What's new

US is coaching Vietnam to internationalize South China Sea issue

Ryan

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
1
Country
China
Location
United States
Vietnam cannot come in second in “information warfare” with China

VietNamNet Bridge – “Vietnam needs to re-think its information strategy and modernize it in order to get Vietnam’s views before international opinion,” said Professor Carl Thayer in an interview on VietNamNet’s Tuan Viet Nam (Vietnam Week).




Professor Carl Thayer
In China’s history, Cao Cao, one of the central figures of the Three Kingdoms period, defeated the strong Xi Liang army, by resorting to dividing tricks and releasing ambiguous information to cause disagreements and internal division. Today, this trick seems to be used by Cao Cao’s descendant in the East Sea dispute.



Vietnam Week talked with Prof. Carl Thayer about this story and the future of multilateral approach to this dispute.



Vietnam Week: Are you surprised with the seem-to-be-unusual reactions on the Vietnamese media, as well as Vietnamese researchers? Do you think China’s aggressive moves have urged Vietnam’s public opinion, and partly Vietnamese authorities to jump over the “barriers of sensitivity”? But how should Vietnam do to help the world understand the true nature of the issue and, thus, get increasing support to survive in the “imbalanced fight” with China?



Prof. Carl Thayer: Vietnam’s leadership is in a difficult position because the East Sea is best dealt with through diplomacy.



Vietnamese leaders know that the Chinese Embassy will make strong protests anytime they see any report in the Vietnamese media that is critical of China. But, if the Vietnamese government does not let the media play a greater role in reporting on the East Sea, this will allow rumor and foreign reports to shape Vietnamese public opinion.



There is a sign that more reporting is being done on the East Sea. VietNamNet Bridge ran an interesting series on the May 26th incident, in which the views of scholars and former officials were printed. Major General Le Van Cuong offered some sharp comments for example.



Vietnam needs to re-think its information strategy and modernize it in order to get Vietnam’s views before international opinion. Press conferences by MOFA are not enough. Each ministry concerned should have a webpage that is accessible and contains current information. Visual material including videos need to be distributed in a timely manner. Vietnam also needs to translate material into foreign languages in a timely manner.



PetroVietnam, for example, distributed a Power Point briefing about the incident. This could have been more professionally presented and it should have been translated into English and given wide circulation.



Vietnam has held two international workshops on the East Sea and invited many foreign scholars to present papers along with colleagues from Vietnam. These papers should have been posted on a website for access by the whole world. The proceeding of the first workshop took a year to publish. The proceedings of the second workshop have not yet appeared. Papers by Vietnamese scholars have not been translated into foreign languages such as Chinese and English.



Vietnam cannot afford to come in second in “information warfare.”



After Vietnam first provided details of the March 26th incident, contradictory information appeared. It was said that this was not the first time China has interfered with oil exploration ships. Then, it was said this was the first incident. It is unclear if this meant the first time a cable had been cut. The way this was handled led some observers to speculate why Vietnam chose to publicize this incident but not the others. Vietnam must be more transparent and consistent in releasing information.



Vietnam Week: Remarking the peaceful protest against China in Hanoi and HCM City on June 5, Deputy Defense Minister, General Lieutenant Nguyen Chi Vinh told BBC that “Vietnamese people should believe that the State will have solutions and enough responsibility to keep both territorial sovereignty and friendship with China”. As an expert on the East Sea and Vietnam, what is your opinion?



Prof. Carl Thayer: Maintaining unity at home is vital for Vietnam’s strategy in dealing with China. The Vietnamese government needs to explain its actions and policies to the people. Obviously the government cannot release confidential material related to diplomacy. But the government should outline its general foreign policy strategy and put it before the public. Government officials should address students at their universities and answer their questions.



Vietnam has held internal conferences on the East Sea but little information has been released to a wider circle. These are complex issues and if the government does not explain its policies to the public, it runs the risk that rumor and false information will flow into Vietnam.



At the same time, Vietnam must hold high-level meetings with the Chinese leadership and get an agreement that both sides should refrain from instigating incidents like the Binh Minh 02 incident. Vietnam could quietly step up its maritime cooperation with major powers, like the Japanese Coast Guard and India, to signal to China continued belligerence will only internationalize the East Sea issue.



Vietnam Week: With regard to "false information", did you mean the report by the China Daily June 4, on the bilateral meeting between Vietnamese and Chinese Defense Ministers?



This newspaper wrote: "Vietnamese Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh, said on Friday that disputes with China over the East Sea should be solved without any interference from a third party."



It previously reported that in a meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the 17th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi last fall, former General Secretary Nong Duc Manh had agreed to settle disputes in the East Sea through bilateral approach; and--



Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh had been also misquoted during his visit to China last summer. A Chinese newspaper, perhaps The Global Times, said that General Vinh was happy with the rapid rise of Chinese military strength, instead of what General Vinh said was "defense capacity".



Prof. Carl Thayer: Yes, I was referring indirectly to Chinese news reports. My concern was that these would be picked up by other journalists and scholars and repeated, thus confusing Vietnamese who read reports from overseas.



I was also referring to blogs and internet posting by some overseas Vietnamese who exaggerate and make false claims.



Vietnam Week: It seems that the momentum for a multilateral approach for the settlement of disputes in the East Sea has been worsened since 2010, judging by the standstills of the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC), partly at the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) in Indonesia, as well as the recent Shangri-La Dialogue 2011 in Singapore. Do you think so?




The red spot is the position of the Binh Minh 02 ship when its cable was cut by Chinese ships
Prof. Carl Thayer: There are mixed signals about whether or not progress is being made between ASEAN and China in adopting guidelines to implement the DOC. The main reason is that China wants the matter to be settled bilaterally and only by the countries directly concerned.



When the DOC was adopted in 2002, it made no mention of the Hoang Sa (Paracel) or Truong Sa (Spratly) islands in deference to China. In other words…the scope of the DOC was left vague. China will not permit the Paracel to be included in any new statement on the East Sea as it occupies them and considers the matter closed.



At the same time, Indonesia, as ASEAN Chair, has announced it will approach China about a code of conduct and raise the East Sea issue at the East Asia Summit. ASEAN has the main responsibility for engaging China on the East Sea. This means the Foreign Ministers have the lead.



The ADMM does not have direct responsibility and all it can do is support the on-going diplomatic process. Its joint statement declared: Reaffirm ASEAN Member States’ commitment to fully and effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the East Sea, and to work towards the adoption of a regional Code of Conduct in the East Sea that would further promote peace and stability in the region.



It also reaffirms the importance of regional peace and stability, and freedom of navigation in and over-flight above the East Sea, as provided for by universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).



The Shangri-la Dialogue is merely a discussion forum. However, in the keynote opening speech Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak stated, “I am also optimistic that ASEAN and China will soon be able to agree on a more binding code of conduct to replace the 2002 Declaration on Conduct in the East Sea.”



Vietnam Week: In this case how should Vietnam do to maintain ASEAN solidarity, while China seems to be successful in weakening it with huge ODA pledges and draw back intentions of the powers outside the region into the hot topic of high tensions in the East Sea?



Prof. Carl Thayer: Vietnam has a difficult task to maintain ASEAN solidarity. It has only seven months under the chair of Indonesia to keep up momentum for talks with China. After that--Brunei (2012), Cambodia (2013), Myanmar (2014) and Laos (2015) will chair ASEAN and these countries have no direct interest in the East Sea.



The most important thing Vietnam can do is to keep unity first among the claimant states – the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei – and lobby Indonesia to maintain its leadership on this issue. Vietnam must also consult with the other members of ASEAN and convince them to stand firm. Finally, Vietnam should lobby the major powers to keep the pressure on China to refrain from unilateral action.



Vietnam should look beyond the DOC and a COC towards a joint development and what arrangement would suit its national interests.



In the bilateral talks with the Vietnamese counterpart on the sideline of the Shangri-La Dialogue 2011, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said that the People’s Liberation Army of China stayed out of the Binh Minh 02 incident.



Vietnam Week: How do you imagine what would happen if the Vietnamese guarding vessels for Binh Minh 02 took some counter actions against the Chinese patrol ships that cut the cable? Would it be something similar to the Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964?

Gulf of Tonkin incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prof. Carl Thayer: China has five separate state agencies that deal with maritime affairs in addition to the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Some observers offer the view that the China Maritime Surveillance ships may have acted independently.



Nevertheless, the central government has backed the actions of these ships as “normal” operations. China’s use of non-military ships poses difficulties to states such as Vietnam, which do not have equivalent civilian forces to counter China.



Vietnam should consult experts in international law to see if there are grounds for compensation when damage occurs. Vietnam must be extremely careful to respond in a proportionate manner. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is a lesson for Vietnam.



Vietnam needs to improve its capacity for monitoring its exclusive economic zone. It also needs to develop appropriate civilian maritime capabilities to enforce its sovereignty. This will take some time.



Vietnam could also escort its state-owned oil exploration ships. With better communication and experience, Vietnam could also provide air support when Chinese ships approach Vietnamese exploration vessels. But, the “rules of engagement” will have to be carefully worked out to prevent violence and Chinese retaliation.



Carl Thayer was educated at Brown University in the United States. He holds an M.A. in Southeast Asian Studies from Yale and a PhD in International Relations from The Australian National University (ANU). He studied Vietnamese language at Yale, Cornell and Southern Illinois University.



Before embarking on an academic career, Carl served in Vietnam with the International Voluntary Services (1967-68) and as a volunteer teacher in Botswana with the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. He began his professional career in 1976 as lecturer at the Bendigo Institute of Technology (renamed the Bendigo College of Advanced Education). In 1979, he joined The University of New South Wales and taught first in its Faculty of Military Studies at The Royal Military College-Duntoon (1979-85) and then at University College, ADFA (1986-present). He served as Head of the School of Politics from 1995-97. In 1998, he was promoted to full Professor.



Professor Thayer has spent special study leave at the ANU’s Strategic and Defense Studies Center; Harvard’s Center for International Affairs; International Institute of Strategic Studies in London; Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University in Thailand; Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore; and the Department of Political Science at Yale. In 2005, he was the C. V. Starr Distinguished Visiting Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. During 2006-07, Carl directed the Regional Security Studies module at the Australian Command and Staff College, Weston Creek.



Professor Thayer is the author of over 380 publications, including many research works about Vietnam, Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific.


Interviewer: Huynh Phan


VietNamNet - Vietnam cannot come in second in
 
Yep, that's our general order, so, we Vn can not step back for the disputed island. We're ready to die, .....hix hix :cry:
 
Well, what shall I say? Be prepared for a new wave of propaganda stirred up by the Vietnamese. The major powers, aka the US, will soon come to Vietnam's aid by providing oil exploration rigs. What has not mentioned in public, but certainly behind the closed doors, is that military assistance. No matter how much help from the US, it is a moot point: would the US make Vietnam as a stronger negotiator at the table? or does it only make the US have more bargain chips with the Chinese at the cost of Vietnam? would it be a peaceful solution in the end? or would it turn the Vietnam to a suicidal and abysmal path to a battleground?
 
Well, what shall I say? Be prepared for a new wave of propaganda stirred up by the Vietnamese. The major powers, aka the US, will soon come to Vietnam's aid by providing oil exploration rigs. What has not mentioned in public, but certainly behind the closed doors, is that military assistance. No matter how much help from the US, it is a moot point: would the US make Vietnam as a stronger negotiator at the table? or does it only make the US have more bargain chips with the Chinese at the cost of Vietnam? would it be a peaceful solution in the end? or would it turn the Vietnam to a suicidal and abysmal path to a battleground?

Propaganda! I do think the Chinese would be even more masterful with such arts (including the arts of bullying). In reality there is responsible and sensible people would choose war to settle their disputes. Vietnamese may appear to be quite docile and gentle folks but if "push comes to shove", they would not yield for anything but their total independent and sovereigty though.
 
Propaganda! I do think the Chinese would be even more masterful with such arts (including the arts of bullying). In reality there is responsible and sensible people would choose war to settle their disputes. Vietnamese may appear to be quite docile and gentle folks but if "push comes to shove", they would not yield for anything but their total independent and sovereigty though.

"Bullying" gave your brown nationality away.
 
Propaganda! I do think the Chinese would be even more masterful with such arts (including the arts of bullying). In reality there is responsible and sensible people would choose war to settle their disputes. Vietnamese may appear to be quite docile and gentle folks but if "push comes to shove", they would not yield for anything but their total independent and sovereigty though.

Yes, it is propaganda! even worse, it is brain wash because the Vietnamese government only infuse one side of story into the vietnamese populace. The vietnamese government hides from the Vietnamese why China claims sovereignty over those islands/isles. Conversely, the Chinese government explained to Chinese people why Vietnam claims those islands and why Chinese has more legitimated reasons.

When you say "Vietnamese may appear to be quite docile and gentle folks", the self-alleged impression certainly contradicts with that of the nations around Vietnam. Vietnam has been quite aggressive in the border clashes with Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and etc. Vietnam never forgot throwing its little weight around and have been contentious in indochina peninsula. with meager economic might, it never stops rivaling for the dominance against Thailand.
 
What "belligerence"? That occasionally a CIVILIAN vessel accidentally crosses into Vietnamese waters or makes a close pass with a Vietnamese ship?

Belligerence means war-like behavior.

When has China sent its naval forces into Vietnam in these past few years? When has China set up bases close to or in Vietnamese waters? When has China dispatched ships to the Vietnamese coast? When has China done miltiary exercises within 500 km of Vietnam's capital.

The clear lack of information and up to date news really degrades the article. It's ironic that the professor is talking about the dangers of "rumors" when the whole "belligerent" idea is a rumor altogether.
 
Yes, it is propaganda! even worse, it is brain wash because the Vietnamese government only infuse one side of story into the vietnamese populace. The vietnamese government hides from the Vietnamese why China claims sovereignty over those islands/isles. Conversely, the Chinese government explained to Chinese people why Vietnam claims those islands and why Chinese has more legitimated reasons.

Ryan:

Even though I was born from South Vietnam but raised in the US therefore your "brainwashed" speculation would be considered as "hearsay" at best. As I have pointed out from the other post, China's claim of sovereignty over the Paracel & Spratly's chain of islands would be as... legit as over the entire modern North Vietnam itself within the framework of "Jiaozhi's Prefecture" previously. :cheesy:

When you say "Vietnamese may appear to be quite docile and gentle folks", the self-alleged impression certainly contradicts with that of the nations around Vietnam. Vietnam has been quite aggressive in the border clashes with Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and etc. Vietnam never forgot throwing its little weight around and have been contentious in indochina peninsula. with meager economic might, it never stops rivaling for the dominance against Thailand

Such assertion was actually based on observations and opinions by another Caucasian American writer though (with time I'll provide sufficient reference). Vietnam has not had any border with Thailand yet (perhaps you've mistaken recent skirmishes between the Thai & the Khmer). Regarding other ASEAN's countries such as Brunei, Indonesian, Malaysia... Vietnam doensn't share border with them therefore it's next to impossible for any "clashes" to take place.

Regarding the various claims of sovereignty over Spratly's (including the Taiwanese, the Filipino, Malay, and Brunei as well...), Vietnam would be in no size nor shape to be compared with China.
 
Not US coaching but Australian coaching. The person they interviewed is from Australia.

Personally I would bet that I'm much fairer than you in physiques if you're also an Asian background like me! :D

ao333 is God's white gift to this forum. About as intelligent and insightful as a lukewarm bowl of oatmeal.
 
Ryan:

Even though I was born from South Vietnam but raised in the US therefore your "brainwashed" speculation would be considered as "hearsay" at best. As I have pointed out from the other post, China's claim of sovereignty over the Paracel & Spratly's chain of islands would be as... legit as over the entire modern North Vietnam itself within the framework of "Jiaozhi's Prefecture" previously. :cheesy:



Such assertion was actually based on observations and opinions by another Caucasian American writer though (with time I'll provide sufficient reference). Vietnam has not had any border with Thailand yet (perhaps you've mistaken recent skirmishes between the Thai & the Khmer). Regarding other ASEAN's countries such as Brunei, Indonesian, Malaysia... Vietnam doensn't share border with them therefore it's next to impossible for any "clashes" to take place.

Regarding the various claims of sovereignty over Spratly's (including the Taiwanese, the Filipino, Malay, and Brunei as well...), Vietnam would be in no size nor shape to be compared with China.

The brainwash part was to accuse of the Vietnamese government. That does not prevent you from subscribing to the propaganda and bending over your "patriotism" to your origin. I must admire the strength of the blood bond.

FYI, Vietnam is not such a "docile and gentle" neighbor:
1. A long-standing dispute between Cambodia and Vietnam in the Gulf of Siam concerns mainly the island of Phú Quốc, which is located off the Cambodian coast. Cambodia also claims 48,000 km2 of shelf area.
2. After the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam faced off across the Thai-Cambodian border with frequent Vietnamese incursions and shellings into Thai territory throughout the 1980s in pursuit of Cambodian guerrillas who kept attacking Vietnamese occupation forces.
3. Vietnam has the overlapping territory claims in South China Sea with Philippines. The dispute often got out of hand and turned to be bloody.
4. ......
The rest goes with China, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia and Laos. If you have difficulty finding it, I would help.


China choose not to claim north Vietnam. That shows China honors the treaty she signed and observes the international norms. By all means, the islands/isles occupied by Vietnam should still belong to China.
 
The brainwash part was to accuse of the Vietnamese government. That does not prevent you from subscribing to the propaganda and bending over your "patriotism" to your origin. I must admire the strength of the blood bond.

You do think similar though...especially those are educated under the old Communist school sharing by North Korea, Red China, and of course, the regime of North Vietnam... perhaps with the exception of the Khmer Rouge, who was born as the ... "outstanding one", indeed!

Yes... "Blood is thicker than water" regardless! :agree:
FYI, Vietnam is not such a "docile and gentle" neighbor:
1. A long-standing dispute between Cambodia and Vietnam in the Gulf of Siam concerns mainly the island of Phú Quốc, which is located off the Cambodian coast. Cambodia also claims 48,000 km2 of shelf area.
2. After the 1978 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam faced off across the Thai-Cambodian border with frequent Vietnamese incursions and shellings into Thai territory throughout the 1980s in pursuit of Cambodian guerrillas who kept attacking Vietnamese occupation forces.
3. Vietnam has the overlapping territory claims in South China Sea with Philippines. The dispute often got out of hand and turned to be bloody.
4. ......
The rest goes with China, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia and Laos. If you have difficulty finding it, I would help.

Many thanks for your... IRRELEVANT reference.

1) In reality, there is no current border skirmish between Vietnam & Cambodia ... except for the Thailand & Cambodia (the famous Preah Viheah Temple region).

2) Many thanks for the support of China, the Khmer Rouge was almost successfully exterminate most of her people during the brief period of 1975-1977. What would happen if Vietnam did not intervene into Cambodia? Who would do that (same lesson in Rughanda or Bosnia)? Would the Thai, Chinese, or...?

3) Pls provide reference to substantiate your so-called "bloody disputes" otherwise you're continue to commit hearsay over and over again.

4) Nope, there is no HELP from you yet and I still am awaiting! :disagree:
 
Not US coaching but Australian coaching. The person they interviewed is from Australia.
oops, I should have been more careful. nevertheless, the Australian professor has the similar mindset to the US. Just try to correct but failed to do so. thx for pointing out.
 
oops, I should have been more careful. nevertheless, the Australian professor has the similar mindset to the US. Just try to correct but failed to do so. thx for pointing out.

Well, Australia has always occupied the role of a close client state in geopolitics, first to Britain, then to the US. There runs a not so subtle streak in Australian defence thinking that mirrors the US Asia-pacific strategy. I suspect the author is of that school, and by looking at his bio, he is probably interchangeable for an American defence scholar.


Carl Thayer was educated at Brown University in the United States. He holds an M.A. in Southeast Asian Studies from Yale and a PhD in International Relations from The Australian National University (ANU). He studied Vietnamese language at Yale, Cornell and Southern Illinois University, Thai language at The University of Missouri at Columbia, and Lao language at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

I espcially lol'ed at this part.


Before embarking on an academic career, Carl served in Vietnam with the International Voluntary Services (1967-68)

Meaning he was zapping viet-congs in the 60's and now he's giving them strategic 'advice'.
 
Back
Top Bottom