Vietnam's hedging strategy against China since normalization.

• Author: Hiep, Le Hong
• Position: Essay

Vietnam's relations with China embody a typical pattern of interactions between asymmetrical powers, with the smaller and greater powers pursuing divergent, sometimes conflicting, interests. Each power employs different strategies to handle the relationship, (1) Vis-a-vis China, Vietnam's long-standing objective has been to maintain its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political autonomy against the threat of Chinese expansionism, while taking advantage of cultural and trade opportunities for its own national development made possible by its geographical proximity to China. Since independence, Vietnam has pursued a two-pronged strategy to handle a preponderant China: on the one hand, Vietnam has shown its unwavering determination to thwart Chinese attempts to undermine its political autonomy or territorial integrity. On the other hand, Vietnam has also paid due deference to China as long as its own independence and autonomy were respected.

In short, Vietnam's approach towards China can be characterized as a calibrated mixture of deference and defiance. In recent decades, this approach has been reinforced by two contradictory tendencies that have shaped bilateral relations: ideological affinity and growing economic interdependence have strengthened bilateral relations, yet Vietnam's entrenched awareness of the China "threat"--primarily due to China's increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea--has deepened its suspicion of Beijing's intentions and hence its efforts to counter any undue pressure from China.

Although living next to a powerful China is not a new experience for Vietnam, China's re-emergence as a proto-superpower in recent decades--especially in terms of its military strength and power projection capabilities--has necessarily renewed and intensified Vietnam's China challenge. Furthermore, unlike previous historical periods, bilateral relations after the Cold War have also been increasingly conditioned by the international and regional framework in which the bilateral relationship is situated. In particular this is due to the unprecedented expansion of both countries' foreign relations, their deeper integration into regional and global institutions and arrangements, as well as their gradual embrace of prevalent norms and practices. Against this backdrop, although the dichotomy of deference and defiance still represents the general tendencies in contemporary Vietnam's China policy, Hanoi's attempts to manage bilateral relations and uncertainties associated with the rise of China have been much more sophisticated and nuanced than they may appear. For this reason, an examination of the origins, developments and implications of Vietnam's China policy since normalization--with special reference to Vietnam's economic and political integration into global and regional systems under Doi Moi--is necessary in order to understand the dynamics and evolution of bilateral relations.

This article argues that since normalization Vietnam's China policy has been shaped by a delicate combination of various approaches best described as a multi-tiered, omni-directional hedging strategy. The strategy is composed of four major components: economic pragmatism; direct engagement; hard balancing; and soft balancing. Accordingly, Vietnam has made efforts to promote economic cooperation with China and directly engage it in various bilateral arrangements to boost mutual trust and cooperation. At the same time, it has also pursued a balancing strategy against China, which is composed of a "hard" component, represented by its military modernization programme, and a "soft" one aimed at constraining China's freedom of action and shaping its behaviour through regional multilateral arrangements. The soft balancing component also involves Vietnam's efforts to deepen its ties with foreign powers to counter undue pressure from China. As such, Vietnam's hedging strategy against China is premised upon the economic and diplomatic successes that it has achieved under Doi Moi, without which all components of the strategy would be either irrelevant or unfeasible.

The article is divided into three main sections. The first section provides an overview of Vietnam's hedging strategy. The second analyses the rationale and foundations of the strategy in the Vietnamese context. The third investigates how the strategy has been developed and operationalized by Vietnam since normalization.

Hedging Strategy: The Theoretical Framework

How to manage relations with the Great Powers presents a fundamental and challenging problem for small and medium-sized states as far as their national survival and autonomy are concerned. Mainstream theories of International Relations (IR), especially Realism, suggest principal approaches: balancing against the more powerful or threatening state; bandwagoning with it; or hedging against it.

In terms of balancing, the less powerful state can increase defence spending and modernize its armed forces (internal balancing) to deter the stronger power from pursuing aggressive behaviour. Alternatively, or simultaneously, it can forge an alliance with other countries to counter the stronger power (external balancing). (2) Theorists also differentiate between "hard balancing" and "soft balancing". Hard balancing refers to strategies by smaller states "to build and update their military capabilities, as well as create and maintain formal [and informal] alliances and counter-alliances" to match the capabilities of the stronger power. Meanwhile, soft balancing involves "tacit balancing short of formal alliances", mainly in the form of "limited arms build-up, ad hoc cooperative exercises, or collaboration in regional or international institutions". (3) In this connection, it should be noted that a number of scholars categorize smaller states' efforts to engage the Great Powers in international institutions in order to shape their behaviour and reduce security threats from them as a separate security strategy using the term "engagement" (4) or "enmeshment". (5) However, given the ultimate purpose of these approaches, rather than being classified as separate strategies they should be grouped under the broader strategy of soft balancing as suggested by the above-mentioned definition. (6)

If a small state chooses to bandwagon with a stronger power, it opts not to challenge but to pay deference to the latter and accept an inferior status in the bilateral relationship with the hope of gaining security or economic benefits. Hence, bandwagoning is defined in terms of the smaller state's political and/or military alignment with the greater power to avoid being attacked, (7) or a desire to be "on the winning side" to reap economic gains from its relationship with the stronger power. (8) While the first definition of bandwagoning is straightforward, the second one is more contentious. For example, Denny Roy contends that "the interpretation of bandwagoning as profit-seeking is broad and divorced from security considerations, allowing for bandwagoning to be equated with economic cooperation". (9) However, as the intentions of states can not be easily and clearly be identified, and economic, political and security considerations are normally interrelated drivers of states' foreign policy, it could be argued that even when a smaller state seeks favourable relations with a more powerful one mainly for economic gains, this policy has security implications for the former as well. This is because the promotion of a favourable relationship with the greater power--no matter for what reasons the smaller state may have in mind--will encourage the greater power to view the smaller state as a friendly partner. The favourable bilateral relationship may also generate economic benefits for the stronger power as well, which, as argued by liberal peace theorists, (10) may deter it from taking aggressive action against the smaller one, especially at the additional risk of pushing it into a strategic relationship with rival powers. In other words, as far as bandwagoning is concerned, the policy's intended purposes are not as important as its actual effects. For that reason, it could be argued that the promotion of a favourable relationship with the greater power, even allegedly for economic gains, is still an act of bandwagoning with security implications for the smaller state.

However, pure forms of balancing and bandwagoning are hardly desirable strategies for states, especially under the normal conditions of international relations short of imminent threats or crises. This is because these strategies tend to limit a state's choices and freedom of action. Therefore, theorists have proposed another major strategy called "hedging", which has been defined in various ways by IR scholars. (11) In essence, hedging is a strategy to enable states to deal with uncertainties in their partners' future behaviour by relying on a basket of policy tools that, while helping to promote bilateral cooperation, also entails competitive elements aimed at preparing themselves against potential security threats posed by their partners. The policy tools available in this basket are virtually the same for every state and situated anywhere along a continuum extending from pure bandwagoning to pure balancing. According to Kuik Cheng-Chwee, for example, these tools include limited bandwagoning, binding engagement, economic pragmatism, dominance denial and indirect balancing. (12) However, the adoption of specific tools--as well as the significance of each selected tool --depends on a state's security perception of the partner to which the strategy is to be applied. The diversity and convertibility of the tools therefore enable states to easily move back and forth along the bandwagoning-balancing continuum, depending on developments in bilateral relations and changes in the international environment. In extreme cases, a state may even quickly switch to pure balancing...