Taiwanese businesspeople have been investing in Vietnam for more than 20 years. These investments total US$28 billion and their performance has been highly praised by the Vietnamese government. Whether in terms of business, social relations or intermarriage, the two countries maintain a close relationship. It was quite unexpected that these friendly relations would be weak enough to suddenly break under the weight of the Vietnamese people’s anti-Chinese protests.
Since Vietnam has a long history of anti-Chinese sentiment, the protests have not come as a surprise. During a visit to the Vietnam Museum of National History in Hanoi many years ago, I saw two large white stone carvings in the museum with the text “The sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhi, two national heroes of resistance against China.” These two sisters were two heroes killed during resistance against Chinese aggression during the Eastern Han period.
The best known anti-Chinese activity in recent history was when North Vietnam turned on China after defeating the South in April 1975, despite the longstanding massive economic and military assistance China had given to the north in its war against the US. They expelled all Chinese within their borders and purged domestic pro-Chinese factions. This was the cause of China’s punitive war against Vietnam in 1979.
In 1975, Vietnam adopted an anti-Chinese policy in Vietnam, forcing people of Chinese ethnicity to obtain Vietnamese citizenship, banning Chinese-language schools and newspapers and Chinese organizations, forcing Chinese people to take Vietnamese names, confiscating Chinese-owned companies and placing restrictions on the positions that people of Chinese ethnicity could hold in the ruling party, the government and the military.
These measures were in place until 1986, when a new policy was adopted and the restrictions on business involvement for ethnic Chinese were gradually relaxed. Because the economic activity of ethnic Chinese had been suppressed for so long, the Vietnamese economy was on the brink of collapse, which led to a change in policy that allowed the participation of ethnic Chinese.
At the same time, Taiwanese businesspeople were invited to help revive the economy. This demonstrates that Vietnam has used Taiwanese businesspeople for economic and political reasons.
Despite all this, Vietnamese still harbor distrust of ethnic Chinese. The recent anti-Chinese protests set off by Chinese oil exploration near the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) in the South China Sea easily stirred up anti-Chinese nationalist sentiment, which only goes to show that the Vietnamese do not approve of and are not grateful for, the investments of Taiwanese businesspeople in Vietnam which has assisted Vietnam’s growth.
Vietnamese should be able to recognize the Taiwanese businesspeople that have invested in their areas. In southern Vietnam, it is unlikely that people don’t know where the managers of Taiwanese business are from, because the numbers of Chinese businesspeople that have invested there are very small. In the South, any factory with visible Chinese characters was destroyed which implies direct targeting.
Why didn’t Vietnamese military and police maintain law and order around Taiwanese factories during the protests? One of the reasons for this is likely to be tacit governmental approval of the protests.
During the nationwide anti-Chinese protests in Indonesia toward the end of the Suharto era in 1998, when factories owned by ethnic Chinese were destroyed, police and military that were present at the protests did nothing to stop them.
There were rumors that the military tacitly approved of the protests, but despite that, many Taiwanese businesspeople requested the protection of the military and police, and managed to evade the riots. However, during the protests in Vietnam the police and military did not maintain order.
Vietnam is a communist country, and it is only because of its ability to maintain law and order that foreign businesspeople choose to invest in the country. It was quite unexpected, and regrettable, that the Vietnamese government did nothing, and it should therefore take some of the blame for the protests.
To protect businesspeople, Taiwan and Vietnam signed an agreement to promote and protect investment in 1993. Article 5 of this agreement states that any restoration, reparations, compensation or other settlement awarded by either party of the agreement to the other as a result of losses to approved investments caused by war, armed conflict, national emergencies, riots, rebellion or unrest, shall not be less than the what the awarding party would award a third party investor in the same situation.
The government should demand compensation from Vietnam based on this rule. The relevant authorities should set up a task force and invite international arbitration or respected individuals to act as consultants in order to submit a demand for compensation.
Taiwan’s is currently experiencing an economic downturn and the question of how to increase domestic investment and improve the job situation has become the government’s main focus.
The government should therefore use this situation as an opportunity to convince businesspeople whose Vietnamese investments have been jeopardized due to the protests to bring their investments to Taiwan, and the competent authorities should give careful consideration to providing awards and guidance to anyone who chooses to do so.
Chen Hurng Yu is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers