Follow us on social

google cta
Harris-scaled

Why Vietnam shuns the idea of being a pawn in great power competition

In her trip today, Vice President Kamala Harris again raised the specter of China 'bullying' and hopes for a strategic relationship.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

It is clear from Vice President Kamala Harris’s trip to Vietnam today and to the region that the United States is trying to shore up its allies in its great power challenge to China. The question is whether these allies are willing to play along.

Armed with vaccines and a desire to upgrade the two countries’ relationship to a “strategic partnership,” the vice president was precluded earlier on Tuesday by a Chinese envoy who was also bearing vaccines. The competition over Vietnam is on. Harris, following up on a speech she made in Singapore earlier in the week, made it clear in remarks to officials in Hanoi that China and security was front and center on the administration’s minds:

“We need to find ways to pressure and raise the pressure, frankly, on Beijing to abide by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to challenge its bullying and excessive maritime claims,” said Harris.

But like other countries in the region, Vietnam is struggling to find a balance between its interests in improving the Washington-Hanoi relationship and its own path to security and prosperity among its neighbors, and in particular, with China.

Improved ties between the United States and Vietnam did not happen overnight. But despite only normalizing relations in 1995, the countries have found much common ground. While Vietnam is likely to continue to be a crucial partner as Washington focuses greater attention on the region, it will not abandon its core foreign policy values of independence and self-reliance. U.S. military cooperation with Vietnam will have inherent limitations. The Vietnamese have no desire to rely on the United States or any other country to provide for their own security. The United States will have to continue to put diplomacy and economic ties at the forefront of its relationship with Hanoi.

Few Americans have any familiarity with Vietnamese history before or after America’s ill-fated war there. The conflict with the United States is not absent from Vietnam’s memory, but the country has endured centuries of intervention and subjugation at the hands of regional and global powers. Various Chinese dynasties, dating as far back as the Western Han dynasty in the second century BC, sought to control the people of Vietnam for centuries with varying levels of success. France consolidated its control over Indochina in the late 19th century before the Japanese Empire arrived in 1940. French colonial rule returned after World War II only to come to a violent end in 1954, setting the stage for an ever-growing American presence. The Paris Peace Accords marked the ostensible end of America’s war in 1973, and South Vietnam fell two years later. The Vietnamese had little time to rest. China invaded from the north in 1979 in response to Vietnamese actions against the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which was then backed by Beijing. Vietnam withstood this incursion as well. The Khmer Rouge was removed from power, and China eventually withdrew its troops from Vietnam.

Vietnam’s long history with hegemons forged an iron identity that continues to play a central role in its foreign policy. Vietnam shuns the idea of becoming a pawn caught up in great power competition. Its defense strategy begins with its longstanding “three nos” policy: Vietnam will accept no military alliance, no foreign bases on its territory, and will not siding with a second country against a third. Vietnam will not sacrifice its independence or sovereignty for a closer relationship with the United States or China.

A pessimist might view these limitations as a hindrance to deeper US-Vietnam relations, or an obstacle to be overcome. This misses the point. Vietnam’s consistent, pragmatic approach to foreign policy is a virtue unto itself. Using military cooperation as a substitute for diplomacy in some Southeast Asian countries has led to tenuous situations with partners like the Philippines or Thailand. By contrast, Vietnam’s policy of self-reliance and its rejection of hegemonic influence makes it a stable partner for years to come.

Vietnam has grown to become one of the United States’ ten largest trading partners despite the fact that the two countries only agreed to a bilateral trade deal in 2001. That relationship could continue to grow if additional companies choose to move operations out of China. About 24,000 Vietnamese students were studying in the United States in 2019-20, the sixth-most of any country. America has also prioritized humanitarian efforts to remove unexploded ordinance and clean up dioxins such as Agent Orange. Daniel Kritenbrink, a career Foreign Service Officer who served as ambassador to Vietnam during the Trump administration, earned plaudits for his work in the country. He has since been nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs by the Biden Administration. It is a success story that is worth studying.

That is not to say that America’s improved relationship with Hanoi can be copied and pasted to other governments in Southeast Asia. Other counties in the region will pursue their own interests, just as Vietnam has done. Cambodia and Laos have deep ties to Beijing that cannot be easily undone. Many countries have large populations of ethnic Chinese that play a role in domestic considerations. There is no one-size solution in Southeast Asia. Relationships in the region will continue to be complex and require serious engagement.

But broader strokes from the development of US-Vietnam relations are still useful. Vietnam continues to maintain a relationship with China where it can benefit while also pursuing greater cooperation with the United States. Few countries in Southeast Asia are comfortable with the idea of being beholden to Beijing, but none are blind to what China has to offer. The United States was able to build a strong relationship with Vietnam without relying on close military cooperation. American presence in the region should not begin and end with military power.

The United States has more to offer these countries than just closer security ties. Vietnam’s pursuit of independence, self-reliance, cooperation, and development are all values that the United States should seek to support in the region. The improved US-Vietnam relationship advances those causes without a larger American military footprint in the region. That success shows that a full range of foreign policy tools can be effective in developing deeper relations in a vital region.

Vietnam does not wish to fall under a US security umbrella in the region, or to become wholly reliant on its relationship with China. America has improved its relationship with Vietnam by fostering diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties rather than leaning on military cooperation. The result has been a strengthened partnership that is worth maintaining in the future.


U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris attends the official launch of the CDC Southeast Asia Regional Office in Hanoi, Vietnam, August, 25, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/Pool
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.