Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Asean

The US and Vietnam go from mutual ‘menace’ to mates

Published

on

Author: Hung Nguyen, George Mason University

US–Vietnam relations have come a long way. In 1982, in his report to the Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV), Secretary-General Le Duan claimed that US–China collusion constituted ‘a factor constantly threatening world peace, and especially seriously menacing security and stability in Asia’. Today, Vietnam considers the US to be a stabilising factor in the Asia Pacific. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung told the Shangri-La Dialogue on 31 May 2013 that Vietnam welcomed the strategic engagement of the United States as a Pacific power and expected that, together with China, it would assume ‘the biggest role in and responsibilities to the region and the world’.

Two factors have driven this change of heart: the need for dramatic reform to avoid economic and regime collapse in the 1980s, and China’s increasing challenge to Vietnam’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this context, the United States is well positioned to meet Vietnam’s needs.

Efforts to overcome mutual distrust eventually led to the normalisation of diplomatic relations between the two former enemies in 1995. China’s aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea and the convergence of US and Vietnamese strategic interests have since led to a rapid improvement in bilateral security relations.

Progress on the diplomatic front is illustrated by increasing visits by Vietnamese leaders to the United States and vice versa. Bill Clinton was the first US president, and William Cohen the first secretary of defense to visit Vietnam in 2000. Phan Van Khai was the first prime minister of a unified Vietnam to visit the US in June 2005, followed by former president Nguyen Minh Triet in 2007. If the CPV Secretary General Nguyen Phu Trong visits the US as planned later in 2015 he would be the first top party and country leader ever to visit the United States.

The removal of the US trade embargo against Vietnam in 1994 opened up an era of economic cooperation, leading to a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement in 2000, normalisation of trade relations in 2006, and Vietnam’s ascension to the WTO in January 2007. As a result, US–Vietnam bilateral trade has grown from US$451 million in 1995 to nearly US$35 billion in 2014. US direct investment in Vietnam rose from US$126 million in 2000 to US$1.1 billion in 2013.

The conclusion of negotiations for Vietnam to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remains unfinished business. For Vietnam, the TPP brings with it certain risks, but they are compensated for by numerous economic, political and strategic benefits, including facilitating the recognition of Vietnam’s status as a market economy. For the US, the TPP provides a firm economic foundation for its ‘rebalancing’ to Asia strategy. But Congressional reluctance to pass ‘trade promotion authority’ legislation remains a key road block.

Military relations have begun to accelerate since 2009 as the security interests of Vietnam and the US have converged. In 2009, China drew a nine-dashed line claiming 80 per cent of the South China Sea, before placing a huge oil rig within Vietnam’s claimed exclusive economic zone in 2014. Recently, China has embarked on large-scale reclamation projects to turn submerged rocks into islands, possibly to serve as military outposts. While the US is impartial to territorial disputes among claimants, it considers China’s claim to be illegitimate and opposes the use of coercion or force to change the status quo.

The US has also pledged to help Vietnam improve its defence capability, by partially lifting the ban on the sale of lethal weapons to Vietnam and by offering US$18 million for Vietnam to strengthen its coastguard patrol. The US and Vietnam have also agreed to a ‘comprehensive partnership’ and to cooperate in multilateral forums.

But US officials have repeatedly insisted that unless there is demonstrable progress on human rights, relations between the two countries cannot reach their full potential. While there has been progress, differences remain over the freedoms of religion, expression, association and the internet. Vietnam’s efforts to reform its criminal code to protect individual freedoms may or may not meet US expectations.

For years, relations between Vietnam and the US have suffered from mutual distrust because Vietnam suspected the US of using ‘human rights’ as a means of destabilising its regime. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has called for the building of ‘strategic trust’ between the two countries. This stage has now perhaps nearly been reached.

In addition to the commitment to ‘respect each other’s political systems,’ Increased ties in education and training are key to building this trust. Among the 16,000 Vietnamese students in the United States, many are the children of Vietnamese leaders. Graduates from American universities are no longer viewed with suspicion but have been placed in important positions.

Lesser known but no less important are the increasing visits by high-ranking Vietnamese leaders to the United States to set up working relations with their US counterparts, including the annual practice of sending ministers and provincial heads to the Harvard Kennedy School of Government to attend short seminars.

While the convergence of strategic interests may prompt a temporary partnership between the US and Vietnam, it is educational exchange and training that can lead to more shared values and interests. That foundation of mutual understanding, trust and close cooperation will provide the basis for a more solid and lasting relationship, especially when the mantle of leadership passes to a new generation of Vietnamese leaders.

Hung Nguyen is Professor Emeritus of Government and International Affairs at George Mason University and Nonresident Senior Associate of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.

Read the original here:
The US and Vietnam go from mutual ‘menace’ to mates

Asean

ASEAN weathering the COVID-19 typhoon

Published

on

Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc addresses a special video conference with leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Hanoi 14 April, 2020 (Photo:Reuters/Manan Vatsyayana).

Author: Sandra Seno-Alday, Sydney University

The roughly 20 typhoons that hit Southeast Asia each year pale in comparison to the impact on the region of COVID-19 — a storm of a very different sort striking not just Southeast Asia but the world.

 

Just how badly is the COVID-19 typhoon thrashing the region? And what might the post-crisis recovery and reconstruction look like? To answer these questions, it is necessary to investigate the strengths and vulnerabilities of Southeast Asia’s pre-COVID-19 economic infrastructure.

Understanding the structure of the region’s economic house requires going back to 1967, when Southeast Asian countries decided to pledge friendship to one another under the ASEAN framework. While other integrated regions such as NAFTA and the European Union have aggressively broken down trade barriers and significantly boosted intra-regional trade, ASEAN regional economic integration has chugged along slower.

Southeast Asian countries have not viewed trade between each other as a top priority. The trade agreements in the region have been forged around suggestions for ASEAN countries to lower tariffs on intra-regional trade to within a certain range and across limited industries. This has lowered but not eliminated barriers to intra-regional trade. Consequently, a relatively significant share of Southeast Asian trade is with countries outside the region. This active extra-regional engagement has resulted in ASEAN countries’ successful integration into global value chain networks.

A historically outward-facing region, in 2010 around 75 per cent of Southeast Asian commodity imports and exports came from countries outside of ASEAN. This share of extra-regional trade nudged closer to 80 per cent in 2018. This indicates that ASEAN’s global value chain network embeddedness has deepened over time.

Around 40 per cent of ASEAN’s extra-regional trade is with the rest of Asia. From 2010 to 2018 Southeast Asian countries forged major trade relationships with four Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea and India. Outside Asia, the United States is the region’s major trading partner. ASEAN’s trade focus on Asia’s largest markets is not surprising. Countries tend to establish trade relationships with large, geographically close, and culturally similar markets.

Fostering deep relationships with a few large markets, however, is a double-edged sword. While it has allowed ASEAN to benefit from integration in global value chains, it has also resulted in increased vulnerability to the shocks affecting its network connections.

ASEAN’s participation in global value chains has allowed it to transition from a net regional importer in 1990 to a net regional exporter in 2018. But the region’s deep embeddedness in a small and tightly-coupled network cluster of extra-regional global value chain partners has exposed it to disruption to any and all of its external partners. By contrast, ASEAN’s intra-regional trade network structure is much more loosely-coupled: a consequence of persistent intra-regional trade barriers and thus lower intra-regional trade intensity.

In the pre-COVID-19 period, ASEAN built for itself an economic house held up by just five extra-regional markets, while doing less to expand and diversify its intra-regional trade network. The data shows that ASEAN trade became increasingly concentrated in these few external markets between 2010 and 2018.

This dependence on a handful of markets does not bode well for risk and crisis management. All of the region’s major trading partners have been significantly affected by COVID-19 and this in turn is blowing the ASEAN economic house down.

What are the ways forward? The immediate task at hand is to get a better picture of the region’s position in global value chain networks and to get on top of managing its network risk exposure. Already there are red flags around the region’s food security arising from its position in food value chains. It is critical to look for ways to introduce flexibility into existing supply chains for greater agility in responding to crises.

It is also an opportune time for ASEAN to harness the technology transfer gains of global value chain participation and invest in innovation-driven diversification of products and markets. The region’s embeddedness in global value chain networks certainly places it in a strong position to readily access large export markets not just in Asia but also Europe and the Americas.

Over the longer term, ASEAN is faced with the question of whether it should seriously look…

Source link

Continue Reading

Markets

Tiger Trade Launches SGX Trading, Meeting Demand from Asian Investors

Access to the Singapore Exchange (SGX) adds to Tiger Brokers’ current menu of stock exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Nasdaq Stock Market (NASDAQ), the world’s two largest stock exchanges, as well as the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX).

Published

on

SINGAPORE (ACN Newswire) – Tiger Trade, a one-stop mobile and online trading application by Tiger Brokers, has launched access to the Singapore Exchange (SGX).

(more…)
Continue Reading

Asean

Can Asia maintain growth with an ever ageing population ?

To boost productivity in the future, Asian governments will have to implement well-targeted structural reforms today.

Published

on

Asia has been the world champion of economic growth for decades, and this year will be no exception. According to the latest International Monetary Fund Regional Economic Outlook(REO), the Asia-Pacific region’s GDP is projected to increase by 5.5% in 2017 and 5.4% in 2018. (more…)

Continue Reading