Vietnam Swatted More Viciously Than China by America’s Lofty Human Rights Measuring Stick

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 8 August 2015
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Chase Coulson. Edited by Wendalyn Tran .
On June 8, Secretary of State John Kerry praised the positive turn in U.S.-Vietnam relations during his visit to the nation. Simultaneously, a great discussion ensued regarding human rights issues, in which Kerry expressed his wish that Vietnam clean up its human rights record in order to further relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. He urged Vietnam to show greater determination to carry out reforms to advance the “rule of law” and permit political debate and free assembly.

America has likewise also debated the topic of human rights with China. However, when Kerry comes to China, he never speaks about human rights as openly. When American leaders visit China, they choose their words with great care when discussing this subject and only bring it up in passing in a very lengthy laundry list of other topics. Only when they are alone in front of the Western media do American leaders stress that they “discussed human rights.”

During Kerry’s time discussing human rights in Hanoi, he stated, “Progress on human rights and the rule of law will provide the foundation for a deeper and more sustainable strategy and strategic partnership between America and Vietnam ... Only you can decide the pace and direction of this process of building this partnership.” There is an air of coercion, and a certain chiding and even threatening tone to the message.

Apparently in U.S.-Vietnam relations, human rights issues are much weightier than they are in Sino-U.S. relations. Hanoi is facing extreme, long-term pressure from Washington. Vietnam is a country that carries very little weight in the world. Its “liberalization” genes may be fairly strong, but whether or not Hanoi can manage this problem is going to be a long-term challenge.

The French colonized Vietnam for an extended period, and the Vietnam War split the country into north and south regimes with the southern regime under America’s direct control. After the Communist-governed north broke through into the south, waves of South Vietnamese emigrated to the United States, forming today’s extensive, influential and very vocal anti-Communist Party of Vietnam force. Inside today’s Vietnam, there is still an intangible but very real dividing line between the north and south. What’s more, in dealing with the potentially fatal problem of overseas forces penetrating the country, Hanoi cannot loosen its reins, not even for a moment.

Current American strategy necessitates the inclusion of Vietnam, which will lead America to relax the political pressure that it puts on the country. The thing is, American society cannot refrain from interfering in Vietnamese politics. Vietnam’s domestic anti-government forces, as well as external anti-CPV forces, have their own independent lines already etched into the sand. Those same forces will exploit the South China Sea dispute between China and Vietnam, as well as American pressure about human rights for their own political aims. In this complex political game, Hanoi wishes it could be both actor and director, which seems like a good idea, but is exceedingly difficult to realize.

When seeing the world through the eyes of many different nations’ experience, and in the wake of the deepening communication between Vietnam and the U.S., it is quite possible that those in Vietnam who oppose the system will gradually grow in strength and number. Due to the fact that Hanoi is weak when staring down Washington, it will be a major test of its strength to see if it dares take strong and forceful measures to maintain social stability, even in spite of Washington. If the rebels within the country exercise power and seize momentum, when Washington has to make a choice between supporting the rebels or the CPV government, it goes without saying what Washington will ultimately do.

Vietnam’s long-term political stability depends on the legitimacy provided to it by the success of China’s political line, which is determined by the intricacy of the current setup of Sino-Vietnam and U.S.-Vietnam relations. Geopolitical factors are not the sole compass for handling relations between the two great nations; Vietnam must make its own successful contribution to the mutual success of Sino-Vietnamese politics.

The current pressure imposed by the South China Sea issue and the new trend toward closer ties between Vietnam and the U.S. have misled many to think that the new strategic axis of Hanoi’s foreign policy will be “ally with America to resist China.” Actually, Vietnam has a deep strategic need to maintain an “ally with China to resist America” stance for the long term. If Vietnam becomes a lone boat navigating the tides of globalization, then it is very possible that it will have to endure the wild tempests and frothy waves brought about by America and the West that will slap it to and fro.

Even though Sino-Vietnam relations have been shaken seriously by the South China Sea dispute, Chinese society should take the differences between the two nations on an issue-by-issue basis and not let its bilateral relations dissolve into a “South China Sea dogma.” China cannot lose the Spratly Islands, just like we cannot lose the whole of Vietnam in the drama surrounding the Southeast Asian nation power struggle and the whole host of political maneuvering that comes with it. If one day Vietnam totally becomes a pawn in America’s grand strategic scheme, then that would be a terrible disgrace upon the good name of China.

China should be magnanimous in welcoming the change in U.S.-Vietnam relations, while at the same time it should use the strengthening of political and economic cooperation to balance out the negative geopolitical ramifications that an intensification of U.S.-Vietnam relations may bring. China and other surrounding nations have their own territorial disputes, which is a problem that history has placed in our lap. Contemporary China must be able to get a handle on this problem, while at the same time it must not be consumed by our present strategic resilience and vital energy. Modern China must have the breadth of mind and ability to do this.


社评:美压越南“人权”,比压中国狠多了

2015-08-08

环球时报 

  美国国务卿克里6日至8日访问越南时称赞美越关系好转,同时大谈越南的人权问题,表示美越关系进一步怎么走将取决于越南保护人权和自由的意愿。他敦促越南显示出更大决心推进法治改革,允许言论和集会自由。

  美国同中国也存在人权争议,但是克里到中国来是不会这样公开讲话的。美国领导人访问中国时表达这方面意见会很注意说话的方式,把人权问题作为谈话议题长长单子中的一项顺便提及,然后单独面对西方媒体强调他们“谈了人权”。

  克里在河内谈人权是这样说的:“越南的人权和法治进步将为美越进行更深入持久的合作提供基础。”“只有你们能决定建立关系进程的速度和方向。”这是一种强制性口气,带了点教训甚至威胁的味道。

  看来人权问题在美越关系中的分量比它在中美关系中重得多,河内将长期面临来自华盛顿的高压。越南的国家体量相对较小,其国内的“自由化”基因又比较强,河内能否管控好这个问题,将是长期挑战。

  越南曾长期被法国殖民,越战期间它又南北分裂,南方政权直接受美国支持。共产党执政的北越攻破南越后,大批南越人出走美国,形成今天海外颇有声势的反越共力量。今天越南内部仍有南北方的无形分野,而为了对付海外势力渗透这一心腹大患,河内一刻也不能松懈。

  美国现在战略上需要越南,这会促使它放松对越政治施压。但美国社会对越政治干涉又是情不自禁的。越南国内反政府势力和境外反越共势力有他们独立的行动路线图,中越南海之争、美国人权压力都会被他们加以利用。河内希望在这一复杂游戏里既做演员,又做导演,这个目标看上去挺好,但难度极高。

  以世界多国的经验来看,随着美越交流加深,越南国内的反体制力量有可能逐渐坐大。由于河内在华盛顿面前相当弱势,未来它是否敢于不顾后者的反对而采取强有力维稳措施将面临考验。如果其国内反对派发力造势,华盛顿需要在支持越共政府和支持反对派之间做选择时,它会怎么做将是不言而喻的。

  越南长期政治稳定的根在于,中国政治道路的成功为越南国家体制提供了合法性。这决定了越南将一直处于对美和对华关系的微妙格局中。地缘政治因素不是它处理与两大国关系的唯一指南,它必须为中越政治上的共同成功做出自己的一份贡献。

  如今由于南海问题的压力,越南有与美走近之势,这让一些人误以为“联美抗华”会成为河内对外战略的轴心。其实越南国家战略中将长期存在“联华抗美”的深层需求,如果越南成为全球化浪潮中的一只孤舟,它不太可能经受住从美国和西方扑打过来的风浪。

  尽管中越的南海争议严重干扰了两国关系,但中国社会应就事论事对待同越南的分歧,不让两国关系“南海化”。中国不能失去南沙群岛,同样我们也不能在亚太充满戏剧性的国家力量纵横捭阖中失去整个越南。如果有一天越南完全成为美国战略布局中的一枚棋子,那将是中国外交的耻辱。

  中国应大度地欢迎美越改善关系,同时用中越加强政治及经济合作平衡美越关系升温可能带来的负面地缘政治影响。中国与多个周边国家有领土纠纷,这是历史留给今天的问题。现代中国须能接住这些问题,同时不被它们消耗掉我们今天的战略弹性和活力。当代的中国人必须有这样的心胸,也有这样的本事。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Topics

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

Related Articles

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

India: Greenland: How To Handle America That Wants Everything