Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Demonstrations in Vietnam should be a wake-up call for China

Reading Time: 5 mins
Vietnamese Catholics march to protest against the Special Economic Zone's and cyber security's laws after a Sunday mass at a village in Ha Tinh province, Vietnam, 17 June 2018 (Photo: Reuters/Stringer).

In Brief

Since mid-June 2018, numerous anti-China protests have been reported in Vietnam. Demonstrations of this kind have not been seen since the widespread anti-China protests in Vietnam in 2008 and 2014. Protesters rallied to express opposition to the draft law on special economic zones (SEZs) that was to be brought before the National Assembly for consideration.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Banners held by protestors read things like ‘No leasing land to China even for one day’. Most of the rallies were non-violent, but in Binh Thuan province protestors threw Molotov cocktails and rocks at police. Hanoi asserts that hostile forces incited the demonstrations to destabilise the country.

The draft bill proposes a legal groundwork for establishing three long-planned SEZs. The policy on establishing SEZs has been stipulated in the country’s constitution since 1992. Government leaders in Hanoi describe the bill as a boost for development and as providing Vietnam with ‘room for institutional experiments’. The three SEZs will be granted favourable legal and policy conditions to attract foreign investments. Foreign investors can lease land for up to 99 years.

But the 99-year lease regulation worries many in Vietnam, mostly for national security concerns about the possibility that China’s investment will dominate. Under public pressure, government officials decided to delay a vote on the draft bill until the next session of the National Assembly in October.

SEZs should not be rejected out of hand. Many SEZ models in China, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and Singapore have been successful. They are also not new to Vietnam, but the Cai Bau and Con Dao SEZs in the early 1990s failed, as did the first attempt in Phu Quoc in the mid-1990s and Hai Phong soon after.

Opponents to the draft law argue that the three proposed SEZs would be in areas of strategic importance. Van Don in Quang Ninh province is adjacent to China’s Guangxi province. Bac Van Phong is not far from Cam Ranh Bay, a well-known strategic military port. And Phu Quoc island is only 20 kilometres from the deep-water port that Cambodia leased to China for 99 years in 2016.

Vietnamese concern about Chinese investment sits on firm foundations. Popular anti-China sentiment and distrust of China in Vietnam is based on a collective historical memory of China’s repeated attempts to subjugate Vietnam in the past. Every single Chinese dynasty since Qin Shi Hoang has attempted to invade Vietnam. Memories of Chinese aggression — including in the northern border war in 1979 and the Spratly naval clash (Gac Ma battle) in 1988 — remain fresh in the public’s mind. Informed by this historical memory, anti-China protesters in Vietnam today are concerned that something akin to Russia’s seizure of Crimea could happen between Vietnam and China. According to a 2014 Pew Research survey, only 16 per cent of Vietnamese people hold a favourable view of China.

The nature of Chinese overseas investment is also viewed with caution in Vietnam. There are worries about the so-called ‘Chinese debt trap’, whether China cares about the risk of environmental degradation and the tendency for low-skilled Chinese workers to be brought over to work on projects instead of domestic workers.

China’s foreign policy actions over the last 10 years contrast sharply with its charm offensive of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Most noteworthy was China’s show of goodwill in assisting ASEAN during the Asian financial crisis. But since late 2009, especially under the presidency of Xi Jinping, China’s behaviour has aroused concern.

In the maritime domain, China has been and continues to be defiant to international law and increasingly assertive in the South China Sea — not to mention China’s refusal to accept the ruling on the South China Sea awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal two years ago even though it is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. In addition, China has built seven artificial islands on different features in the Spratly and the Paracel archipelagos over the last several years. More recently, China installed anti-ship cruise and surface-to-air missile systems on three artificial islands in the Spratlys, and landed H-6K nuclear bombers on Woody Island in the Paracels. Admiral Philip Davidson, Commander of the newly renamed Indo-Pacific Command, told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that ‘China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States’.

Problems with China’s overseas investments have spurred anti-China sentiment elsewhere in the region, as shown in several protests in Thailand, the Philippines, and Myanmar in the last few years. The low quality of made-in-China infrastructure projects, concern about China’s extensive use of Chinese labourers in its overseas projects and increasing anxiety over a ‘Chinese debt trap’ continue to be obstacles to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s militarisation in the South China Sea has also undermined strategic trust in the region and raised concerns about participation in China’s ambitious BRI plan.

Anti-China protests in Vietnam should not be perceived solely as a domestic issue, but part of a wider regional political and security dynamic. Hanoi must draw its own lesson from the recent anti-China protests about the importance of clear communication with its public regarding new laws. Its challenge moving forward is to strike a nuanced balance between economic growth and national security considerations. Given the mixed success of its previous SEZ models, Hanoi should proceed with caution.

For its part, China should not arrogantly label the protests in Vietnam as ‘illegal gatherings’ but instead consider them as a wake-up call to the unfriendly, if not wrong-headed, Chinese approach to public diplomacy. Currently it seems that Southeast Asian perceptions of Chinese activities undermine its claim to a peaceful rise.

Tuan Anh Luc is a PhD Candidate in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales, Canberra.

4 responses to “Demonstrations in Vietnam should be a wake-up call for China”

  1. “In the maritime domain, China has been and continues to be defiant to international law and increasingly assertive in the South China Sea — not to mention China’s refusal to accept the ruling on the South China Sea awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal two years ago even though it is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. ”

    It is the Phillipines that is defiant of international law by unilaterally paying for the non United Nation Permanent court of Arbitration to bring up the charges. China has every right not to participate per the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 provisions upon becoming a signatory.

    And Vietnam is no victim. Vietnam is by far the biggest aggressor in the South China Sea

    https://thediplomat.com/2015/06/who-is-the-biggest-aggressor-in-the-south-china-sea/

    As of today Vietnam is still illegally occupying many Chinese islands in the South China Sea, yet Vietnam is crying foul.

    https://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/

  2. 1 I am disappointed whenever Vietnamese scholars claim that Vietnam had sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands since the 17th Century or that ” Every single Chinese dynasty since Qin Shi Hoang (sic) has attempted to invade Vietnam.”

    The problem with these flawed claims is that Vietnam as a sovereign country did NOT exist in the 17th Century or during the Qin Dynasty (221-207 BC).

    History shows that it was only in 1802 that Emperor Gia Long ascended the throne and he wanted to name the unified peninsular “Nam Viet” or Southern Viet. Since Qing China was the suzerainty state over the peninsular, Gia Long had to seek approval from the Qing Emperor to name the peninsular “Nam Viet”.

    This request was not approved due to a clash of similar sounding name with the legendary state of Nam Yue in the South of China. Emperor Gia Long then changed the name to Vietnam.

    2 “anti-China protesters in Vietnam today are concerned that something akin to Russia’s seizure of Crimea could happen between Vietnam and China.”

    This is not true. President Xi already told US Secretary of Defense recently that China is not an expansionist nor will she colonise any country.

    And Russia did not seize Crimea. History shows that Crimea belonged to Russia for hundreds of years and in 1956 Premier Khrushchev “handed” Crimea’s administration to the Ukraine which, at the material time, was also a part of the Soviet Union. When the latter fell in 1990, the Ukraine left and took Crimea with it. Russia did not insist on the return of Crimea and in fact agreed to lease the Sevastopol Port for 40 years for its Black Sea Fleet.

    But after the Neo-Nazi coup in February 2014 the first law passed by the new Govt was to ban the Russian language in Crimea. Disenchanted, Crimea voted in a referendum to be reunited with Russia in March 2014, with a majority of 97per cent.

    3 “The nature of Chinese overseas investment is also viewed with caution in Vietnam.”

    No country is forced to borrow from China. A country has to do its own due diligence whether any project is viable and if it can a afford a grandiose infrastructural project at all.

    4 “In the maritime domain, China has been and continues to be defiant to international law and increasingly assertive in the South China Sea ”

    This is simply not true. History shows that after WW2, Japan returned the Paracel and Spratly Islands to China in accordance with the Potsdam (1945) and Cairo (1943) Declarations signed by the Great Allies: US, UK, China and Russia, and NOT to Vietnam or France.

    Japan pledged to “undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith.”

    On October 25, 1945 General Rikichi Andō, Governor-General of Formosa and Commander-in-Chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed Formosa and the Pescadores over to General Chen Yi to complete the official turnover, at the Taipei City Hall. Gen Chen Yi was escorted by Assistant US Naval Attaché George Kerr, under Gen MacArthur’s General Order.

    Since the Paracel and Spratly Islands, which were renamed by Japan as ‘Shinnan Gunto’, were then administered by Formosa, they were also deemed returned to China on October 25, 1945.

    On 4 Sept 1958 China declared a 12nm territorial water on her coastlines and her islands in the SCS. The US, UK, Japan, France, Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines, to name a few, did not object over China’s sovereignty claims over the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

    There was no disputes then.

    But when ECAFE discovered oil in the South China Sea in the late 1960s it was akin to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Vietnam illegally grabbed 29 features (41 now) in the Spratlys, Malaysia allegedly grabbed 7, Brunei one and President Marcos grabbed 8 features on 11 June 1978, using a presidential decree 1596, which was also illegal.

    Despite the above annexation of China’s territories, China enunciated a policy to “Set Aside” the disputes in the SCS and share its resources a long time ago and recently the 4 Asean claimants, are reported to be talking to China.

    Today Malaysia’s Petronas is the biggest oil producer in the SCS, Vietnam and Brunei came close to second and third but China has yet to produce a single drop of oil in the SCS.

    5 “not to mention China’s refusal to accept the ruling on the South China Sea awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal two years ago..”

    China already made a declaration in 2006 under Article 298 (1)(a) that she would take part in any arbitration involving historical titles or maritime boundaries because Unclos has no power to decide on sovereignty matters. And now President Duterte is savvy enough to know that the ruling was worthless and he has set it aside and will work with China. So stop bringing this ruling up.

    6 “Anti-China protests in Vietnam should not be perceived solely as a domestic issue, but part of a wider regional political and security dynamic.”

    China is Vietnam’s largest market with a total trade of US$100 billion. This is put at risk when scholars and politicians recklessly create a rift in the Vietnam-China relations.

    • 1 In Item 5 above the text should read as follows:

      “China already made a declaration in 2006 under Article 298 (1)(a) that she would NOT take part in any arbitration involving historical titles or maritime boundaries because Unclos has no power to decide on sovereignty matters. And now President Duterte is savvy enough to know that the ruling was worthless and he has set it aside and will work with China. So stop bringing this ruling up.”

      2 “anti-China protesters in Vietnam today are concerned that something akin to Russia’s seizure of Crimea could happen between Vietnam and China.”

      Declassified records from the US State department shows that:

      Quote, “Following the surrender of the Japanese in September 1945, France pushed for the
      nullification of the 1938 Franco-Siamese Treaty and attempted to reassert itself in the
      region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated dissident Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group had been in control of the countryside since the French gave way in March 1945.

      Privately, President Roosevelt and General Joseph Stilwell (American military adviser
      to chairman of the Nationalist Chinese Government and generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek
      during World War II) made it adamantly clear that the French were not to reacquire French
      Indochina after the war was over. President Roosevelt offered Chiang Kai-shek the entire
      Indochina to be put under Chinese rule, but publicly Chiang Kai-shek declined.

      After the war, 200,000 Chinese troops under General Lu Han were sent by Chiang Kai-shek
      to occupy northern Indochina north of the 16th parallel to accept the surrender of
      Japanese forces, and remained there until 1946.” Unquote.

      The US State Department records clearly shows that China under Chiang Kai-shek could have taken over Vietnam after WW2 when President Roosevelt offer him the entire Indochina to be put under Chinese rule but he declined because China does not colonise any nation.

      President Xi also told US Secretary of Defense recently that China is not an expansionist nor will she colonise any country.

      So please don’t spread the rumour that China wants to take over Vietnam. This is simply not true.

      • It’s funny to read Chinese argument. One thing is clear. Since the Qin conquered its neighbors none of them existed today. Unlike Caesar’s Roma empire. Europe is still the Europe of today. But what’s about the largest chunk in Asia? It’s called “Quina” or China. All neighbors were eradicated. No Tibet, “Inner Mongolia” is Quina’s land. What Quina gets it never spits it out.
        That’s the most peaceful “nation” in the world which builds on the lands and bodies of its neighbor.
        And Vietnam? Vietnam is a renegade Quina’s little brother. Also as belligerent, as aggressive as Quina. Maybe it’s Quina’s tactics to use its little brother “Nan Yüe” to divert its the domestication of the south sea as its land-locked lake in the south…

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.