VIETNAM’S SMART POWER PROJECTION
Vietnam has proven in the course of history its military might, no matter how small. Yet, it is able to maintain thriving diplomatic and economic relations with countries which it was at war with in the past. Relying on their own efforts, the Vietnamese showed that it is possible to drive out global superpowers like the Mongols in 1288, the French in 1954, the United States in 1975 and the Chinese in 1979 if their sovereignty and national interest are at risk.
Despite the conflicts in the past, Vietnam is a trusted trading partner of two of the world’s economic giants, China and the US. In fact, Vietnam PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc recently visited US President Donald Trump with multi-billion-dollar trade and defense deals as part of their defense capability build-up. Whereas, China remains to be Vietnam’s largest trade partner in support services like consumer goods, rice importations, electronics, telecommunications and others.
The key to Vietnam’s offensive diplomacy is founded on its multilateral foreign policy. The Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee re-affirms its “partners and targets” (đối tác và đối tượng) principle (Truong-Minh Vu, 2015) where those obstructing Vietnam’s development are classified as targets and those supporting it are partners. From this the Philippines can possibly learn a thing or two.
There is wisdom in maintaining an astute mix of military strength and diplomatic skills. Just like the Vietnamese, they have managed to resist with force Chinese incursions in their claimed territories in South China Sea while still being effective in luring Chinese investors to Vietnam. Following their principle of “partners and targets,” China can be considered as half partner and half target.
Therefore, Philippines must invest wisely in strengthening its military force in land, sea and air. This would include improving its facilities and arsenal while conscripting abled volunteers and expanding civilian participation for national defense at the same time. Vietnam really devoted some of its scarce resources to materials acquisition in recent years enabling it to stage a credible maritime and air defense. Today, Vietnam is the 8th largest arms importer in the world. In contrast, the Philippines settles with hand-me-down retrofitted worn-out warships from its strongest military ally, the US. The military’s modernization program is far from its ideal although the current administration under the leadership of Duterte is attempting to reverse this, albeit, re-directing it towards counter insurgency functions.
Meanwhile, balancing relations among powers represents the other half of the formula for national defense which Philippines can learn from Vietnam. Maintaining a single ally proved to be a disadvantage in the light of the shifting power landscape in Asia. Philippines, like Vietnam, must ensure that alternatives are available when some of its long-standing strategic partners are not reliable. Philippines must pursue a diverse pool of partners outside the traditional defense and political allies. It must attract long-term trade engagements with key powers like Russia, India, South Korea, and Japan other than China and the US.
By enhancing trade relations, we are able to soften the fringes of hostilities further preventing its escalation and at times even forces parties to resort to diplomatic strategies. This is reminiscent of the smart power projection strategy, an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand one's influence and establish legitimacy of one's action. “It involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy – essentially the engagement of both military force and all forms of diplomacy,” according to Chester A. Crocker (2007).
Vietnam, with its vast experiences of standing for its people and sovereignty, believes that dodging conflict is not a reasonable approach. They have shown that a combination of competition, with hints of confrontation and sustained political engagement is the key to keeping their territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
This, I think, is the national defense plan of the Duterte administration. Despite the victory obtained by the Aquino government over the West Philippine Sea dispute with China in 2016, securing a favorable decision from the International Arbitral Tribunal, Duterte opted to dialogue with China in the hope of lessening the friction and negotiate the terms to secure our interests from the inside of this Philippines-China relationship while recognizing that the Philippines, unlike Vietnam, cannot put up a diplomatic offensive, sans, military strength.
Hopefully, President Duterte can masterfully craft a sound independent foreign policy while building a strong Philippine military to at least gain some credibility in our capacity to defend Philippine sovereignty.
(Photo: DNA India)
References:
Crocker, Chester A,; Hampson, Fen Osler; Aall, Pamela R. (2007). Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World. US Institute of Peace Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-929223-97-8.
Euan Graham. (2016). What Philippines and Australia can learn from Vietnam in living with China. The Interpreter. Lowyinstitute.org
