If the intended August withdrawal date is correct, I believe China has been “testing the waters”, so to speak. It will be assessing the level of international response and opposition to its actions, and will act accordingly. So the time between now and August is most critical.
If the reaction is sufficient, China can then decide to withdraw the oil rig, claiming that it is only doing so according to its own August timetable, not international pressure, and thus “save face”. That is why the current peaceful, diplomatic, but strong protests are so important, and must continue.
We should remember there are precedents for this: In 1979, China invaded in the north of Viet Nam, killing many local people and causing destruction to towns and cities. The Chinese suffered more-than-expected casualties from local Vietnamese militia, and the Viet Nam People's Army mobilized. The Chinese Army returned home, thus avoiding a major conflict with the Viet Nam Army. China could claim they only intended to stay for that short time, to “punish” Viet Nam for helping Cambodians overthrow the genocidal Khmer Rouge, and other things, and then return home according to their own timetable, thus “saving face”.
During its long history of conflicts with numerous foreign invaders, including the Chinese, Vietnamese have shown great skills and shrewdness in diplomacy. They always win in the end, no matter how long it takes, even against much greater forces.
In this present crisis with China, I believe it is vital for Viet Nam to continue its tradition of intelligent diplomacy, and play a very delicate balancing act towards China. Too little protest, and China will continue and expand its present course of action in the East Sea. Too much of the wrong form of protest, China may harden its resolve, become even more intransigent, and not back down.
So, what is the wrong form of protest, in this case?
Earlier acts of violence by certain individuals, against local Chinese businesses in Viet Nam, were obviously wrong and unhelpful. This should not be an issue of conflict between the people of Viet Nam and the people of China. The Viet Nam government authorities acted correctly to stop this behavior, punish those responsible, and even financially compensate affected businesses.
Also, protest that is seen by China as strongly and recklessly “anti-China” is also unhelpful. This will only exacerbate the tense situation, and make it harder to resolve the issue diplomatically, based on “saving face”.
In this context, I believe the role played by the U.S. government is one of the most important and delicate considerations.
China, of course, views the U.S. government’s “pivot to Asia” as part of a larger strategic policy of containment of China. If the U.S. chooses to use the oil rig dispute as a convenient way to demonize and attack China, to further its own perceived national interests, this will be most unhelpful to Viet Nam.
An increased U.S. military presence in the area might seem like a good thing to some people, to counter-balance China, but I would urge extreme caution. An escalating military confrontation by nuclear-armed superpowers may start small, but could end in disaster for everyone.
China, along with a growing number of countries and individuals, must also be very skeptical of any U.S. government role in mediating this conflict. The U.S. government track record in peaceful diplomacy is not an encouraging one, with the options “on the table” almost invariably being only violent ones.
China would reasonably view any active U.S. government intervention in the dispute, especially denouncing “Chinese aggression”, as nothing but hypocrisy, and the advancement of U.S. imperial self-interests. U.S. government official pronouncements and aggressive actions, from Indochina in the past, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, and many others, would only reinforce their antagonism to any U.S. lecturing of China about peace and international law. This is very clear to China, even if many people in the West do not understand it.
If the U.S. government has any role at all in settling this dispute between Viet Nam and China, it should be very measured and low key, expressing only support for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution according to international law, which is exactly what the Viet Nam government is seeking. Personally, I think the less said and done by U.S. government leaders the better. Any military option should definitely be “off the table”.
On the other hand, perhaps there is a useful role for Russia to play in helping to resolve this conflict. Russia and Viet Nam have a long history of mutual friendship and co-operation. It is also in Russia's national interest to have friendly and mutually-beneficial relations with China, and SE Asia generally, as a counter to US sanctions and attacks on Russia.
Russia has also shown recent diplomatic skills in helping prevent a massive US bombing of Syria, and reducing the threat of war against Iran falsely based on its non-existent nuclear weapons programme. In Ukraine, despite massive provocations by the US and NATO on its border, including sponsoring an extremist coup in Kiev to put pro-Western, anti-Russians into power, Russia has so far shown considerable restraint, and a desire for a mutually-beneficial and peaceful resolution.
So, perhaps Russia can use its good relations with both Viet Nam and China to help resolve the current East Sea disputes.
While the Chinese oil rig has been the focus of world attention, it may in part be a distraction from potentially even more troublesome Chinese actions, which could be more problematic, with long-term consequences.
Several months ago, China began shoveling sand and rock onto shoals and reefs in the southerly Spratly archipelago, which is also contested by various countries, to create islands big enough to house buildings and surveillance equipment. This may be part of China’s intention to create ‘facts on the ground’ to consolidate its territorial claims in the whole disputed East Sea (South China Sea).
Some years ago, China and Viet Nam successfully resolved their land border disputes by peaceful negotiations. I understand that they also successfully signed agreements on the disputed East Sea. So such things are possible.
Apparently, they agreed to disagree about sovereignty while still negotiating about that, and sensibly agreed to jointly exploit mineral, oil and gas resources in the area for their mutual benefit.
Also, I understand that both sides agreed not to build permanent structures on the disputed islands while they were still negotiating issues of sovereignty. This was all very sensible and reasonable, and shows the correct way forward.
What happened to those earlier agreements?
Surely, they are still the obvious basis for China and Viet Nam to resolve their current dispute, allowing both sides to “save face”, and sensibly develop a peaceful, prosperous, mutually-beneficial future for the people of both countries, in the spirit of good neighbourliness.
Peaceful resolution of conflict is the only way forward, but it requires patience, persistence and intelligence. We can all hope that the parties to the conflict are up to the task.
Bruce McPhie
Revised July 7, 2014
Hanoi, Viet Nam
For more information on this issue, including a map of the oil rig location:
