Cambodia, Vietnam take different paths

[reader]

Extracted from South China Morning Post

Coronavirus gives Vietnam, Cambodia a chance to boost ties with Washington and Beijing

For the Southeast Asian neighbours who share a bitter past, the coronavirus pandemic has provided opportunities to cement allegiances that have a bearing on great power rivalry in our region.

Cambodia is China’s staunchest ally in Southeast Asia. Beijing has kept it close with economic, political and military support. It is the only Asean country to be a dialogue partner to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a China-led security-plus organisation involving mostly Central and Eurasian countries.

Relations with the West went downhill in 2017 when the ruling party accused foreign powers of sponsoring a “colour revolution” and the country’s high court dissolved the main opposition party. The European Union’s removal of preferential tariffs for Cambodian clothing and footwear exports earlier this year has hit hard. Last year, 43 per cent of the country’s foreign direct investment came from China.

Growing affinity with China manifested in how Cambodia reacted differently when Covid-19 first surfaced in the central Chinese city of Wuhan late last year. Unlike many of its Southeast Asian neighbours, it did not institute travel restrictions against China and did not repatriate its citizens from the city, telling them to stay and show solidarity with their hosts.

Vietnam, on the other hand, became a new addition to the US-led Quad-Plus countries. The 4+3 (US, Japan, Australia, India + South Korea, New Zealand and Vietnam) grouping aims to coordinate the fight against the coronavirus and plan for economic recovery in its aftermath. The inclusion of Hanoi brings Southeast Asian representation to a club dominated by major powers bent on countering China’s growing influence and challenge to regional order.

As this year’s Asean chair, Vietnam also joined the US in issuing a joint statement to counter the pandemic after a high-level inter-agency video conference on April 6. This belated US effort, six weeks after the Asean-China Special Foreign Ministers Meeting on Covid-19 held in Laos, announced Washington’s entry in extending help to regional countries struck by the outbreak.

Meanwhile, the great power contest in the South China Sea has continued. In late January and mid-March, the US conducted its first and second freedom of navigation operations. The US Navy also conducted Expeditionary Strike Force operations in the semi-enclosed sea, followed by live-fire missile drills in the adjacent Philippine Sea. Beijing also announced the completion of two newly-built “research stations” on its artificial islands astride the strategic waterway.

Early this month, the alleged sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat by a Chinese coastguard vessel off the contested Paracels drew sharp US and Vietnamese criticism and a statement of concern and solidarity from the Philippines.

Further Western pressure can push Cambodia towards China, while Beijing’s continued incursions in the South China Sea may compel Vietnam to expand security ties with the US. But while Cambodia is dangerously becoming too dependent on China, Vietnam’s modest defence capacity and fast-growing economy provides it some legroom as it navigates relations with major powers.

Although China is Vietnam’s top import source, the US is its top export market. Hanoi’s efforts to diversify its investors are also paying off. Last year, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore were its top investors, followed by Japan and China.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3080125/coronavirus-mike-pompeo-urges-china-full-transparency-call-top

 

 

[vinapu]

may be soon when going to Cambodia we will be stocking on Yuan instead of USD like now

[PeterRS]

Foreign relations is a curious beast. Cambodia has been in Beijings camp since the days of French colonial rule. King Sihanouk fled to Beijing after the 1970 coup which may well have had CIA backing. It was the US secret unsanctioned bombing of Cambodia that directly created the vacuum that led to the rise to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge. Even after Vietnam invaded and liberated the country, the world led by the USA continued to recognise the murderers for another dozen years. The US even tried to persuade other nations to help rebuild the Khmer Rouge! President Carter in a policy continued by Reagan and Bush 41 called on other nations to cut off assistance and aid to Vietnam. How come the murder of about 1.5 million plus of its citizens would qualify the Khmer Rouge continuing in power? The Khmer Rouge then continued to represent Cambodia at the UN until 1991. Madness!

Funny too that Vietnam is coupled with the USA and others in attempts to stamp out the covid19 virus. From what I read, Vietnam was way ahead of the USA in insisting on its people wearing facemarks and using hand sanitiser. This despite Vietnam having  a weak healthcare system and small health budget. The leaders in Hanoi implemented their strategy during Tet, the same day as Chinese New Year before the end of January when there were no known cases outside China. Quarantine of those with the virus and tracking of contacts started long before Trump and his minions in Washington gave the virus the time of day.

[reader]

Pete, you'll never get over your hard on for anything American because you had to ask the US to twice save your island from two world wars.

You conveniently forget your country's many take overs of other counties when it was busy building its empire upon which the sun would never set.  And you choose to put out of mind the atrocities committed on those who opposed British rule.

Get over it. The US will always be the first to come to the UK's side when shit hits the fan again.

 

 

 

[vinapu]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

. Even after Vietnam invaded and liberated the country, the world led by the USA continued to recognise the murderers for another dozen years. The US even tried to persuade other nations to help rebuild the Khmer Rouge! ......... How come the murder of about 1.5 million plus of its citizens would qualify the Khmer Rouge continuing in power? The Khmer Rouge then continued to represent Cambodia at the UN until 1991. Madness!

 

I 'm glad that somebody remembers that as this was part I never understood and never will. Sadly Thailand also played to US tune in this respect.

[reader]

There's no denying that the US made more than its share of mistakes in SE Asia over time. And there's no denying that international diplomacy has suffered under this administration.

But there's also no denying if Russia moves on any member of NATO (which includes Canada), it will be the US that they will be counting on to do much of the heavy lifting. South Korea and Japan have even a greater reliance on America if China or North Korea should attack.

And as China expands is claims in the waters bordering the Philippines, Vietnam and other SE Asian nations, who do you think they'd turn to if push came to shove.

America bashing is currently in vogue and everyone's free to take a swing. But first consider where you live and who you can really count on when the chips are down.

[DivineMadman]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

Sadly Thailand also played to US tune in this respect.

I know of one academic at Chula who will disagree with the suggestion that Thailand danced to the U.S.'s tune, with the suggestion of vassalage or client-state status.  Particularly in its (Thailand's) own backyard.  The royalists -- and this doesn't mean the monarchy, it means the conservative military and -adjacent parties, including the Democrats -- played their own "Great Game" and have pivoted and played various sides off against each other since the Colonial Era - and are the only ones to survive in the region.  Now we are seeing exactly the same thing play out - but this time a flip of sorts back to China, led by the military junta which one might otherwise expect to be fist-and-glove (as it were) with the U.S.

Thailand profited immensely by the Western boycott of Myanmar, and chaos and lack of development in Cambodia and Laos served Thailand's interests as well.  Horrible as that may be.

And lets not forget that model of Angkor Wat in the Grand Palace.  Says something ........

(By the way, her name is Wasana Wongsurawat)

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, DivineMadman said:

 

And lets not forget that model of Angkor Wat in the Grand Palace.  Says something ........

 

.....and  Preah Vihear   miniature in Ancient Siam / Muang Boran / on the outskirts of Bangkok.

Still it's one thing to have territorial claims and another to subscribe to a notion  that defeated , clearly genocidal regime is legitimate government . 

But what do I know? Lao guys are the best , that's for sure. 

 

[PeterRS]

13 hours ago, reader said:

Pete, you'll never get over your hard on for anything American

Funny response when everything I wrote is true. As for covid19, I see on the internet that as of a few days ago vietnam had 268 cases of which 202 have recovered and no deaths. Figures for the USA - 764,177, 70,172 and 49,591. Not true? Incidentally didnt the US troops stay well away from Europe in World war 2 only until Germany declared war on it?  

The detail of international relations are often unfathonable. We only see the results.

[Guest]

Vietnam does deserve great credit for kicking the Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia.

Europe is making a huge mistake in relying on the US for defence.  The US stayed out of direct involvement in WW2 until Pearl Harbour and there's no guarantee they will participate when needed in future.   Future threats are guaranteed, the only question is when.

However, whilst the US has meddled in SE Asia, the middle East etc, we must remember that:

(i) Plenty of other countries have done this.   Including UK, France, Russia, China

(ii) Many other countries have gone out and built empires during their period of dominance.   From Genghis Kahn to Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, UK, The Ottomans, Russia, Germany and Japan.   The US has resisted this.     Don't count on the next great powers showing such commendable restraint.   China already seems to want every single small island almost down to Singapore.

 

[reader]

11 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Funny response when everything I wrote is true. As for covid19, I see on the internet that as of a few days ago vietnam had 268 cases of which 202 have recovered and no deaths. Figures for the USA - 764,177, 70,172 and 49,591. Not true? Incidentally didnt the US troops stay well away from Europe in World war 2 only until Germany declared war on it?  

The detail of international relations are often unfathonable. We only see the results.

Oh, Pete, you can try to can cherry pick statistics and manipulate facts but you can't hide your intentions. You and others here have used the "per 100,000" or "per million" representations of infections and death rates before because they present a comparable and standardized comparison between countries. And in fact, the UK has twice the death rate per million as the US. I think that's very sad but nonetheless true.

And you conveniently ignore that the US began sending aid to Britain before Pearl Harbor in the form of destroyer naval vessels and aircraft. And you completely forget that American merchant vessels were carrying supplies to the UK before Pearl and the losses they sustained were horrific. And that civilian pilots from the US were flying British fighters alongside your countrymen before Pearl.

5 hours ago, z909 said:

Europe is making a huge mistake in relying on the US for defence.  The US stayed out of direct involvement in WW2 until Pearl Harbour and there's no guarantee they will participate when needed in future.   Future threats are guaranteed, the only question is when.

However, whilst the US has meddled in SE Asia, the middle East etc, we must remember that:

(i) Plenty of other countries have done this.   Including UK, France, Russia, China

(ii) Many other countries have gone out and built empires during their period of dominance.   From Genghis Kahn to Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, UK, The Ottomans, Russia, Germany and Japan.   The US has resisted this.     Don't count on the next great powers showing such commendable restraint.   China already seems to want every single small island almost down to Singapore.

NATO was  designed to provide a shared cost of defending much of Europe and North America with a potent defense against future Russian--or other--intervention. Over time, however, European nations began cutting back on military spending and the burden fell inevitably on the US. We can argue the pros and cons of NATO in the 21st century but unfortunately there no substitute for it ready to roll out. And there are none on the drawing boards. We're all stuck with it. As to whether or not the US will make good on its commitment, I agree there are no iron clad guarantees but you have to admit it has a pretty good track record in such matters. And who else can you turn to except the two powers you mostly distrust (Russia and China)?

And you're right, of course about China eyeing just about every nation south of its borders as potential expansion territory. If the US didn't cooperate with some other SE Asian countries and nations, who can provide a creditable moment of pause?

On the whole, America has been a very good friend to Europe before and after WWII. It didn't forget it's allies--and enemies--in post war Europe. The Marshall Plan provided great aid in helping the region get back on its feet.

Just as others are proud to be citizens of their homeland at this moment in time, I don't shrink away from being proud to be an American. The current administration won't rule forever. I

 

[PeterRS]

Reader, you make very good points. I am not anti American. But America has made more than its fair share of foreign relations mistakes, just as Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Russia, China and other countries have done over the centuries. But you do twist facts. Yes, under the lend lease program America helped the United Kingdom in World War 2 before Germay declared War on it. Yet the same program provided arms and materiel to the USSR.  Roosevelt made it very clear it was in Americas interest to do so. Similarly with the Marshall Plan, a truly visionary program that rebuilt western Europe in record time. Again, though, this was primarily  in the US interests. America was desperate that the advance of the communist Soviet Union stopped at the soon to be East German border. Without the Marshall Plan so ravaged was western Europe that the Soviet Union would quickly have been at the Atlantic shoreline.

Same with Vietnam. The US then was staunchly anti colonial. It continually pressed Britain to decolonize. During World War 2 it had fed money and materiel to Ho Chi Minh and his troops to help them harass the Japanese invaders. Near the end of the war Ho sent several letters to Roosevelt and Truman seeking assurance that its ally, the US, would prevent the French from renewing its repressive colonial regime. The US declined to do so. It turned its back on Vietnam because the French leader de Gaulle had made it perfectly clear that if France could not resume its control of Info China, it would give the Soviets free passage across its country. It turned out that the French were no match for the Vietnamese forces. Their rout at Dien Bien Phu was an ignominious defeat for de Gaulle.

[reader]

I think we agree on more than we disagree on what you say above. Especially agree about DeGaulle and Dien Bien Phu.  But a few clarifying points are in order:

1. Roosevelt truly found himself between a rock and a hard place. He knew he had to make his intentions to help Britain palatable to the majority of Americans who still detested the trench warfare casualties of the first war.

2. Without the USSR, America, the UK and other allies would have suffered much greater losses if America hadn't sent supplies to Russia in its darkest days. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

2. Yes, it was good for both Europe and the US that the region not be left in tatters. There's much to be said for enlightened self interest.

Sine we've touched on leadership in one way or another in these posts, I take this opportunity to point to an article in the April 20th issue of The New Yorker. It's about the guy who's the most respected individual in America at this moment. Dr. Tony Fauci is the subject of a profile piece that chronicles not only his steady and forthright leadership in the cause of defeating Covid19, but also sheds light on his pioneering work to help save millions from the scourge of HIV AIDS. He credits Larry Kramer and other activists (once his avowed enemies in the early days of that crisis) for helping enlighten him and change the course of the war on that disease.   If there was ever a guy I think we can all appreciate for his leadership, here is that man:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-anthony-fauci-became-americas-doctor