US vs. China: Where does Vietnam Stand?

September 4, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - As tensions continue to mount between Washington and Beijing, examples continue to abound comparing and contrasting the approaches used by both global powers regarding foreign policy.

Another recent example on stark display is the US and China’s respective approaches to Vietnam – a nation both countries have had rocky and even hostile relations with in the past. Both nations waged armed conflict on Vietnam last century. The nearly 20 year-long US war with Vietnam was decidedly much more catastrophic than the month-long failed invasion launched by China.

The US only normalized its relations with Vietnam in 1997, China having done so a few years earlier in 1991.

Since then Vietnam’s main benefits from both nations have been economic.

Follow the Money, Follow the Trade 

In 1997, according to Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, Japan stood as Vietnam’s largest export market accounting for 24.22% of all exports from Vietnam, with the US and China accounting for 4.15% and 4.48% respectively (Hong Kong accounting for an additional 3.23% in China’s favor).

Also in 1997, 9.5% of Vietnam’s imports came from China versus 2.45% from the United States. In 2019, the numbers told a very different story. China is now Vietnam’s largest export market standing at 21.45% versus the United States at 19.26%. China is also Vietnam’s largest source of imports at 36.36% versus the US at 4.07%.

Between 1997 and 2019 Europe has slipped from Vietnam’s second largest regional export market to third, behind Asia and North America (primarily the US).

Trade with China is vastly important to Vietnam’s economy. Access to additional markets is also a priority for Vietnam. Considering this very important fact, what is it that Beijing and Washington bring to the table to address this primary concern and how will this play out in the near and long-term regarding current US-China tensions?

What Did Kamala Harris Bring to the Table During Her Recent Visit to Vietnam?

AP News in its August 2021 article, “Harris urges Vietnam to join US in opposing China ‘bullying,’” lays out the bleak proposition offered to Hanoi by Washington – to join the US in a growing conflict against Vietnam’s largest trading partner.

The article notes:

“We need to find ways to pressure and raise the pressure, frankly, on Beijing to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to challenge its bullying and excessive maritime claims,” she said in remarks at the opening of a meeting with Vietnamese President Nguyen Xuan Phuc.

Obviously, by joining the US in “pressuring” China regarding the South China Sea, Vietnam would endanger its diplomatic and economic ties with China. It could also potentially trigger a security crisis with China – a nation it shares a 1,297 km long border with.

It should be noted that despite Washington’s oversimplification and exaggeration of the South China Sea situation, the reality is much more complicated and much less a threat to regional or global stability. Disputes are between not only Southeast Asian nations and China, but also among Southeast Asian states themselves.

For example Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia all have overlapping claims within the South China Sea with each other in addition to with China, resulting in minor incidents that are often resolved quickly and bilaterally. The US has deliberately injected itself into these disputes in an attempt to transform them into a regional or even international crisis it can leverage against China.

In essence, the US is trying to recruit Vietnam into an imaginary and absolutely needless conflict that would ensnare Hanoi in a security alliance with the US at the expense of constructive ties with China. It would also risk destabilizing the region in which Vietnam resides – endangering political and economic stability required for its peace and prosperity.

Mekong-US Partnership: Promoting Poverty, Driving Sinophobic Hostility

September 2, 2021 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - It’s no secret that the US is engaged in heated competition with China and openly aspires to “contain” China’s rise as a global power and its otherwise inevitable surpassing of US primacy.

It should by now also be no secret that in order to do this, Washington has attempted to recruit China’s neighbours into various united fronts regarding everything from disputes in the South China Sea to baseless allegations of “human rights abuses” by China in its western Xinjiang region.

Perhaps less understood, however, is Washington’s ongoing focus on the Mekong River and Chinese dams upstream.

It must seem strange to onlookers that Washington is so concerned about water management in Southeast Asia thousands of kilometers from its own shores while Americans back home go without safe drinking water.

But if we understand Washington is not concerned at all about the Mekong River and the people living along it, and is instead using it as yet another leverage point in what is ultimately its power struggle with China over the Indo-Pacific, this conundrum is easily unraveled.

Mekong-US Partnership: Maintaining Poverty, Building Hostility

According to the US State Department’s own official website in a “fact sheet” titled, “The Mekong-US Partnership and the Friends of the Mekong: Proven Partners for the Mekong Region,” the Mekong-US Partnership (MUSP) is described as:

The countries of the Mekong sub-region and the United States reaffirmed their long-standing relationship at the second Mekong-US  Partnership (MUSP) ministerial on August 2, 2021. Through the MUSP, the US government, working with Congress, continues to support the autonomy, economic independence, good governance, and sustainable growth of Mekong partner countries.

“Autonomy, economic independence, good governance and sustainable growth” is thinly veiled code for “blocking out Chinese influence, blocking economic cooperation with China, building up Western-friendly political opposition groups and blocking infrastructure development in favor of continued subsistence fishing and farming.”

The so-called MUSP describes its investments in the region over a period of now over 10 years, claiming:

The Mekong-US Partnership includes 14 US government agencies and departments with over 50 programs to strengthen cooperation to address shared interests and common challenges.  From fiscal year 2009 to 2021, the US government provided over $4.3 billion in bilateral and regional grant assistance to the five Mekong partner countries, including nearly $4.0 billion from the State Department and USAID.

There is, however, nothing tangible to show for this investment. In reality, this money, like the money the US “invested” into Afghanistan over a period of nearly twice as long, has been spent to build up US-backed opposition groups and organisations posing as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs) and to hook impoverished local communities along the Mekong River on US handouts and programmes.

The “flagship programs” of the MUSP are not infrastructure projects granting the people economic opportunities, ease of travel, electricity or other absolute necessities required for modern civilisation, but instead programs like “USAID Mekong Safeguards.”

Afghanistan: Chinese Reconstruction vs. US Sanctions

August 29, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Beijing now has a key opportunity to demonstrate the stark contrast between its brand of foreign policy and Washington’s through its own plan to aid in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

A Global Times piece titled, “China to offer ‘genuine’ aid in Afghanistan’s economic reconstruction amid chaotic transition,” in title alone infers that the US – despite occupying Afghanistan for two decades – never genuinely sought to build up the nation.

Ironically, this is not a notion entertained only by Beijing and its allies – it has also been the theme of the US government’s own Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) quarterly reports for years.

China’s plans for Afghanistan (which include projects already completed or underway) involve highways, factories, rail lines, and other essential infrastructure projects. Over the last 20 years US SIGAR reports indicated most US “reconstruction” funding went to building up Afghanistan’s police and military or to corrupt contractors who worked on minor infrastructure projects with little or no concern about their outcome once the projects were completed, if they were even completed.

Mention of actual infrastructure projects in SIGAR reports is sparse with a focus instead placed on keeping locals dependent on USAID handouts rather than creating any sort of sustainable economic self-sufficiency.

And while on paper the contrast between Beijing’s proposals and Washington’s approach over the last 2 decades to foreign policy is clear, China now has an opportunity to fully demonstrate these differences on-the-ground.

US Huawei Claims Regarding Pakistan: A Perfect Propaganda Storm

August 25, 2021 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The Western media has been reporting on a US-based software maker, Business Efficiency Solutions (BES), and its allegations that Huawei not only “stole” its technology, but also built in “back doors” into a law-enforcement project built in Pakistan.

It’s a three-for-one allegation, cementing further an ongoing and so far evidence-free narrative pushed by the US government that Chinese telecom giant Huawei is (1) a threat to global security, (2) reinforcing the notion that Huawei (and other Chinese companies) thrive by “stealing” technology from the West and (3) an attack on Chinese-Pakistani relations.

The Register in its article, “Huawei stole our tech and created a ‘backdoor’ to spy on Pakistan, claims IT biz,” would claim:

A California-based IT consultancy has sued Huawei and its subsidiary in Pakistan alleging the Chinese manufacturer stole its trade secrets and failed to honor a contract to develop technology for Pakistani authorities.

And that:

The legal filing claims, among other things, that Huawei has used BES’s Data Exchange System “to create a backdoor and obtain data important to Pakistan’s national security and to spy on Pakistani citizens.”

What is interesting is that beyond the allegations, no evidence is produced. The Register’s article even cites other indictments regarding Huawei to bolster the narrative, but indictments are merely more accusations.

At one point, The Register admits (emphasis added):

Last year, during the Trump administration, US authorities claimed that Huawei can covertly access its telecom equipment. But evidence to that effect, if it exists, has not been made public.

The Wall Street Journal also covered the story in their article, “Huawei Accused in Suit of Installing Data ‘Back Door’ in Pakistan Project.” In it, they admit that Pakistan’s investigation into the matter has turned up no evidence to support BES’ allegations.

For the US government, whose credibility suffers because of serial deceptions including those misleading the American public into multiple disastrous wars, if it had credible evidence regarding Huawei, it likely would have disclosed it. Not disclosing it leaves the world to assume that just as the US lied about Iraq possessing “weapons of mass destruction” leading to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US government is also lying about Huawei to pressure yet another targeted nation, this time China.

Besides reinforcing Western narratives undermining Huawei, the allegations also seem to be targeting Chinese-Pakistani relations.

The US Never Intended to Create a Self-Reliant Afghan Government

August 22, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - The Western media talks about the “shocking” developments in Afghanistan, as a government the US spent two decades “building up” is swept from the country in mere days.

 

The Taliban (banned in Russia) have even entered Kabul, occupying the offices and meeting rooms of former Afghan president Ashraf Ghani and his administration who have already fled the country – this as the US withdrawal is not even completed.

But is it really shocking?

It shouldn’t be. The US never intended to build up a strong, self-reliant, sustainable government in Afghanistan. The US occupation of Afghanistan was never about “nation building.” It was always an exercise in American hegemony, to occupy a geostrategic location in Central Asia bordering multiple US adversaries including China, Pakistan, and Iran as well as several former Soviet states essential to Washington’s strategy of encircling Russia.

In fact, the US occupation of Afghanistan was essentially the chain-link connecting three of Washington’s most important geopolitical encirclement strategies – its encirclement of Iran, Russia, and China – with Afghanistan sharing part of its border with China’s Xinjiang region.

Afghanistan for US hegemony is such a geostrategic location that the only thing truly shocking would be the prospect of the US simply abandoning its position in Central Asia and truly withdrawing for good.