The CPV and the USG - learning to love each other?
Bill Hayton bill.hayton at bbc.co.uk
Wed Jul 29 08:05:55 PDT 2015
Dear all,
I'm just writing something for a report about Vietnam's foreign policy and I think I have discerned a significant shift in the attitudes of the Communist Party of VN and the US Government towards each other. I would be interested in analytical (rather than rhetorical or vituperative) comments on what I've written...
Thanks
Bill Hayton
writer
Until 2015 the US had stressed ‘government-to-government’ relations but, in a remarkable development, it has recently attempted to open ‘party-to-party’ discussions too. The strategy has its origins in an official meeting between between G-S Nguyen Phu Trong and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi in July 2012. Language in the July 2013 partnership agreement then noted, “respect for … each other’s political systems”. During his July 2014 visit to Washington, Pham Quang Nghi met the presidents of the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute (IRI). Both organisations had previously been loudly critical of Vietnam’s record on human rights. In a March 2015 speech to university students in Hanoi the US Ambassador, Ted Osius, publicly embraced the notion of ‘party-to-party’ talks – presumably between the CPV and the Democatic and Republican parties in the United States (rather than the Communist Party USA).[1]
The Obama administration invited the General-Secretary Trong to visit Washington in mid-2015. This posed problems of protocol because he had no governmental position and no equivalent in the US but the issues were smoothed and he was treated, in effect, as a head of government. Ahead of Trong’s visit, the US welcomed Vietnam’s Minister of Public Security, Tran Dai Quang – in overall command of the country’s internal security system and responsible for successive crackdowns on political dissent. In a significant change to past policy, Quang had talks with the FBI and CIA, National Security Council and Department of Justice, among others.[2] These moves suggested the US government was making a serious effort to bridge what has been, until now, an unbridgeable ideological gap between the two sides. In June 2015 the two defence ministries agreed a new ‘Joint Vision Statement’, the second paragraph of which re-affirmed ‘respecting the political system… of each country.”
Trong gave one set-piece speech in Washington and held out the prospect of the two countries working together to, “lay the foundation for taking bilateral ties to the next level in the future”. He specifically highlighted the need to consolidate, “political trust between the leaders [and] political circles… from both countries” and “to increase high level exchanges and contacts to include… political parties”. He seemed to be opening a door for direct political relations between the CPV and the US political establishment. If sincere, this would be a significant political reorientation by the CPV. At the same time, the Obama Administration seems to be working hard to dispel the suspicion among Vietnamese conservatives that it is wedded to anti-communism.
________________________________
[1] US Embassy, Hanoi. Ambassador’s Policy Address at Vietnam National University, Hanoi 6 March 2015. http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/ambspeech-030615.html
[2] Alexander Vuving, A breakthrough in US-Vietnam relations. The Diplomat 10 April 2015.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/private/vsg/attachments/20150729/2915dda7/attachment.html>
Shawn McHale mchale at gwu.edu
Wed Jul 29 10:26:57 PDT 2015
I am a bit skeptical of this argument, and have a counter-hypothesis rooted
in US domestic politics.
It is well-known that Washington has been suffering from increasing
gridlock, a trend that we can perhaps date from the 1990s but that has
accelerated under Obama. One of the casualties of this gridlock has been
agreement over basic issues in foreign policy. We can see this, obviously,
in the current fight over the Iran nuclear deal, but it plays out in all
sorts of minor ways over all sorts of issues.
One way around this has been bring Democrats and Republicans together to
engage with foreign leaders. My university, for example, has received
funding for over 20 years from Congress to run the US-Japan-Korea
legislative exchange, which promotes exchanges between Republicans and
Democrats in the US Congress with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet,
and the Korean legislature. This has been a very successful exchange -- and
has led to strong legislative ties with Japan and Korea.
This sort of model, in a way, is being used, I would argue, with Vietnam.
What better way to lessen political gridlock in the US than to have the
International Democratic Institute and the International Republican
Institute -- both entities that blur the line between Party politics and
foreign policy, and that are supported by the US taxpayers -- play a minor
role in US-Vietnam relations? This is a small way to build trust between
the Executive branch of the US government and Congress -- in particular, it
brings Republicans into the foreign policy process of a Democratic
president. It is in Obama's interests. It is the Republicans' interests. It
is in Vietnam's interests. And it is easy to do for Vietnam, since
Republican and Democratic views of relations with Vietnam are reasonably
similar. Finally, it sidelines the really histrionic members of Congress,
like Darrell Issa.
It goes without saying, of course, that the International Democratic
Institute and its Republican counterpart represent a narrow range of
American politics -- what Jeffrey Winters has called "oligarchic
democracy."
Shawn McHale
Bill Hayton bill.hayton at bbc.co.uk
Thu Jul 30 01:50:07 PDT 2015
Thank you, that's a useful insight. I don't mean 'party-to-party' literally. I suppose I could say 'establishment-to-establishment'. I'm comparing the linkages between VN and the US with those between VN and China and making the point that the latter are much thicker and richer partly because of the similar ideological outlook and partly because of the parallel party structures. Until now the US has faced two problems - it has been treated with ideological suspicion by the CPV and Washington had no way to formally engage the party in the same way as Beijing. It's currently taking steps to address both issues...
I suppose the problem for the USG is that it has to walk a very difficult tightrope. If the Garden Grove lobbies and the MIA/POW crowd realise that the Administration is prepared to work with the commies on a friendly basis there could be a lot of public resistance. Getting the parties on board at this stage could make life easier in Congress later. My view from 5,000 miles away from both Washington and Hanoi...
Thanks to those who've also sent thoughts off-list.
Bill
Nhan Ngo nhan at temple.edu
Thu Jul 30 05:28:34 PDT 2015
Daer Bill and Shawn,
I have heard "party-to-party" -- by the talk I think the VCP meant it.
Engaging with the US is a very risky and complex endeavors that the VCP
has embarked -- when the favor tills towards the US-China domination of
the entire region judging by the recent G2 meetings and the history of
US-China collusion against Vietnam (at least since 1972). The tension
in biển Đông by China can be viewed as an attempt to lure the US back
to the 1972 Joint Communiqué.
So one might note the VCP holds on to the "three no's" policy… while
it genuinely promotes comprehensive "normalization" with the US
with "road maps". One must know the tricky US politics well.
Nhan
Anh Pham gaupvn at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 06:14:45 PDT 2015
I agree with Bill Hayton that it is seemingly time to party. According to
the recent Joint Vision Statement, party to party exchanges were envisaged
in the 2013 Comprehensive Partnership. The move is typical of the
President's overall engagement foreign policies. Initially I had doubts
about this innovative approach with respect to Vietnam but I am now fully
supportive of this sunshine policy. There is really no better way to start
bringing the two countries even closer together than let the thawing begin
at this fundamental level. The terms of engagement will most likely be
dictated by the one who reaches out first. My fear is that it will not be
as actively pursued by the next Administration.
Anh Pham
Wash DC
David Brown nworbd at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 08:15:51 PDT 2015
Anh, do you really think one of the 17 GOP hopefuls is going to be
elected? If Hillary's in the White House, the US-VN breakthrough is secure
and will develop steadily and sensibly.
Anh Pham gaupvn at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 08:25:47 PDT 2015
Uncle Brown, I did not imply that I thought any of the GOP candidates would
win; rather I was afraid that the next President, including Mme Clinton,
God bless her and her family, may be overly occupied with other things to
take full advantage of this new healthy momentum.
AP