US-Vietnam Relations: A Historic Meeting

Let us assume the average reader of The Diplomat is more cognizant of international history than most. Can you answer this? When was the last time a general secretary of a communist party met a U.S. president? That might be Mikhail Gorbachev more than 25 years ago, when the world was a very different place.

Communist Party of Vietnam General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong is now set to break the drought with a visit in July, after delays forced the April visit off the calendar. He did make it to Beijing, where he met his Chinese counterpart. Whilst such a high-level state visit was no doubt important to keep ties ticking over amid the South China Sea disputes, it seemed largely pomp and circumstance, a style not atypical of communist confabs. The scheduled visit to Washington is likely to be quite different.

Trong, in power since 2011, met U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter when the latter was in Hanoi earlier in June, as well as Senator John McCain (the former POW has spent many years helping to normalize relations). An invitation to visit the U.S. has apparently been on the table for some time.

“Vietnam has been pressing for an invitation [from the U.S.],” Professor Carl Thayer told Voice of America. “There are all kinds of rumors of what Trong might offer the U.S., like access to the Cam Ranh airfield for American reconnaissance planes, naval exercises, things that Vietnam has not agreed to do before.”

Cam Ranh would be nice for the Americans, given that in March Washington asked that Vietnam not allow Russian bombers to refuel at the airfield, a request that apparently drew no response from Vietnam. Russia and Vietnam have a long and mostly friendly history and Russia is quietly moving back into Vietnam.

Despite the delay July is an apposite month, as it will mark the 20th anniversary of the normalizing of diplomatic relations. This is hardly the first high-ranking visit to Washington by a Vietnamese official, but a general secretary attracts more attention than a prime minister or president (both other members of the troika have been to Washington).

What else is of concern? China, the South China Sea, lifting the arms sales embargo, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And human rights, always human rights. They have been a central tenet in the dialogue between the states since the normalizing of relations, even as legacies of the Vietnam War such as U.S. MIA, unexploded ordnance, and the ongoing effects of the chemical defoliant Agent Orange (which Vietnam says has caused birth defects in subsequent generations) have quietly but largely fallen away.

Human Rights

The fly in the ointment in human rights. The U.S. sees human rights in Vietnam largely in terms of freedom of speech and religion. More quietly, and at lower levels, other work is done, on issues such as human trafficking or child’s rights abuses. This remains the main barrier to better relations, says the U.S., and a reason for Hanoi’s sometime suspicion (peaceful evolution and all that).

As Dr. Hai Hong Nguyen at the University of Queensland recently wrote on CSIS’s Cogitasia blog, it’s hoped that the two nations will upgrade ties from comprehensive to strategic during the visit, but, “For the United States, a strategic partner must share not only its security concerns and economic interests but also the same values, including respect for human rights and democracy.”

Weapons sales are also contingent on human rights: The U.S. won’t lift the full embargo until rights are improved, though McCain has been pressing for it, for maritime security reasons. Vietnam still sources most of its weaponry from Russia, including its six recently acquired kilo-class submarines.

One exchange The Diplomat noted several months ago, but which has attracted relatively little attention elsewhere, is a visit to Washington by Vietnam’s Minister of Public Security Tran Dai Quang in early March. The Ministry of Public Security is the body that generally oversees the surveillance and harassment of dissidents and critics. Given U.S. championing of government critics, it seems odd that Quang’s visit did not attract more attention. Yet human rights were discussed then, along with talks over security concerns and meetings with the CIA and FBI. Inviting the man who oversees the harassment of the people the U.S. publicly champions shows a certain willingness to compromise on Washington’s part.

But here is something interesting to consider: Vietnam does not really lobby Washington. Azerbaijan’s spend last year according to Foreign Policy was $4 million, with a $75,000 monthly retainer to Podesta Group to lobby on its behalf. An older New York Times story made the same point. Azerbaijan has convinced Washington that it is an important security partner and a friend to Israel. Human rights? Rarely mentioned in Washington; it’s left to Bono. A letter by Azeri activists published by Freedom House says, “Azerbaijan now has twice as many political prisoners as Russia and Belarus combined.” One list of political prisoners includes 12 journalists and bloggers and 50 religious activists.

In fact, the Vietnamese who do lobby Washington are part of the postwar diaspora, and are usually both fiercely anti-regime and well organized. Consequently, members of Congress with large Vietnamese communities in their constituencies have brought up human rights and religious freedom issues in Washington.

Given the rebalancing in the region going on right now might there be room for some rebalancing during Trong’s visit? It is unlikely the U.S. will abandon its push for better rights in Vietnam – few outside of Hanoi and Beijing’s rulers will argue it should. But quiet compromise has been a useful strategy for both nations in the past.