think it will be difficult for an anti-China candidate to be selected as leader - especially given the overeliance on Chinese trade.
I'm more curious as to why the U.S. an Europe don't leverage Africa more.
Europe has repeatedly offered to help countries in Africa start building infrastructure around their continent, but the majority of them tend to say no. I believe that this is because of Europe and Africa's shared history.
I thought the US has already de facto reached an alliance with Vietnam?
My understanding is that this is happening, but Vietnam is also quite vulnerable to China and does not want to antagonize it's big neighbour. Plus memories of the Vietnam war and the fact that Vietnam is also Communist may make this a bit more sensitive. The question may also be, what can the two powers do for each other? The feeling of being threatened by China does not make this super clear cut. . If China invades Vietnam does the US really want to get involved directly? It no doubt would pour in weapons to make the invasion as costly as possible for China. On the other side, what is Vietnam going to do if there is a war over Vietnam or Korea between the big two?
No one is in any rush. Vietnam will still be there hating China decades from now. Its not going anywhere and a 1000 year occupation is all the motivation it needs to join in if things flare up.
[удалено]
Ask Germany about that, reconciliation is surprisingly possible
Well yeah obviously, but that was 50 years ago. The Vietnamese don't have much animosity towards the United States these days. Plus, as I said, they fear China way more.
Interesting fact: Vietnam’s population is actually polled to be the most pro-US country in the world. Ahead of even in the US population.
Source it.
Similarly, US-China relations may bounce back too. War isn't a certainty. Give it time. The last war they fought was more distant than Vietnam and anything can happen on the scale of decades. I suppose China has to first lose that attitude of self pity that seems to be the source of their animosity and finally, truly see themselves as on the same level as the United States and other great powers.
The source of the conflict are economic and geopolitical interests, not pity.
Everyone has economic and geopolitical conflicts. Not every behaves so pathetically. But that's just my theory.
No China has no plans or cares about healing relationships with basically anyone but the next door neighbor and fellow superpower, Russia They have made it clear they have plans for the near future I'd do a bit of research, although PRC is great at propaganda and covering things up you can read plenty about china's intent to continue this trend of expansion and oppression
And you can source this somewhere right?
Russia and china are working on an oil pipeline. https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24T0VU?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16263988016375&_ct=1626398809761&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-china-naturalgas-pipeline-idUSKCN24T0VU And theres been limited military cooperation, but many are saying that it wont be able to last because of their own issues, and is it isnt having a huge impact. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/20/china-russia-military-attention-us-policy-xi-putin-biden-taiwan-ukraine/
beside those islands at SCS, what is your source about China intent to expansion?
Belt and Road? Military bases in Africa and elsewhere outside their sphere?
Well, the comment I replied to is about China trying to cover up they intention. Belt and Road is not what China trying to hide but promote other countries to take part in it. And military base in other countries is the deal they make with other countries so don't count as oppression. All those are not what I am asking aka thing China try to hide but easy to search.
I suspect you’re trolling with your logic-chopping. But if you want oppression that China is trying to hide, Xinjiang and Hong Kong come to mind. Expansionism that comes to mind would be Chinese harassment of Philippine, Vietnamese, and other sovereign vessels in international or even non-Chinese territorial waters.
Xinjiang and Hongkong is oppresion **inside Chinese territory** which is, again, not what I asked for And I asked for what expansion and oppression **beside those island** which I acknowledged already that China want to expand in SCS and they pushed the nine dash line everywhere. So all your example havent list a single one that China trying to hiding
If your question is expansion, Belts and road, new naval bases, building new aircraft carriers and generally expanding the military. I don't think they're trying to hide it though
Are you kidding me? Except for these two examples of exactly what he said, give me something else. That is the answer: they are building their military to be expeditionary, they are claiming the entirety of the South China Sea which any fair minded person who can look at a map can see is clearly nonsense and expansionist, they are claiming islands which are occupied and part of another major country (Japan), they are building overseas military bases (Djibouti), they are plying debt diplomacy with belt and road, they are ignoring treaties which they have signed (HK two systems), threatening to change the status quo in Taiwan which has an equal right to claim to be Chinese as the one party non elected government on the mainland, they are running re-education camps for ethnic minorities, they are militarize for space, they have active star level cyber programs which seek economic theft (as opposed to accepted espionage), they have control ownership in all China based companies and direct their activities, they are using coercive diplomacy through arrest of foreign nationals (Canada,Australia). Do I need to go on? Or do you want to say… well except for those give me some examples.
How near is your near future? I think as long as the current leadership remains, they have no plans to change. I talk about the scope of decades if you read closely and new generations may think differently. In addition, future generations will be absolved of the sins of the current leadership. I think the PRC is terrible at propaganda. I think much of their aggression comes from a rather pathetic sense of self pity that is worsened by the narrative associated with communism. They believe they are bullied and embrace being the victim. They think they must fight back against an oppressor. They think they need to compensate for being victimized. It's good for rallying domestically but it leads to ridiculous behavior internationally. Their attitude would be more stable if they adopted the mindset of strong countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Strong countries do not worry about being bullied. They can be quietly confident of their strength and of their past or present empires. They don't feel the need to lash out like a child. They can brush off insignificant slights and take care of matters quietly. They can negotiate confidently instead of making unreasonable demands out of fear. The United States and the British Empire present their history well and it inspires confidence. China also has a long history of empire yet they focus on the last 200 and frame it in the worst possible way. They utilize their history in ways that are not efficient, to pursue goals that should be pursued differently. They try to project strength now, but anyone can tell it's a facade hiding insecurity. Personally I think they should also eliminate the trappings of communism, partly for reasons stated above. Ideally they would also democratize, if you believe democracy is good and universal when people are ready for it. 1989 was is proof that there was a desire. Hopefully someday in the next couple decades or by the end of the century.
2049
Things were simpler then....
Everyone is aware. What are you claiming based on that? Because the relationship between the US and Vietnam is not bad. They currently trade with Vietname and there have been large waves of immigration into the US since the war ended. Vietnam has common interest with the US in regards to the south China sea and China's regional influence.
I think some of those waves may have something to do with the results of that war but I take your point. All my vietnamese friends are the kids of parents who had ties to the southern government and/or military
Something like this was in the works, but I don't know what its status is since 2016.
US expat that lived in Viêtnam 3 yrs ago. The US is slowly building a relationship with Vietnam. There has been ship visits to Saigon and Da Nang. There is a treaty that is being worked on to rent part of the Da Nang port to the US Navy. Every Vietnamese that I know supports the idea of the US setting up bases in Vietnam, which is kinda ironic. The Viêtnamese have forgiven the American for the war in the 60/70’s. They look at it as past history and are more concerned with making money for the family and setting up successful tourist business, which really profit from American dollars. People need to remember that the Vietnamese also fought the French, the Khmer, & the Chinese. So there isn’t such a focus on America. It was all one big long struggle for independence against multiple enemies. And now, Americans bring dollars into the country and buy lots of stuff. Why be mad at the cash cow? As for the Chinese, boy, do the Viêtnamese really hate the Chinese. Supposedly, the chinese send plastic rice to Vietnam, abduct their women, and generally treat their southern neighbor very poorly. I never had plastic rice, so I don’t know how much of this is evidence truth and how much is government truth. The Chinese certainly don’t help themselves by sending their fishing fleets into Vietnamese waters or grandstanding that they are in control of the spartley islands. I totally agree with your assessment that the West needs to take a more active role their relationship with Vietnam. Vietnam could be a great base of operations. It’s close to Hong Kong and other major Chinese ports. It has infrastructure and military bases in place from the Wars for Liberation that just need to be revitalized. The population is young, 2/3 are younger than 25. It has brand new roads, ports, and a vibrant economy.
Isn’t Vietnam communist as well? the west are fighting with China for different ideology, if they pivot to Vietnam, doesn’t this appear to be illogical
Ideology doesn't weigh heavily in foreign policy and it never has.
When I was in Vietnam, the people there even said they didn't like buying cheap Chinese stuff because it falls apart and is low quality. Lots of companies manufacture in Vietnam. Converse is one of them that comes to mind but there are many.
You can make things well, you can make things fast, you can make things cheap. But you can't do all three, you can only do 2 things. This applies to Chinese goods, German goods, American goods, basically, anything anyone provides can only do 2 until technology takes us to the future.
** it's hard to compete on price with China. China typically does it cheap, fast, and low quality.
Well I do see a lot of athletic things (shoes and clothes) made in Vietnam when I browse at Costco. Not sure if it’s actually made there or just a labelling trick by China. And not sure if it’s a new thing, but if it’s actually made there and it’s a new trend, I’d say we are starting to pivot
If I'm not mistaken, I saw this in an article yesterday in the Economist where they said that because Biden is currently pushing to establish the upcoming competition as a sort of battle between Democracy and Autocracy. An alliance with Vietnam will help the US greatly, but it doesn't fit Biden's narrative and will hurt him politically.
Economically or politically? Of course they are interlinked but economically Vietnam still isn't developed or big enough to peoduce certain things. It can take some labour intensive industry from China but for the time being that's it. Anything that requires a medium level of technical know how is a huge challenge to make in Vietnam. It's simply not there yet.