Considers prospects for a long-overdue revision of US policy towards Vietnam. The UN policy to resolve the Cambodian conflict is quixotic, and now that the USSR has withdrawn as a regional power, there exists a strategic vacuum which the USA can move to fill.
Keith Richburg is on leave from The Washington Post as journalist-in-residence at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
With the State Department's announcement this year of a new "road map" for eventual normalization of relations with the communist government in Hanoi, the Bush administration appears to be inching slowly, if reluctantly, toward the formulation of a new U.S. policy toward Vietnam. The new approach attempts to look forward rather than back. More than 16 years after the fall of Saigon, such change is long overdue.
Since the end of the war in Indochina, U.S. policy toward Vietnam has been guided mainly by hostility and lingering resentment. The United States has had no diplomatic relations with Vietnam despite the fact that the communist government would appear to have met any suggested criteria for qualifying as the de facto rulers of a legitimate nation-state. Instead the United States lists Vietnam as one of a handful of "enemy" countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that are barred from receiving American aid, investments, exports or credit.
The Bush administration also has followed the lead of its predecessors in blocking Vietnam's attempts to receive international assistance from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, although for most economists Hanoi's monetary reforms appear to meet IMF preconditions to receive lending.
The stated reason for this continued policy of hostility is Cambodia; on Christmas Day, 1978, Vietnam invaded its small neighbor, toppled the murderous regime of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge and installed in its place a more pliant communist regime of pro-Vietnamese Cambodian defectors. The rationale for the American policy was strategic-that is, just weeks before the invasion, all senior Vietnamese leaders traveled to Moscow to sign a 15-year treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, giving the Kremlin a new foothold in the Southeast Asian mainland and turning Vietnam, in the prevailing view of the time, into a new Soviet "satellite" that threatened regional stability.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The uneasy public quiet on Vietnam which the President achieved with his speech last November 3 was shattered by the large-scale U.S. military intervention in eastern Cambodia. Once more U.S. policy in Southeast Asia became the subject of major controversy. In this situation there is some danger that we shall become so caught up in the immediate issues that we neglect more fundamental questions with respect to current American strategy. The new actions are a product of a basic fault in the structure of U.S. policy but do not, by themselves, define that fault.
Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia poses problems for US foreign policy in the region. The USA should cease to take the lead from ASEAN and should pursue a policy taking greater care of US interests, in the light of the Soviet involvement in Vietnam (particularly at Cam Ranh). The USA must be pragmatic and move forward from policies based on the experience of the 1970s. Some normalization of relations with Vietnam is recommended. China's attitude may make all the difference to the solution of the Cambodian question, but the Chinese are seen as having such an interest in maintaining good relations with the USA that they would not jeopardize them for the sake of Cambodia.
Prince Sihanouk has offered, under certain conditions, to share power with the existing regime in Cambodia in order to keep out the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese need to withdraw their troops from Kampuchea, but the Chinese, who back the Khmer Rouge, can afford to play for time. The USA has been reluctant to use its influence.
