Dr. Jonathan D. London, a professor in the Department of Asian and International Studies and a Core Member of the Southeast Asia Research Center at the City University of Hong Kong, told Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper in a recent interview that he believes it is essential Vietnam show the world why it is worthy of support.
The interview was conducted on Saturday after China illicitly stationed an oil rig in Vietnamese waters on May 1 and dispatched ships and planes to ram, intimidate, and fire water cannons at Vietnam’s vessels tasked with asking the Chinese side to leave the area.
Dr. Jonathan D. London
* In a recent interview with Deutsche Welle (DW), Southeast Asia expert Gerhard Will said that Beijing is testing the solidarity of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with Vietnam and examining how much U.S. support Hanoi can rely upon. He added that after realizing the latest move has brought Hanoi and Manila closer together, China is now starting to backtrack. This is proof that China is not following a totally consistent strategy in the East Vietnam Sea. Do you think it is too early to jump to such a conclusion?Dr. Jonathan D. London: The warming relations between Vietnam and the Philippines are intriguing. Certainly the countries have similar concerns. Vietnam needs to show that it is more serious about forging ties with other regions affected by Beijing’s aggressive claims, including Indonesia and Malaysia. It is one thing to be friends with everybody. It is another to have friends that will stand by you, shoulder to shoulder.
With respect to the U.S. support, the situation is of course complex. Vietnam-U.S. relations should be and could be much further along than they are now. As a scholar of comparative political economy, I do believe all countries should be careful in forging links with the U.S. (even South Korea recognized that), or for that matter other countries. The current crisis certainly gives both Vietnam and the U.S. a reason to deepen ties and new reasons to overcome various obstacles to deeper ties. Still, any deepening of relations with the U.S. should be driven by the need to create a stable region. A protracted cold war would be costly, dangerous, and a massive diversion from pressing challenges of the day.
* What are the main purposes behind Beijing’s deployment of oil rig Haiyang Shiyou 981 to Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the East Vietnam Sea?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: Internationally, there is a general agreement that the purposes of deploying the oil rig are mainly political, serving at least three distinct but related purposes: changing the status quo; testing the reaction of other states, principally Vietnam and the U.S.; and engaging in coercive diplomacy.
* Why did China take this step this time? Is it true that China deployed the rig to cause conflict overseas, aiming to cover up domestic governance problems including Xinjiang, Tibet, economic slowdown, environmental issues, and corruption among local officials?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: Like any country, China has no shortage of problems at home. One of the unfortunate byproducts of Beijing’s outsized and legally basely sovereignty claims and its attempts to enforce them is that it will tend to fuel a regional arms race, which is already underway owing in part to China’s rapid military expansion.
If peaceful solutions to regional disputes can be arranged, all states, including China and Vietnam, can focus their resources on serving the needs of their respective populations. Attempts to enforce legally baseless sovereignty claims by military means will be unfortunate as it will lead all countries in the region to divert resources away from where they are most needed. By contrast, a peaceful resolution of the conflict would allow both countries to focus resources on where they are most needed.
* What should Vietnam do to prevent aggressive acts from the Chinese side in the oil rig tension? Is there any possible peaceful solution to the Vietnam-China stand-off to which both sides would agree? Or will it lead to military confrontations?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: The most promising way to address aggression is to prevail on Beijing that it would be in its own best interest to cease and desist from aggressive acts, provocations, and efforts to change the status quo through force.
Yes, there is a range of peaceful solutions, but none of these are prefabricated and all of these will require an order of imagination. Across the region, from Japan to China to Vietnam, a new approach to diplomacy is needed; one that goes beyond hyper-nationalism and the ‘politics of face’ (e.g. rigid stances based on nationalistic pride and machismo). Vietnam has seen too much military conflict. So has the region and the world. A military conflict must be avoided by all possible means and Vietnam must engage the community of nations with greater energy and depth than it is accustomed to doing. This is why I believe it is essential that Vietnam show the world why it is worthy of support. This, in turn, will require energetically implementing the sorts of reforms outlined in the PM’s New Year address.
* Up to now, Washington has only called Beijing’s recent actions in the East Vietnam Sea “provocative” as well as called on both sides to deal with friction through diplomatic means and to observe freedom of navigation in the sea. They said they are not in favor of any side. However, in recent days, some U.S. officials have sent messages that they want to build military cooperation with Vietnam. Did you realize that?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: Yes, I have read of this, and greater military would seem logical, given regional power imbalances. However, military cooperation with the U.S. on any significant scale will carry with it certain ramifications. In a recent email exchange, the noted U.S.-based intellectual Amitai Etzioni, a prominent advocate of “mutually assured restraint” in U.S.-China relations, has warned of the risk of treating the dispute with China as a potential military conflict. So I think it is sensible that the U.S. explores the deepening of military cooperation with Vietnam, but that these decisions be made in view of the broader regional strategic calculus and with minimizing the likelihood of militarizing the region. Vietnam needs to balance the imperatives of self-defense with the need for a peaceful order. Ultimately, relations between Vietnam and China must be stable. But they cannot be stable if the overriding principles in the region follow the laws of the jungle.
* In your opinion, is it a good idea for Vietnam to file a lawsuit to an international tribunal against China over its illegitimate territorial claims in the East Vietnam Sea?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: Barring any significant changes in Beijing’s position, very possibly yes. With respect to international norms, it’s worth noting that the U.S.’s own failure to support the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over several decades is extremely regrettable. Having the U.S. as a signatory to UNCLOS would likely give it even greater significance than it has today.
Unfortunately, saying that does not help Vietnam. So what about the international tribunal? Beijing has indicated that it would ignore any judgments against it, which is unfortunate and one would hope this position might change. The aim should not be to antagonize Beijing but to have a neutral body adjudicate between competing sovereignty claims on the basis of available evidence. If there is no change in Beijing’s position and diplomacy fails, the tribunal would at least provide an opportunity to make the world aware of how each country’s aims stand up.
That said, if there are alternatives to an international tribunal, those should be actively explored or created where none exist.
* Did the current tensions in the East Vietnam Sea affect the U.S. pivot to Asia?
Dr. Jonathan D. London: They certainly pose dilemmas for Washington. While some have voiced concern that the U.S. has not taken a more forceful stance, I believe the U.S. response to the tensions remain to be seen. One would expect these tensions to change the tenor of discussions between Hanoi and the U.S. with respect to military intervention. It is still unclear what exactly the pivot means now and will mean in practical terms going forward. But if one aim of the U.S.’s Pacific presence is to ensure a stable maritime environment conducive to the development of international commerce and supportive of security, we would expect the present tensions to add, and not diminish, attention to these goals. No one wants to see the region descend into a tense never-ending contest for hegemony. The region would be much better served by diplomatic measures. The so-called pivot is not and should not be mainly about military issues. It should be about promoting prosperity through cooperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment