Vietnam as a Middle Power

1 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

Vietnam as a Middle Power in Southeast Asia

Abstract This paper will investigate the possibility of Vietnam becoming one of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders. It will attempt to define what constitutes a dominant power, what are the most common characteristics. It will draw on the theories of hegemonies and regionalism. This paper will try to examine the way Vietnam exercises its power and influence, how it tries to gain it through hard, soft and smart power. To do that, Vietnam’s unique position as a communist republic with successful economic transformation will be briefly analysed, as well as its’ relations with other countries in the region. Other ASEAN member-countries will also be briefly analyzed to show how the power shift towards Vietnam is not taking place in a vacuum and how it changes the position of previous dominant powers, such as Thailand. Vietnam’s role and engagement in ASEAN itself would also have to be examined to show leadership capabilities and see how far Vietnamese influence stretches, how active Vietnam truly is in the regional arena.

Introduction Vietnam has for years been the leader of Indochina and in the recent years has also shown ambitions to become one of the leaders of Southeast Asia as a whole. Hanoi believes Vietnam should be considered one of the dominant powers within the region and within ASEAN. This should stem from both current strength and future potential that this country exhibits. It is the 14th most populous country in the world, with a very young population and dynamically growing economy. Hanoi believes that Vietnamese foreign policy should reflect that as well as the place it has envisioned for itself in the world. Vietnam in the 21st century has been shaping itself into a leader of Southeast Asia. Within Southeast Asia, Vietnam is in a unique geopolitical and geostrategic position: it can influence both the continental and the maritime sub-regions of Southeast Asia. The continental sub-region has been dominated by Vietnam militarily since the unification in 1975. At the time Lee Kwan Yew said “there is no combination of forces in Southeast Asia that can stop Vietnamese on mainland Asia.” While the military power of ASEAN countries is more balanced

2 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

nowadays, the sentiment remains: Vietnam is still perceived as a military power within the region, even as it attempts to become a key political player as well. It is a crucial part of doi moi reforms, that have started back in 1988 as foreign policy plays a key role in the renewal of Vietnam. Joern Dosch opinionated that the success of the reforms is contingent on Vietnam establishing itself as a middle power in Southeast Asia.1 While access to the internal debates on foreign policy in Vietnam has been sorely limited, it is clear that both the reformists and the conservatives stride to establish Vietnam as a middle power, even if they differ in their preferred tools. Methodology This paper will utilize Organski's theory of world order to prove, that Vietnam should be considered a middle power. It will be supported by similar ideas presented by Edward Jordaan, who coined a definition of middle power and William Tow. This paper will also present data concerning Vietnam's economic, military and social development to compare to the requirements of Organski's theory and supplements added by both Tow and Jordaans. Finally ASEAN will be used as an example of coalition building and promoting cohesion and unity within the region through use of hierarchical structures and elements of theories of regional integration as represented by Karl Deutsch, Timo Kivimaki or John Ikenberry. In his works Organski built a pyramid structure which was supposed to order hierarchically each level of power domination.2 At the very top was the dominant power or the hegemon, followed by great powers and middle powers. The middle powers were countries, which attempted to emulate the dominant power, but only within certain borders. All the other countries were small powers. The dominant power was to, according to Organski, control resources like populations, territory, have military and economic power as well as technological capacity and political stability. All of those tools would be needed to gain dominance over the globe, or in case of a middle power, over a region. Hanoi is trying to establish Vietnam, a country with a great economic and military potential, as one of the dominant powers in the region, which would make it a middle power within the definitions set forth by Organski. The very first definition of a middle power was introduced by the archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Botero back in late 16th century. In his writings he described the ‘middle power’ as follows: a medium [state] is that which has force and authority sufficient to sustain itself without the need of the help of another. He linked, as Holbraad3 noted, power directly with international security.

3 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

According to Jordaan middle powers, such as Vietnam, could be described as “states that are neither great nor small in terms of international power, capacity, influence and demonstrate a propensity to promote cohesion and stability in the world system.”4 That propensity has also been noted by William Tow, who put a greater weight on the sufficient control of resources for the state to effectively exercise power. Ralf Emmers additionally noted that there are different types of power in international relations, as well as different styles of exercising that power: it can be benevolent using leadership, accommodation and shared ideology or coercive, imposing will using military power.5 Vietnam, although it has been investing considerably into armament falls into the benevolent middle power category, primarily uses means other than coercion to archive its goals, particularly in Southeast Asia. Applying theory In Vietnamese policy towards Southeast Asia, Pham Quang Minh identified four points that stand as most important: independent, multilateral foreign policy, importance of broadening friendly relations in Asia-Pacific, readiness to participate in bilateral and multilateral dialogue and support for peaceful conflict resolution.6 Vietnam has been very consequent inflowing those points, especially evident in the relations with ASEAN in the 21st century. However Hanoi had always been quite strict in adhering to the principles of ASEAN, even just after joining in 1995. The amount of conflicts and battle deaths dropped to 0 after Vietnam joined the organization as opposed to the period between unification and joining, when there were 54 deaths and 1 conflict a year. There is also no intra-regional war despite the territorial conflicts between members. It should also be noted that Vietnam has taken a very active role in trying to find a solution for those, especially for the South China Sea conflicts. While Vietnam’s territorial conflicts with other members of ASEAN have been solved or suspended, the fact remains that the country’s military expenditure is growing. While it should be noted that the 2,8 billion USD spent in 2012 is nowhere near the expenditure of countries such as Singapore or Indonesia, which spent 9,9 and 7 billion respectively, the amount spent in 2012 war around 2,4% of GDP that year. This figure alone shows the seriousness with which Hanoi takes the need to modernize its armed forces. For the aforementioned Indonesia military budget was only 0,8% of GDP, while Singapore spent 3,6% GDP. Vietnam is therefore clearly working on strengthening the economic position in the region and in the world, not only to solve

4 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

domestic problems, but also to build the economic capacity for the engagement in the region necessary for Vietnam to both feel secure in its own back yard and to be able to project itself properly as a middle power. Vietnam also places 23rd in the Global Firepower ranking with only Indonesia ranked higher as 19th out of the countries in the region.7 This is the legacy of the Vietnam War and the unification in 1975. The opinion of Lee Kwan Yew was shared by many in the late seventies and the lost war with Chinese in 1979 did not change the perception of Vietnam as a state, which draws its power and influence from the military. Vietnam has since embarked on a path to modernization of the armed forces, mostly due to the perceived threat by the Chinese in the South China Sea. They have purchased submarines from Netherlands, vehicles from United States and are in the final stages of buying the BrahMos missile system, one of the most advanced in the world, which has been developed by India and Russia. The perceived lack of security and ambitions to become a regional power force Vietnam to build up the capabilities, or as Riddell would say, material resources. Vietnam is also, as it has been already mentioned, a country with unique geostrategic position in the sense that it dominates geographically and demographically over most of the region. Vietnam remains the third most populous country in the region with almost 100 million citizens and is is the third biggest country with over 330 thousand km2. Only Indonesia is both bigger in terms of territory and population, while Philippines and Thailand have each greater population and territory respectively. Vietnam also has the makings of a maritime power, a country that could stride the divide between continental Southeast Asia and maritime Southeast Asia, as it has the longest coastline out of the non-archipelago ASEAN members. These factors, coupled with Vietnamese military capacity, make Vietnam the very embodiment of Organski’s definition of a middle power, although it should be considered that Indonesia has very similar traits. The theory does not however limit the number of middle powers in a region: both Indonesia and Vietnam fulfill the conditions of the definition. Integral is also the economic capacity. Vietnam has been named as the new Asian tiger, following reforms that remade Vietnamese economy in a very spectacular way: from a country that had to import rice in 1990, Vietnam became one of the biggest exporters of foodstuffs such as rice or fish in the world. Avoiding the Asian crisis in 1997 allowed the country to continue with economic growth of 7% GDP per year for almost 20 years. Even in the past decade the GDP of Vietnam grew by 50% between years 2006 and 2011.8 Such growth within the region can be only paralleled with the growth of Indonesia. Again, this shows how Vietnam has all the potential to grow into a middle power, able to utilize also economic tools in its foreign policy.

5 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

The method most often utilized by middle powers is coalition building with like-minded countries. Vo Van Kiet-wa said that Vietnamese were “living in a region surrounded by tigers and a dragon; the continued backwardness of the country is the biggest security threat to the nation.” Here ASEAN is the key: it gave Vietnam a new identity after the end of communist bloc and became the main mean for Vietnam to exercise its foreign policy. As the countries in the region have several common goals, Vietnam believes ASEAN could be the means by which a common strategy could be utilized. For the effective use of ASEAN as a coalition ,Vietnam however needed to ascend to its coveted role as of a regional power. Vietnam therefore embarked on a road towards a balanced, multidirectional policy making in foreign affairs. ASEAN became of the most important parts of that policy, starting with sponsoring both Laos and Cambodia as future members of the organization, mere two years after Vietnam itself joined. Karl Deutsch believed, that for regionalism to truly succeed a regional hegemon is needed.9 It would therefore mean, that a Vietnam with a middle power status would be an asset for ASEAN and it's initiatives, not a threat. Vietnam, once the organisations’ most immediate enemy, is also paradoxically a very suitable candidate for its’ leader: the ASEAN Way remains a primary concern for Hanoi. Similarly important is the independence from outside influences, which also troubles most of the region. Regionalism is part of Vietnamese identity and it is embodied by ASEAN in the region, with which Vietnam shares a lot of values and outlooks. ASEAN is the perfect tool for further regional integration as well as the perfect platform for Vietnam to become the leader and cement its position as the dominant power in the region. With Vietnam and ASEAN Wright’s justification of power can be observed: there is a drive in Hanoi to turn brute coercion into legitimate authority, as force by itself is unreliable. Evelyn Goh mentioned that institutions such as ASEAN have a role of managing power disparity in international system: 10 it allows for the more powerful to be constrained in a constructive way. The middle power can still play a very active role, but it remains within the greater framework of regionalism. Especially as ASEAN represents the model of regionalism that is more comfortable for the Southeast Asian countries, it allows for soft balancing at the same time as it is an instrument of common policies and a platform for negotiations. Vietnam’s and ASEAN’s relationship is largely symbiotic, the main goals of both are virtually the same: economic development and regional peace and stability. Developmentalism, which

6 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

creates a positive interdependence between countries and which in time became the main philosophy of ASEAN 11 is also important to Vietnam, as it evolves and pursues economic development. ASEAN, for all its merits, is its own worst enemy. The ASEAN Way is both a unique achievement and a hindrance, which was illustrated at the Phnom Penh summit in 2012 when the members of ASEAN failed to produce a joint communique at the end of the ministerial meeting for the first time in history. The national interests divided the members of organization, which without a stronger structure simply failed to deliver. Although generally peer pressure as a tool is very effective in ASEAN, in this particular case, as in the case of South China Sea it failed. Vietnam, trying to strengthen its position and keep a constructive approach towards South China Sea: Hanoi worked over the issue closely with Malaysia to bring the issue over to the United Nations.12 Vietnam also cooperates closely with Philippines over the same issue. Conclusions ASEAN is crucial for Vietnam as a middle power: it is the most important tool of persuasion, peer pressure and cooperation available in the region. As a middle power Vietnam has and will encounter distrust, especially as a communist country. ASEAN allows Vietnam to put those concerns to rest as it loyally follows the ASEAN Way. On the other hand, Vietnam as a dominant power in the region could help ASEAN overcome the inertia that has been present in the organization four or five years. To be a truly effective middle power Vietnam must take great care of the relations with its neighbours, which is not an easy task. While Laos has for years followed Vietnamese footsteps in foreign policy, Cambodia long thought to be under Hanoi’s influence resents it. In the meantime Vietnam has been crucial in constructive engagement of Myanmar. As an authoritarian regime Hanoi can find common ground with Naypyidaw than the ASEAN democracies. Vietnam has also closely cooperated with both Philippines and Malaysia on the issue of South China Sea conflict, which shows again Vietnamese willingness to engage its regional partners. The key relationship for Vietnam is with Thailand, which back in the early 90ties opposed Vietnamese accession into ASEAN. Since then the two countries have settled their border disputes and began a closer cooperation on issues such as drugs or international crime. Vietnam over the last decade has truly begun to integrate itself with the region: became very supportive of the idea of ASEAN community and tries to overcome the hurdles of implementing

7 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. Vietnam is already the leader of the ‘new’ ASEAN members13: it is in a position where it can advise Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia on matters of economic development and reform from a state controlled into private controlled industry. According to Ikenberry Vietnam is working towards greater strategic interdependence, as it would benefit not only the country but also the whole region, both politically and economically. 14 That interdependence would strengthen the region and allow Vietnam to more effectively influence regional politics; hence further engagement with ASEAN and its individual members. While Hanoi has been previously accused of having a ‘quick fix’ approach to problems with the region, the overall approach to ASEAN and to the matter of South China Sea shows Vietnam as committed to realizing its national and regional interests over a long period of time15. The middle power status is something that Vietnam strives to achieve. The current importance of the country within the region, within ASEAN and the future potential all show, that in compliance with Organski’s theory proves that Vietnam should be considered a middle power with all the ramifications. It is a country that commands considerable resources in the region, in terms of territory, population and economic capacity and has the necessary military force and the

will

to

be

actively

engaged

in

the

region.

Joern Dosch 2006„Vietnam’s ASEAN Membership Revisited: golden opportunity or golden cage?” Contemporary Southeast Asia vol. 28 no. 2 1

A.F.K. Organski 1958 “World Politics” Stanford

2

Carsten Holbraad “Middle Powers in International politics” New York 1984 p. 12

3

Joon-Woo Park, Gi-Wook Shin, Donald W. Keyser 2013 “Asia’s Middle Powers? The identity and regional policy

4

of South Korea and Vietnam” Stanford Ralf Emmers 2005 “Regional hegemonies and the exercise of power in Southeast Asia” Asian Survey vol. 45 no. 4

5

Joon-Woo Park, Gi-Wook Shin, Donald W. Keyser 2013 “Asia’s Middle Powers? The identity and regional policy

6

of South Korea and Vietnam” Stanford http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

7

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ for the 28th April 2014

8

G. John Ikenberry, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama 2002 “Between balance of power and community: the future of multlilateral

9

security co-operation in the Asia-Pacific” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 2

8 Barbara Kratiuk – Vietnam as a dominant Power in Southeast Asia

Evelyn Goh 2012 “Institutions and the great power bargain in East Asia: ASEAN’s limited ‘brokerage’ role” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 11 10

Timo Kivimaki 2011 “East Asian relative peace and the ASEAN Way” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 11 11

Ramses Amer “Conflict management and constructive engagement in ASEAN’s expansion” Third World Quarterly vol. 20 no. 5 12

Amitav Acharya, See Seng Tan 2006 “Between balance and community: America, ASEAN and the security of

13

Southeast Asia” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 6 G. John Ikenberry, Jitsuo Tsuchiyama 2002 “Between balance of power and community: the future of multlilateral

14

security co-operation in the Asia-Pacific” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 2 Stephanie Balme, Mark Sidel 2007 “Vietnam’s new order: international perspectives on the state and reform in

15

Vietnam” New York