Great Powers Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific Region and Its Impact on Vietnam’s Strategy

封面

如何引用文章

详细

At the end of the 20th century, many researchers had envisioned a world where countries shift from political and military competition towards economic competition. However, the prospect of a world without conflict was short-lived, as the concerns about political tensions were revived in the early 21st century. Great powers such as the United States, China and Russia, have all shifted their focus to Asia, in particular the Indo-Pacific region. As a developing country in this region, Vietnam has its reasons to pay close attention to the competition among these great powers. Based on the theory of defensive realism, the author examines the reorientation of the US, Chinese and Russian foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific region from Vietnam’s perspective. It shows that the US pivot to the region is set to challenge the rise of China and to maintain the US position as the leader of the world, China’s expanding influence is to reclaim its historical position in the region and Russia seeks to diversify its political and economic relations. In this context, Vietnam should maintain its multi-vector foreign policy, balancing the interests of several countries. In addition, Vietnam needs to strengthen its position in the global economy through participation in new-generation free trade agreements, expand the scope and forms of its diplomacy, and play a more active role in the global community. All these, in the author’s opinion, will enable Vietnam to strengthen its position in the global economy and boost its diplomatic activities.

作者简介

Son Nguyen

Institute of Political Economy, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics; FPT University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: nguyenthanhson.ktct@hcma.edu.vn
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3665-3113

Research Fellow, Institute of Political Economy, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics; Faculty Member, FPT University

Hanoi, Vietnam

参考

  1. Blackwill, R. D., & Harris, J. M. (2016). War by other means: Geoeconomics and statecraft. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. Cohen, S. B. (2015). Geopolitics: The geography of international relations. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
  3. Cooper, Z., & Shearer, A. (2017). Thinking clearly about China’s layered Indo-Pacific strategy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73(5), 305-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1364005
  4. Davidson, J. (2014). The U.S. “Pivot to Asia”. American Journal of Chinese Studies, 21(SI), 77-82.
  5. Friend, J. M., & Thayer, B. A. (2018). How China sees the world: Han-centrism and the balance of power in international politics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, Potomac Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv80cchq
  6. Gabuev, A., & Zuenko, I. (2018). The “Belt and Road” in Russia: Evolution of expert discourse. Russia in Global Affairs, 16(4), 142-163. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2018-16-4-142-163
  7. Harrell, P., Rosenberg, E., & Saravalle, E. (2018). China’s use of coercive economic measures. Center for a New American Security, 1-62. Retrieved from http://files.cnas.org.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/China_Use_FINAL-1.pdf
  8. Hillman, J. E. (2020). China and Russia: Economic unequals. CSIS Report, (July), 1-11. Retrieved from https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/200715_ChinaandRussia.pdf
  9. Hu, Weixing, & Meng, Weizhan. (2020). The US Indo-Pacific strategy and China’s response. China Review, 20(3), 143-176.
  10. Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2019). Examining the debt implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a policy perspective. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 3(1), 139-175. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v3i1.1123
  11. Jung, Sung Chul, Lee, Jaehyon, & Lee, Ji-Yong. (2021). The Indo-Pacific strategy and US alliance network expandability: Asian middle powers’ positions on Sino-US geostrategic competition in Indo-Pacific region. Journal of Contemporary China, 30(127), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2020.1766909
  12. Karaganov, S. (2016). A turn to Asia: The history of the political idea. Russia in Global Affairs. Retrieved from https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/a-turn-to-asia-the-history-of-the-political-idea/
  13. Koga, K. (2019). Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy: Tokyo’s tactical hedging and the implications for ASEAN. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 41(2), 286-313. https://dx.doi.org/10.1355/cs41-2l
  14. Korolev, A. (2016). Russia’s reorientation to Asia: Causes and strategic implications. Pacific Affairs, 89(1), 53-73. https://doi.org/10.5509/201689153
  15. Lei, Yu, & Sui, S. (2022). China’s strategy of free trade area and economic regionalism. Journal of International Development, 34(8), 1633-1648. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3658
  16. Morgunova, O. A., & Moraru, N.-F. (2022). Discourses of “Europeanness” in asylum practices in the postcolonial context. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 22(4), 741-754. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2022-22-4-741-754
  17. Oh, Yoon Ah. (2020). Chinese development aid to Asia: Size and motives. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 5(3), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891119836521
  18. Pham, T. T. B., & Vu, T. P. D. (2020). Chiến lược của các nước lớn đối với khu vực châu Á - Thái Bình Dương và vai trò, vị thế của Việt Nam. Thông tin Khoa học xã hội [Strategies by great powers for the Asia-Pacific region and the position of Vietnam. Vietnamese Journal of Social Science Information], (1), 11-20. (In Vietnamese). Retrieved from https://vjol.info.vn/index.php/ssir/article/download/55801/46439/
  19. Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Evasive balancing: India’s unviable Indo-Pacific strategy. International Affairs, 96(1), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz224
  20. Ruta, M., Dappe, M. H., Lall, S., Zhang, C., et al. (2019). Belt and Road economics: Opportunities and risks of transport corridors. World Bank, 1-159. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/regional-integration/publication/belt-and-road-economics-opportunities-and-risks-of-transport-corridors
  21. Scott, D. (2018). The Indo-Pacific in US strategy: Responding to power shifts. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(2), 19-43.
  22. Tellis, A. J. (2020a). The return of U.S. - China strategic competition. In A. J. Tellis, A. Szalwinski & M. Wills (Eds.), Strategic Asia 2020: U.S. - China competition for global influence (pp. 40-59). Seattle, Washington, D.C.: The National Bureau of Asian Research. Retrieved from https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/sa20_overview_tellis_dec2019advance.pdf
  23. Tellis, A. J. (2020b). Waylaid by contradictions: Evaluating Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 43(4), 123-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2020.1849992
  24. Vihma, A. (2018). Geoeconomic Analysis and the limits of critical geopolitics: A new engagement with Edward Luttwak. Geopolitics, 23(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1302928
  25. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  26. Wigell, M., & Vihma, A. (2016). Geopolitics versus geoeconomics: The case of Russia’s geostrategy and its effects on the EU. International Affairs, 92(3), 605-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12600
  27. Yahuda, M. (2019). The international politics of the Asia Pacific. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315543291

版权所有 © Nguyen S.T., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##