The main aim of this chapter is to analyse and assess China–Vietnam relations and the legacy of history. The study outlines the development of bilateral relations between China and Vietnam both historically and contemporarily with a focus on the latter period. Existing and potential issues of dispute are identified and assessed. The legacy of the long historical interaction is discussed in the context of the contemporary relationship.

The chapter is structured as follows: First, the China–Vietnam relationship is outlined both historically and contemporarily. Second, the existing and potential issues of dispute in the current relationship are identified and assessed. Third, the legacy of historical interaction is discussed. Fourth, the study is concluded by a summary of the development of the China–Vietnam relationship together with a broader discussion.

HISTORICAL RELATIONS

Two parallel processes marked the period of direct Chinese rule over Vietnam from 111 BC to AD 939. One was the colonization of Vietnam by Chinese migrants and the other was the Vietnamese drive to regain political independence from the Chinese Empire. Apart from a steady migration from China to Vietnam of people such as administrators, farmers and landlords, there were also persons seeking refuge from political upheavals in other parts of the Chinese Empire.

During the more than one thousand years of direct Chinese rule over Vietnam, a number of rebellions occurred. From the Trung rebellion, in the first century AD (40–43) — a genuinely Vietnamese one — to the Ly rebellion, in the sixth century, periods of dependence and semi-independence alternated, with the latter gradually becoming more predominant. The Chinese migration that aimed at colonizing Vietnam gradually led to the emergence of a new Sino–Vietnamese ruling class, a social and economic decolonization of Vietnam, and efforts to establish political independence from the Chinese Empire. This led to new rebellions, but they all failed due to the strength of the Chinese Empire. After the fall of the Tang dynasty, in AD 907, the prospects for Vietnamese independence increased and, in AD 939, Vietnam regained complete independence.

Introduction

The defining event of 2014 was the crisis between Vietnam and China relating to the activities of a Chinese drilling rig in areas to the west of the Paracel archipelago. The crisis and related tension lasted from early May to mid-July. Although differences relating to disputes in the South China Sea do cause periodic tension between the two countries, a crisis of this scale has not occurred since the 1990s and no previous crisis has such ramifications within Vietnam, both in terms of popular protests against China and through riots targeting foreign companies in May. This overview of Vietnam in 2014 will examine these keys developments in the context of Vietnam's domestic developments as well as its foreign relations.

Crisis with China and Its Repercussions

The relationship with China continues to be of paramount importance to Vietnam in terms of both a multifaceted collaboration in various fields and the geo-strategic challenge posed by China, in particular regarding the South China Sea. The disputes with China in the South China Sea, that is, overlapping sovereignty claims to the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos as well as to maritime areas between the Vietnamese coast and the two archipelagos within the “ninedash line” claimed by China, continued to pose a major challenge in bilateral relations in 2014. This was highlighted by the crisis and tensions caused by the dispatch of drilling rig HD-981 to areas west of the Paracel archipelago by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation on 2 May. The crisis and related tension lasted until mid-July when China announced the withdrawal of the drilling rig. Prior to the crisis, there had been no tension between Vietnam and China since mid-2013. The period from mid-2013 to April 2014 was characterized by deepened bilateral cooperation and by a seemingly successful bilateral dispute management approach relating to the disputes in the South China Sea.

Vietnam's and China's Viewpoints and Actions during the Crisis

Vietnam denounced the stationing of the drilling rig as illegal and demanded its withdrawal. In addition Vietnam claimed that the rig's area of operation was within Vietnam's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf as measured from its coastline; it also reasserted its claim of sovereignty to both the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos. Vietnam further accused China of using force against its ships in the waters near the Paracel archipelago and of arresting Vietnamese fishermen.

The main aim of this chapter is to analyse and assess the impact of historical conjunctures on modern Cambodian society. Important changes in modern Cambodia are assessed with the goal of identifying a selected number of historical conjunctures to be included in the study. The conjunctures that are selected are presented empirically and their impact on Cambodian society is outlined. The study also includes a discussion and assessment of the relative importance of the selected conjunctures.

The study is structured in the following way. First, historical conjunctures for inclusion in the study are selected. Second, the selected historical conjunctures are empirically presented. Third, the impact of the conjunctures on Cambodian society is outlined. Fourth, the relative importance of the conjunctures is discussed and assessed in the concluding section.

THE HISTORICAL CONJUNCTURES

Selecting the Historical Conjunctures for Inclusion in the Study

Cambodia's modern history since it gained formal independence from France in 1953 displays a number of relevant historical conjunctures. In the context of this study a select number will be studied. Interestingly, the fact that Cambodia gained independence from France in 1953 is in itself a historical conjuncture since it implied that Cambodia was not part of the First Geneva Conference on Indochina held in 1954 and that the anti-French forces — The Khmer Issarak — were not given any area to regroup in within Cambodia contrary to the situation in both Laos and Vietnam. Instead, some of its cadres were relocated to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). This would impact not only on the country but also on the perception of Vietnam within the Cambodian communist movement. Notwithstanding the importance of this event it will not be included in the study. Instead, historical conjunctures ranging over a period from 1970 to the early 1990s will be included. They are the overthrow of Prince Norodom Sihanouk in 1970, the fall of Phnom Penh in 1975, the military intervention of Cambodia by Vietnam in 1978–79, and the United Nations' peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93.

Purpose and Structure

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the linkages between some key dimensions of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and the issue of security. This is done through an examination of two key norms of the charter: the prohibition of the threat or use of force in inter-state relations and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. The empirical application of these principles and their impact on regional security in the Pacific Asia region is examined through the study of the foreign policy of China and through the study of the principles governing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This is motivated by the fact that both China and ASEAN put strong emphasis on non-use of force in inter-state relations and on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

The study is structured in the following way. First, the key norms of the UN Charter relating the prohibition of the threat or use of force in interstate relations and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states are identified, followed by a presentation of the debate that they have generated. Second, the empirical application of these principles and their impact on regional security is in the Pacific Asia is examined through the foreign policy of China and the principles governing ASEAN.

Introduction

Following a global flurry of ‘new wars’ and ‘new conflicts’ in the post–Cold War era (Kaldor 2007; Keen 2008), a lot of rethinking has been done (and certainly will be done) on the causes of violent conflict in the global system. After a decade dominated by, inter alia, ‘9/11’, the unstable and violent African development context and the relatively sustainable peace (and very successful development) in East Asia, reflections on the relations between development and security (and vice versa) became unavoidable. In policy documents (e.g., UN 2004; OECD 2007; DFID 2005; European Council 2003, 2008; UNDP 2005), as well as in academic circles (Buur, Jensen and Stepputat 2007; Chandler 2007, 2008; Duffield 2001, 2007; Paris and Sisk 2007), the ‘development-security nexus’ was coined as a concept and emerged as a hotly contested topic. Unsurprisingly, the policy world was jumping to ‘new solutions’, with reductionist conclusions, whereas research remained more sceptical. For instance, irrespective of whether we listen to the ‘new’ United States foreign policy articulated by Colin Powell or by General Petraeus, to the secretary-general of the United Nations and to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (UN 2009; ICISS 2001), or the European Union's ‘European Security Strategy’ (European Council 2008), the attention is increasingly on how conflicts of various sorts can be prevented through greater focus on ‘development’. The nexus became a commodity over which intellectual ownership was as unclear as important.

This book is the end product of a project on bilateralism and multilateralism in Southeast Asia. The contributions to this edited volume have been developed through a process involving presentations of papers at two international workshops held in Hiroshima and Kuala Lumpur in December 2007 and October 2008, respectively.

The contributors to this book have strictly adhered to an agreed timetable to deliver their individual contributions to this book. In so doing they have integrated feedback from the editors, from discussants at the two workshops and from other participants in the workshops. Finally, the entire manuscript benefitted from the feedback of three anonymous referees who reviewed it for ISEAS.

The project was generously funded by the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) through the Hiroshima City Government, which also hosted the first workshop. Additional financial support to the two Workshops has been provided by the Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA), Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS). APISA hosted the second workshop in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

We acknowledge the supportive role of Associate Professor Hari Singh, the Executive Secretary of APISA for economic support, hosting, and his contribution as participant in the two workshops. We also acknowledge the supportive role of Dr Colin Duerkop of KAS for financial support and participation in the first workshop.

We would like to acknowledge the important contribution made by the discussants at the two workshops: Professor Patricio Abinales and Professor Omar Farouk at the Hiroshima workshop and Professor Johan Saravanamuttu and Dr Lam Peng Er at the Kuala Lumpur workshop.

Last but not least we would like to express our appreciation for the efforts and role played by Yukiko Yoshihara from the HPI throughout the project and in particular in connection with the first workshop. We also express our appreciation to Patricia Marin for her key role in the organization of the second workshop in Kuala Lumpur.

This conclusion summarizes the book's main findings. This will be followed by a broader discussion on the relationship between multilateralism and bilateralism in the Southeast Asian context. The broader discussion will also specifically link Etel Solingen's theory chapter at the start of the book to the country studies. This linkage will assist in placing the case studies within a broader context as well as bring the book full circle. The conclusion also addresses the importance of key factors influencing the bilateral relationships in the Southeast Asian region and their impact on regional collaboration and ASEAN.

Main Findings

Etel Solingen's chapter makes it clear that there are many different forms of international cooperation with different meanings attached to them. She then goes on to identify seven different core concepts in the international relations literature dealing with the subject. The term multilateralism itself became a focus of analysis in the 1990s. Central to the concept of multilateralism is a set of protocols demanding that states forego some of their own narrow interests in order to achieve general organizing principles in relationships characterized by diffuse reciprocity. Different schools of thought such as neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism employ different approaches to the study of multilateralism that in turn highlight different core variables and constraints. Solingen thinks that a convergence of domestic coalitional strategies among dominant actors favouring internationalization provides a powerful incentive for multilateralism, and it was such convergence that spurred ASEAN. There was a synergy between economic and security interests in ASEAN. Nonetheless, states like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore tended to favour bilateral cooperation with external countries on security matters despite their common fears. Dominant internationalizing coalitions favour any arrangements, multilateral or otherwise, that promise both domestic political and macroeconomic, as well as regional, stability; these, in turn, enhance attractiveness to foreign investment and access to global markets, technology, and capital required for sustained economic growth and domestic political survival.