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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under