Vietnam was often viewed as a winner during the first US-China trade war. This time around, such a victory looks less certain, as it faces the threat of tariffs. However, the Southeast Asian nation appears to be trying to come out on top again by opening itself up to business with businessman Elon Musk.
Last week, Vietnam approved new regulations that would allow Musk’s Starlink to provide satellite Internet services in the country and maintain full ownership over any subsidiary — an abrupt reversal of the local rules that had previously barred overseas companies from fully owning satellite Internet providers. Talks between regulators and the company have been going on for years, sputtering in 2023 after lawmakers signaled they would not make an exception to the domestic partnership policies. The government on September last year said that SpaceX, Starlink’s parent company, had plans to invest US$1.5 billion in Vietnam, but it still did not give details on its potential entry into the market.
So, what is behind the sudden reversal now? Apparently, the threat of tariffs spurred Vietnamese lawmakers to extend an “olive branch” to the business owned by US President Donald Trump’s close ally.
The move exposes a new reality: Musk’s proximity to the US president, known for his transactional approach to foreign policy, is impacting how countries are writing regulations — and in ways that stand to further enrich the billionaire. Musk’s pseudo-government role is already causing consternation in Washington over a slew of potential conflicts of interest. Vietnam’s change of heart reveals how that new era of techno-imperialism is quietly reshaping policy in developing countries.
Vietnam is not alone in its efforts to court the world’s wealthiest man and his political clout. Bangladesh’s interim leader recently invited Musk to visit the country and launch Starlink.
It is true that expanding access to satellite Internet has upsides in both countries; the service can help boost connectivity across harder-to-reach mountainous and rural regions. And those nations have nothing to gain by trying to separate Musk’s business empire from US foreign policy. Meanwhile, Vietnam is going through its own government overhaul. Leaders recognize that tariffs would devastate their export-driven economy. Opening its tech savvy market up to Musk’s business, even without a domestic partner, still seems like a wiser option. And it is an attention-grabbing way to chip away at its trade surplus with the US.
However, is Vietnam setting up a bad precedent? Should the personal business interests of Trump’s “first buddy” be enough to alter US trade policy? Is opening up your marketplace to Musk a sufficient reason to avoid the president’s long-promised tariffs?
Other jurisdictions would be watching closely how that plays out. China, the prime target of the new trade war, would especially be taking notes. Beijing has reportedly mulled using Tesla Inc, the electric vehicle maker deeply intertwined with its domestic market, as a potential bargaining chip in negotiations. Musk stands out among Trump allies with his softer stance toward the US’ top geopolitical rival, likely because of his business interests there. Chinese policymakers recognize they can exploit their control over his company to further their own interests and catch the attention of the US president.
It is said that no one is a winner from a trade war. Time would ultimately tell if that holds true in this era of Trump’s “broligarchy,” or if it would end up growing the power and influence of the US’ tech elite. Vietnam might have prematurely capitulated to Musk, but leaders in other jurisdictions are responding to the threat of US tariffs by pre-emptively targeting his firms.
As Musk injects his global businesses in more countries across Asia, it could potentially give governments bargaining chips as the trade war heats up — but being a political pawn could also backfire on his companies. It is no guarantee those unevenly gained business wins so far are sustainable.
Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously, she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS