Why Vietnam’s Israel Policy Reveals the Limits of Its Foreign Policy

Summary:

• Historically, the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) has been supportive of Palestine and its quest for Palestinian statehood.
• However, its modern relations with Israel and lack of supportive actions towards Palestine call into question the sincerity of Hanoi’s support, as well as its “bamboo diplomacy” policy.
• While it is true that grassroots movements in Vietnam generally have to avoid criticizing the government, the small but forceful pro-Palestinian movement in the country should recognize the government’s hypocrisy in its Middle East conduct.

The conversation about the ongoing occupation of Palestine plagued American college campuses in the last few months, with many drawing parallels to the anti-Vietnam War protests that spread across the United States in the 1960s. These protests happened in the United States, but there were many other protests against Israel and support for Palestinians worldwide. Vietnam is also in this picture, as the VCP has historically expressed solidarity with the Palestinians.

While there are merits to discussing Vietnam in the context of historical solidarity with Palestine, the modern Vietnam state’s complicated relationship with Israel and Palestine has rarely been in the spotlight. The VCP has indeed supported the struggles of the Palestinian people, but Vietnam’s current relations with Israel call into question the sincerity of such a solidarity.

The Limits of Bamboo Diplomacy

“Bamboo diplomacy” is convenient rhetoric when navigating great power competition - especially in the age of the U.S.-China competition - but the same argument becomes shaky when tested in the context of Vietnam’s relationship with other states.

Similar to Vietnam’s conduct of foreign policy towards other powers, its Palestine and Israel policies have been ambiguous. 

Last year, Vietnam signed a free trade agreement with Israel after seven years of negotiating, which is expected to boost bilateral trade to US$3 billion. Shortly after the signing ceremony, which took place during a visit to Vietnam by Israeli Economy Minister Nir Karkat, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh said that Vietnam will “always attach importance to relations with Israel.” According to Chinh, Vietnam wants to be “a good friend to all countries in the world,” and will not be “associating with one country in its fight against another.” 

At the same time, Vietnam also sought to strengthen defense cooperation with Israel. Writing for the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Israeli defense scholar Alvite Ningthoujam wrote that there is an increasing interest in cooperation beyond the civilian sectors as Israel gets more involved in modernizing Vietnam’s weapons.

On the other hand, the modern state of Vietnam has supported Palestine for much of its history. During wartime, the Vietnamese Communists expressed solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognizing their similar military struggles against U.S.-Funded forces. Furthermore, many PLO members came to Vietnam for insurgency training. More recently, Vietnam voted in the United Nations to support the creation of a Palestinian state. 

Without naming names, on May 30, 2024, the Vietnamese government posted on its quasi-official Facebook account - Thông tin chính phủ (Information from the government) - that Vietnam “strongly condemned genocidal crimes,” with many of its citizens believing that the post alluded to Vietnam’s objection to Israel’s military activities in Gaza.

At its core, Vietnam’s relationship with Israel - and with Russia - exposes its hypocrisy and what “bamboo diplomacy” truly means in practice: courting commercial and military investments from anyone who can open their wallets - regardless of how the international community perceives such an entity and regardless of the rhetoric that Vietnam has endorsed in the past. 

In that sense, “bamboo diplomacy” is a convenient excuse for a morally lazy and undisciplined foreign policy. One cannot praise Vietnam’s “flexible” foreign policy without recognizing that it is complicit in the invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing occupation of Palestine.

Other Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia, have publicly expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians through diplomatic statements and concrete actions.

For example, Malaysia publicly supported international legal actions against Israel and still maintains a ban on Israeli passport holders from entering their territory. Indonesia recently affirmed that Jakarta does not plan to establish diplomatic ties with Israel - even when doing so might benefit its application to become a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

While one can argue that Malaysia and Indonesia’s support is due to their large Muslim populations, which Vietnam does not share, they are still examples illustrating that the leadership in Hanoi can take more concrete steps if they claim to support the Palestinian people truly.

The Pro-Palestinian Movement in Vietnam

The pro-Palestinian movement in Vietnam is small and seemingly concentrated on social media, most prominently the Instagram account “vietforpalestine.”

The platform spent considerable resources advocating for divestment from Israeli companies and products as well as criticizing the U.S. involvement in funding Israel. However,  there has been no mention of the Vietnamese government’s complicity. This movement did, however, call out instances in pop culture where Vietnamese celebrities or entertainment programs displayed insensitivities towards the ongoing conflict. Most recently, this campaign condemned a popular show that was filmed in Israel in 2018, as well as a rapper who wrote an insensitive line about Israel’s bombing of Gaza.

It is understandable why this movement has so far completely ignored the Vietnamese government’s relationship with Israel. Grass-root movements have always been closely monitored by the government, especially on social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram. In the spirit of giving the organizers the benefit of the doubt, their lack of content regarding the Vietnamese government likely reflects their attempt at censorship survival.

However, the inability to hold Vietnam accountable will only further its complicity. As there is no democratic mechanism for citizens to voice their discontent with the government, grassroots movements should be cognizant of using their platforms to signal their discontent with their government’s Middle East policies. 

Students and organizers in the United States risked arrest and even a violent backlash to protest the U.S. government on college campuses. And while I am in no position to urge Vietnamese youth to do the same, they should start acknowledging that boycotting Israeli consumer goods is not enough. They should - at the very least - acknowledge that Vietnam’s approach to the Israel-Palestine issue reeks of hypocrisy and that there is more that leaders in Hanoi can do.