Сотрудничество Вьетнама в сфере безопасности со странами индо-тихоокеанского региона в контексте конфликта в Южно-Китайском море / Vietnam’s security cooperation with the Indo-Pacific States in the context of the South China Sea conflict
|
Introduction 3
Chapter 1. Case of IR theory in Southeast Asia: genesis and characteristics of Vietnamese approach to the South China Sea issue 12
1.1 Genesis of the approaches towards the theory of International Relations in Southeast Asia 12
1.2 IR theories and foreign policy approaches in Vietnam 27
Chapter 2. The state of relationships between Vietnam, India, and Japan in the context of the South China Sea dispute 44
2.1 Background of the territorial dispute in the South China Sea: interests and interactions of key actors 44
2.2 Specifics of strategic partnership between Vietnam and India 66
2.3 Japanese vector of Vietnamese foreign policy in the context of the South China Sea 73
Conclusion 82
Bibliography 87
ANNEXES 101
Chapter 1. Case of IR theory in Southeast Asia: genesis and characteristics of Vietnamese approach to the South China Sea issue 12
1.1 Genesis of the approaches towards the theory of International Relations in Southeast Asia 12
1.2 IR theories and foreign policy approaches in Vietnam 27
Chapter 2. The state of relationships between Vietnam, India, and Japan in the context of the South China Sea dispute 44
2.1 Background of the territorial dispute in the South China Sea: interests and interactions of key actors 44
2.2 Specifics of strategic partnership between Vietnam and India 66
2.3 Japanese vector of Vietnamese foreign policy in the context of the South China Sea 73
Conclusion 82
Bibliography 87
ANNEXES 101
Today in the context of changing world order the importance of cooperation between the states and even the group of the states cannot be ignored. Through efficient cooperation, the states can realize their own interests on the international arena. Mainly caused by the globalization processes, the states are more interested in diversifying trade between each other and participating in different integration formats.
Looking at the geography of the regions where the cooperation between the states exists, all regions are internally connected. Southeast Asia here is not an exclusion.
At the same time, it has to be admitted that the globalization process failed to totally eradicate tensions between the states because of the national interests being the main imperative for the majority of the states. Moreover, it should be underlined that due to the crisis of existing world order, tensions are even exacerbating. Although the crisis of current architecture of the international relations is provoked by political and ideological division between the great power states, this split significantly influences the rest of the states. To put it simply, the structure of the international relations influences all the elements underpinning it.
The main reason for such impact is rooted in the specifics of interstate relationships. The states are not equal in terms of their military and economic capabilities. That’s why the relationships between the states can be characterized as the relationships of the asymmetry. Those states which are weaker than their opponents have not so many options to choose. They can try to balance between great power states, or they can select the particular side, hoping that its opponent will surrender. Different strategy brings different results, which not always coincide with the states’ expectations.
Another aspect of current crisis of international system is that it severely challenges the existence of different integration formats. The tension between the states forces other states to take a particular side, thus threatening the consistency of that organization which they are members of. Here it should be stated that the weaker the state is, the more the importance of multilateral formats is. The moving of the weak states towards the great power states makes the success of multilateral formats of cooperation to be not so visible. Furthermore, sometimes this division splits the organization itself in case if some problems arise. Especially, it happens when the issue is external, what results in different approaches of the states being the members of one integration union.
The main threat for the organization is posed by the political issues. Because of the different approaches, the states prefer different strategies. Sometimes they choose the strategy and tactics which do not correlate with the current values and approaches of the organization which these states join. In this regard, the South China Sea dispute is not exclusion from this feature.
Precisely, this trend is currently taking place in the Southeast Asia and directly influencing the activity of ASEAN being the main organization across the whole region. However, modern problems of ASEAN are not connected to its internal issues but mostly to external reasons. ASEAN today is considered just as a part of broader region which physically exceeds the geographical borders of the Southeast Asia. This is the Indo-Pacific region, the concept of which was promoted by dialogue partners of ASEAN. For ASEAN, “Indo-Pacific region” concept can be a source of instability because it involves many non-regional actors in discussing the issues of the Southeast Asia. Previously, ASEAN was the only decision-making body for addressing them. In this context, the South China Sea dispute is not an exclusion and discussed not as a part of Southeast Asia issues but as a security threat in the entire Indo-Pacific region.
Today, the South China Sea dispute serves as the example of the conflict which involves the actors with different military and economic capabilities. In other words, this conflict is based on asymmetry of power. Besides it, this despite is known for active engagement of those states even not being regional actors what adds new dimension and level of analysis for understanding the nature of it.
The present paper examines the South China Sea dispute from the point of strategic relationships between Vietnam being among the main claimants in the conflict and non-regional states, such as India and Japan, which have great interests in the region reflected by their active foreign policy. The practical significance of this paper is that through analysis of partnership between Vietnam and mentioned states, it’s possible to define that dynamic and trends which will be dominating in the context of the South China Sea dispute for the upcoming years. Moreover, other states can also use the approach of Vietnam and apply it for the solving own territorial disputes, especially bearing in mind that the tension is taking place within the conditions of asymmetry of power and impacted by the great power states’ competition.
The scientific novelty of this research lies in the new theoretical provisions made by the author. Focus is made on the comparison between western and non-western approaches used for analyzing the conflict dynamic in the South China Sea. Using local Southeast Asian approaches for the studies of the international relations will give more understanding of those processes currently emerging in the region. Especially it can be useful for analyzing protracted conflicts of low intensity, to which the problem of the South China Sea can be attributed to.
...
Looking at the geography of the regions where the cooperation between the states exists, all regions are internally connected. Southeast Asia here is not an exclusion.
At the same time, it has to be admitted that the globalization process failed to totally eradicate tensions between the states because of the national interests being the main imperative for the majority of the states. Moreover, it should be underlined that due to the crisis of existing world order, tensions are even exacerbating. Although the crisis of current architecture of the international relations is provoked by political and ideological division between the great power states, this split significantly influences the rest of the states. To put it simply, the structure of the international relations influences all the elements underpinning it.
The main reason for such impact is rooted in the specifics of interstate relationships. The states are not equal in terms of their military and economic capabilities. That’s why the relationships between the states can be characterized as the relationships of the asymmetry. Those states which are weaker than their opponents have not so many options to choose. They can try to balance between great power states, or they can select the particular side, hoping that its opponent will surrender. Different strategy brings different results, which not always coincide with the states’ expectations.
Another aspect of current crisis of international system is that it severely challenges the existence of different integration formats. The tension between the states forces other states to take a particular side, thus threatening the consistency of that organization which they are members of. Here it should be stated that the weaker the state is, the more the importance of multilateral formats is. The moving of the weak states towards the great power states makes the success of multilateral formats of cooperation to be not so visible. Furthermore, sometimes this division splits the organization itself in case if some problems arise. Especially, it happens when the issue is external, what results in different approaches of the states being the members of one integration union.
The main threat for the organization is posed by the political issues. Because of the different approaches, the states prefer different strategies. Sometimes they choose the strategy and tactics which do not correlate with the current values and approaches of the organization which these states join. In this regard, the South China Sea dispute is not exclusion from this feature.
Precisely, this trend is currently taking place in the Southeast Asia and directly influencing the activity of ASEAN being the main organization across the whole region. However, modern problems of ASEAN are not connected to its internal issues but mostly to external reasons. ASEAN today is considered just as a part of broader region which physically exceeds the geographical borders of the Southeast Asia. This is the Indo-Pacific region, the concept of which was promoted by dialogue partners of ASEAN. For ASEAN, “Indo-Pacific region” concept can be a source of instability because it involves many non-regional actors in discussing the issues of the Southeast Asia. Previously, ASEAN was the only decision-making body for addressing them. In this context, the South China Sea dispute is not an exclusion and discussed not as a part of Southeast Asia issues but as a security threat in the entire Indo-Pacific region.
Today, the South China Sea dispute serves as the example of the conflict which involves the actors with different military and economic capabilities. In other words, this conflict is based on asymmetry of power. Besides it, this despite is known for active engagement of those states even not being regional actors what adds new dimension and level of analysis for understanding the nature of it.
The present paper examines the South China Sea dispute from the point of strategic relationships between Vietnam being among the main claimants in the conflict and non-regional states, such as India and Japan, which have great interests in the region reflected by their active foreign policy. The practical significance of this paper is that through analysis of partnership between Vietnam and mentioned states, it’s possible to define that dynamic and trends which will be dominating in the context of the South China Sea dispute for the upcoming years. Moreover, other states can also use the approach of Vietnam and apply it for the solving own territorial disputes, especially bearing in mind that the tension is taking place within the conditions of asymmetry of power and impacted by the great power states’ competition.
The scientific novelty of this research lies in the new theoretical provisions made by the author. Focus is made on the comparison between western and non-western approaches used for analyzing the conflict dynamic in the South China Sea. Using local Southeast Asian approaches for the studies of the international relations will give more understanding of those processes currently emerging in the region. Especially it can be useful for analyzing protracted conflicts of low intensity, to which the problem of the South China Sea can be attributed to.
...
Summarizing everything from this paper consisting of theoretical and empirical chapters, next things have to be outlined.
First, moving on to the first paragraph, it can be said that today International Relations theory got a wide attention among the Southeast Asian states. Moreover, it’s clearly seen that many Southeast Asian researchers are now trying to elaborate on a new approach to the classical international relations theory based on traditional and cultural specifics of the region itself. The main reason for elaborating new approaches is caused by the failure of dominant western theories of the international relations to give explanation for those trends which are currently taking place in the Southeast Asia and justify the behavior of ASEAN facing current challenges and somehow trying to mitigate them.
Even though, there are still some structural limitations for developing own concepts of the international relations and even new paradigm, such as specifics of educational program, outdated methodology, curriculum, training abroad, and publication, local theorists tried to give new dimension for the international relations. Among them, the papers of M. Leifer and A. Chong can be outlined. The main focus in these papers was made on the specifics of the modernization theory, from which the reasons for establishing of ASEAN were analyzed.
Later, A. Chong elaborated his new vision of those trends which are emerging in the Southeast Asia. Main method was in connecting traditions and modernity to explain regional dynamic in the region. It was pointed out that some concepts which were in precolonial time underpinned the establishment of ASEAN, especially those concepts appeared in the ancient Malay polities. Besides Malayan traditions, some ancient Indonesian specifics can be tracked down in the main values and principles of ASEAN.
However, today main local theoretical approach towards the international relations in the Southeast Asia is based on constructivist paradigm and the works of A. Acharya, K. Mahbubani and others. Special attention should be given to the papers by A. Acharya. Originally dealing with the security community theory, A. Acharya elaborated and proposed own approach towards political dynamism of ASEAN, which was considered in frames of the East Asia being a part of it. Using the concepts of “norm localization” and “norm subsidiarity” with the notion about “Asian values” Acharya proposed the approach “Consociational regional order” (CRO) according to which dynamic in the Southeast Asia should be examined from such elements as cultural diversity, balance of power, institutions, conflict management, cooperation, and identity. Today, this eclectic approach based on different variables let us best explain the processes taking place within ASEAN focusing on the specifics of geographical location of the Southeast Asia region. The principles of non-interference and consensus-building are in the cornerstone of ASEAN.
At the same time, moving on to the second paragraph, it can be stated that the concepts elaborated in ASEAN are recognized not in every state of the region. On the example of those theories which are developing in Vietnam in recent years are shown that on theoretical level Vietnamese concept of international relations contradict with the concept “Consociational regional order” what reflects the political diversity in the region as well as the lack of identity between the states. Mainly caused by historical reasons, in current Vietnamese concepts of the International relations there is consistency between approaches of precolonial times and approaches after Vietnam gained the independence from France. A key aspect of this approach was in pursuing Vietnamese national interests. The main difference between approaches of Vietnamese foreign policy was in the way how to protect its national interests.
Currently, today Vietnamese researchers in their works often resort to using middle power state concept which is believed to best serve Vietnamese national interests. Main idea of the middle power state is that the states which do not have substantial economic and military capabilities in comparison with great power states cannot directly make impact on the architecture of international relations, but having intention to influence can raise its own involvement in global and regional through different formats and participation in discussing of particular issues. Unlike classical approaches towards understanding of this concept, today local Vietnamese theorists propose more comprehensive approach for analyzing Vietnam as a middle power state which is based on 4 elements, such as capability, regional and systemic impacts, behavior and self-identification, and international and regional recognition.
Among them, the main one for understanding the reasons of theoretical division between southeast Asian concept and Vietnamese middle power concept is in the leverage among big power. Vietnam does not implement its foreign policy based on the partnership with one particular state. Especially in the context of the South China Sea issue, Vietnam is interested in involving different states which are even non-regional actors of the region. This Vietnamese behavior partially violates the “ASEAN-centrality” principle. In many cases, this policy is caused by the very ASEAN specifics, including traditional non-interference and consensus-building principles.
Moreover, in the first paragraph of the second chapter, the practical dimension justifies this theoretical division. Using the official documents adopted in frames of the ASEAN and its current actions on regional arena, it was demonstrated that today the organization itself is not capable in dealing with the solving of emerging problems. Here a small inquiry should be made.
...
First, moving on to the first paragraph, it can be said that today International Relations theory got a wide attention among the Southeast Asian states. Moreover, it’s clearly seen that many Southeast Asian researchers are now trying to elaborate on a new approach to the classical international relations theory based on traditional and cultural specifics of the region itself. The main reason for elaborating new approaches is caused by the failure of dominant western theories of the international relations to give explanation for those trends which are currently taking place in the Southeast Asia and justify the behavior of ASEAN facing current challenges and somehow trying to mitigate them.
Even though, there are still some structural limitations for developing own concepts of the international relations and even new paradigm, such as specifics of educational program, outdated methodology, curriculum, training abroad, and publication, local theorists tried to give new dimension for the international relations. Among them, the papers of M. Leifer and A. Chong can be outlined. The main focus in these papers was made on the specifics of the modernization theory, from which the reasons for establishing of ASEAN were analyzed.
Later, A. Chong elaborated his new vision of those trends which are emerging in the Southeast Asia. Main method was in connecting traditions and modernity to explain regional dynamic in the region. It was pointed out that some concepts which were in precolonial time underpinned the establishment of ASEAN, especially those concepts appeared in the ancient Malay polities. Besides Malayan traditions, some ancient Indonesian specifics can be tracked down in the main values and principles of ASEAN.
However, today main local theoretical approach towards the international relations in the Southeast Asia is based on constructivist paradigm and the works of A. Acharya, K. Mahbubani and others. Special attention should be given to the papers by A. Acharya. Originally dealing with the security community theory, A. Acharya elaborated and proposed own approach towards political dynamism of ASEAN, which was considered in frames of the East Asia being a part of it. Using the concepts of “norm localization” and “norm subsidiarity” with the notion about “Asian values” Acharya proposed the approach “Consociational regional order” (CRO) according to which dynamic in the Southeast Asia should be examined from such elements as cultural diversity, balance of power, institutions, conflict management, cooperation, and identity. Today, this eclectic approach based on different variables let us best explain the processes taking place within ASEAN focusing on the specifics of geographical location of the Southeast Asia region. The principles of non-interference and consensus-building are in the cornerstone of ASEAN.
At the same time, moving on to the second paragraph, it can be stated that the concepts elaborated in ASEAN are recognized not in every state of the region. On the example of those theories which are developing in Vietnam in recent years are shown that on theoretical level Vietnamese concept of international relations contradict with the concept “Consociational regional order” what reflects the political diversity in the region as well as the lack of identity between the states. Mainly caused by historical reasons, in current Vietnamese concepts of the International relations there is consistency between approaches of precolonial times and approaches after Vietnam gained the independence from France. A key aspect of this approach was in pursuing Vietnamese national interests. The main difference between approaches of Vietnamese foreign policy was in the way how to protect its national interests.
Currently, today Vietnamese researchers in their works often resort to using middle power state concept which is believed to best serve Vietnamese national interests. Main idea of the middle power state is that the states which do not have substantial economic and military capabilities in comparison with great power states cannot directly make impact on the architecture of international relations, but having intention to influence can raise its own involvement in global and regional through different formats and participation in discussing of particular issues. Unlike classical approaches towards understanding of this concept, today local Vietnamese theorists propose more comprehensive approach for analyzing Vietnam as a middle power state which is based on 4 elements, such as capability, regional and systemic impacts, behavior and self-identification, and international and regional recognition.
Among them, the main one for understanding the reasons of theoretical division between southeast Asian concept and Vietnamese middle power concept is in the leverage among big power. Vietnam does not implement its foreign policy based on the partnership with one particular state. Especially in the context of the South China Sea issue, Vietnam is interested in involving different states which are even non-regional actors of the region. This Vietnamese behavior partially violates the “ASEAN-centrality” principle. In many cases, this policy is caused by the very ASEAN specifics, including traditional non-interference and consensus-building principles.
Moreover, in the first paragraph of the second chapter, the practical dimension justifies this theoretical division. Using the official documents adopted in frames of the ASEAN and its current actions on regional arena, it was demonstrated that today the organization itself is not capable in dealing with the solving of emerging problems. Here a small inquiry should be made.
...
