From former enemies, the United States and Vietnam became partners when they formed a comprehensive partnership in 2013. Under the Trump administration, U.S.-Vietnam relations have made remarkable progress. As Joe Biden is set to become the 46th president of the United States, U.S. foreign policy is expected to shift significantly. What will it mean for American-Vietnamese ties?
What will change?
Vietnam’s human rights record is the most sensitive issue in its relations with the United States. Although Washington recognizes that Hanoi has made some progress, concerns remain in freedom of expression, freedom of religion, ethnic minority rights, and labor rights. Members of the U.S. Congress, especially those whose constituencies include substantial Vietnamese American populations, have put pressure on the U.S. government to criticize Vietnam’s human rights practice.
The Trump administration, however, has downplayed the promotion of human rights in its relations with Hanoi. President Trump has not raised the issue to Vietnamese leaders even though he had the opportunities to do so during his speech at the2017 APEC Summit in Da Nang, when he met President Tran Dai Quang afterwards, and during his second visit to Hanoi in 2019. The subject of human rights is also absent in the statement from the Press Secretary commemorating 25 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, which talks about people-to-people ties, trade and investment, legacy of war issues, military ties, and peaceful resolution of disputes.
Unlike Trump, Biden pledges to prioritize U.S. commitments in “fighting corruption, defending against authoritarianism, and advancing human rights in their own nations and abroad”. In fact, Biden was U.S. vice president when the United States paid attention to Vietnam’s human rights practice. President Barack Obama discussed human rights issues with Vietnamese leaders during his remarks to welcome President Truong Tan Sang to the White House in 2013, his meeting with General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong at the Oval Office in 2015, and his speech to the people of Vietnam during his visit to Hanoi in 2016.
More important, Biden vows to renew U.S. democracy at home and promote it abroad. He asserts “democracy is not just the foundation of American society” but also “the wellspring of our power.”For Biden, democracy is his and his country’s value. These are the reasons to believe that the Biden administration will address Vietnam’s human rights record in its relations with Hanoi.
One of the main irritations in bilateral trade relations is U.S. trade deficit with Vietnam. The figure has grown steadily since 1997 and surpassed $20 billion since 2014. From $39.5 billion in 2018, it grew up to $55.8 billion in 2019, and despite the disruptions in trade caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the figure reached$42.36 billion as of August 2020.
Trump has repeatedly complained about Vietnam’s large trade surplus with the United States. In February 2020, his administration removed Vietnam from the list of self-declaring developing countries that receive preferential trade benefits under the World Trade Organization. Although the Treasury’s report in January 2020 found that Vietnam exceeded the threshold for only one of the three criteria for currency devaluation—the bilateral trade deficit, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) launched another investigation into Vietnam’s alleged currency undervaluation under Section 301 in October 2020. In the latest move, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced on November 4th, 2020 that it would impose tariffs on passenger vehicles and light truck tires from Vietnam.
It is likely that the Biden administration will take a softer approach in dealing with Vietnam’s trade surplus. It will have several options, including keeping the tariff against Vietnam, filing a case at the World Trade Organization, seeking compensation through negotiation, or just simply dropping the case. It is important to note that the increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Vietnam is partly due to the U.S.-China trade war. Moreover, Biden does not believe in trade barriers and protectionism, so it is unlikely that his administration will further impose tariffs on Vietnam.
What will continue?
In the context of U.S.-China strategic competition, Vietnam has become increasingly important in U.S. foreign policy. The Trump administration identified Vietnam as an emerging economic and security partner in the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy, the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, and the 2019 Indo-Pacific Report.
China’s provocative and unilateral actions in the South China Sea have driven Vietnam closer to the United States at a remarkable pace. From former enemies, the two countries became comprehensive partners in 2013. The Trump administration has strengthened its relations with Hanoi in various aspects and promised to enhance their comprehensive partnership in a joint statement issued in 2017. Vietnam is now the 10th trading partner of the United States.
Biden makes it clear that “the United States does need to get tough with China… The most effective way to meet that challenge is to build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China’s abusive behaviors”. He promises to deepen partnerships to advance shared values in a region and uphold diplomacy as U.S. primary tool of foreign policy. For him, the answer to the China threat is “more friendships, more cooperation, more alliances”. Therefore, Biden will continue to strengthen U.S. partnership with Vietnam.
During the Vanguard Bank incident in early July 2019, in which the Chinese survey ship Haiyang Dizhi 8 and its armed escorts entered Vietnam’s claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the Trump administration issued a series of strong statements criticizing China for its coercion and interference with Vietnam’s long-standing oil and gas activities .
In July 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo issued a statement on U.S. position on maritime claims in the South China Sea. The statement makes it clear that “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them”. It also aligns the U.S. position on China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea with the 2016 Tribunal’s decision. The statement further confirms “America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law”.
As China’s assertive pursuit of its claims in the South China Sea threatens the freedom of the seas that is essential to U.S. national interests, Biden will continue a tough stance on China and support other claimants in the South China Sea, including Vietnam.
Under the Trump administration, U.S.-Vietnam defense ties have grown dramatically. The United States has helped Vietnam improve its law enforcement capability and maritime security. The U.S. Coast Guard transferred a Hamilton-class cutter to the Vietnam Coast Guard in May 2017 and promised to deliver a second one sometime in 2020. Washington also provided 18 “Metal Shark” patrol boats to Hanoi between 2017 and 2019. Then-U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited Vietnam twice in 2018. The U.S. Navy has sent two aircraft carriers to Vietnam’s port—the USS Carl Vinson in March 2018 and the USS Theodore Roosevelt in March 2020. Vietnam joined the Rim of the Pacific exercise in 2018 and was invited to participate again in 2020 (but did not participate because of the COVID-19 pandemic). As concerns about China remain, it is expected that the United States under Biden will continue to strengthen defense ties with Vietnam.
The two countries are heading toward the direction for a strategic partnership. However, the pace to get there depends on how Hanoi will improve its human rights record and how the Biden administration will handle the U.S. trade deficit with Vietnam.
China’s assurance of Rohingya repatriation between Myanmar-Bangladesh
We now have new hope thanks to news reports that were published in the Bangladeshi dailies on Tuesday and contained the word of Yao Wen, the recently appointed Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh, that the repatriation of Rohingyas to their native Myanmar would begin as soon as possible. We believe that the Chinese government is truly considering Bangladesh’s concern over the safe and immediate repatriation of more than a million displaced Rohingyas in light of the Chinese envoy’s pledge.
The envoy reportedly made this commendable remark to our foreign minister at a recent meeting at his office.
If his words are followed by action, we think China’s role in this case will serve as a model for future efforts to advance world peace, particularly in light of the repeated failures of attempts to repatriate Rohingya due to the government of Myanmar’s blatant indifference and partially due to the insincere efforts of the international community. And when it comes to finding a long-term solution to the biggest refugee crisis in history, we wholeheartedly believe in China’s potential. China is a dependable friend of Bangladesh and a major global force. There is no doubting the importance of the newly appointed Chinese Ambassador’s position in this situation.
The Rohingya situation needs to be resolved diplomatically and via political means, according to the international community. The US and other Western nations keep applying pressure to Myanmar even though they are unable to ensure the safe and willing return of the Rohingyas. As Bangladesh seeks the swift repatriation of Rohingyas to Myanmar, Li Zhiming, the former Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh, stated that China would serve as a “bridge of communication” and do its utmost to support a timely resolution. China supports Bangladesh’s desire to begin repatriation, and China will keep assisting the two friendly neighbors in finding a solution to this persistent problem. China will make an effort to address this issue effectively because it is one of humanity.
In truth, Bangladesh, a country with limited resources and territory, is no longer able to handle such a large number of displaced people as it deals with a wide range of domestic and international problems as a result of the recent worldwide pandemic and the war in Russia and Ukraine. Hosting the growing population of Rohingyas, including newborn children, is also not a long-term option for them. In previous editorials, we have emphasized numerous times the importance of finding a long-term solution to this situation.
To protect China’s interests in Myanmar, the Rakhine state must remain stable. The infrastructure that China built in the state of Rakhine will have a big impact on the region’s economic growth. Human resources are also necessary to run all of these facilities. These Rohingyas and Rakhines can be trained by China to work efficiently in a variety of facilities and sectors. A stable Rakhine will draw tourists, and the region’s tourism industry can grow. Rakhines and Rohingyas can work in that sector as well. That will deal with the state’s unemployment issue. The level of racial animosity will progressively decline as the economy improves, and harmony may be guaranteed. The Rakhine region is essential for China’s military plans in addition to ensuring presence in the Indian Ocean.
Given all, it can be concluded that the Rohingya situation will be resolved if China takes the proper action.
Bangladesh desires the safe and honorable return of the Rohingyas to Myanmar. Bangladesh and China have long-standing, close ties. During a visit to Bangladesh on August 6, 2022, China’s State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that Bangladesh is making serious efforts to resolve the Rohingya crisis. During this tour, the Rohingya issue received important discussion. China’s help was requested during this visit in order to play a bigger role in the Rohingya situation and find a political solution that would guarantee return. China has contributed significantly to Bangladesh’s socioeconomic growth by funding numerous economic initiatives there.
We think the Rohingya situation would not have lasted as long if the big nations had shown the kindness and sincerity that we see now. An appropriate solution to the situation would have been achieved by now if the humanitarian component of it had been given precedence above its geopolitical ramifications.
According to our assessment, the main source of the crisis lost steam due to the competing interests of the major players, many of which Bangladesh and Myanmar have bilateral relations with for a variety of reasons.
The Rohingya situation is solely a matter of human rights. Democracy and human rights are related. From that vantage point, it is impossible to deny the significance of democracy for the sustainable return of displaced Rohingyas to their country of origin, Myanmar.
We believe that other global power players cannot avoid their collective responsibility to rise to the occasion above their political lines and assist China for a long-term solution to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, despite the fact that China’s assurance to resolve the Rohingya crisis revives a ray of hope.
Bangladesh and China have close political and military relations in addition to the fact that China is Bangladesh’s top trading and development partner. The Rohingya issue must be addressed in Myanmar, a country that China has significant influence over. As a result, China can make a big contribution to the return of the Rohingya.
To resolve this problem, the regional powers need to step forward right away. Everyone expects that by resolving the Rohingya issue, China, a friendly nation of Bangladesh, will significantly contribute to the peace, security, and stability of the area.
To engage or not engage. Hindus and Muslims suss each other out
Moderate Muslims and militant Hindu nationalists are strange bedfellows at the best of times, particularly when they come together to reshape Hindu-Muslim relations in troubled India.
Yet, that is what Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama and India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seek to achieve.
Nahdlatul Ulama, arguably the world’s most moderate Muslim civil society group in the world’s largest Muslim-majority state and democracy, is everything the RSS, a notorious Hindu nationalist movement widely viewed as the catalyst of anti-Muslim violence and discrimination in India, is not.
What makes the endeavour even more remarkable is that the two groups have strikingly different visions of what Hindu-Muslim reconciliation should entail.
For Nahdlatul Ulama, engagement with the RSS is part of a bold and risky strategy to persuade faith groups, including Muslims, to confront their troubled, often violent, histories and problematic tenants of their religions that reject pluralism and advocate supremacy.
“Nahdlatul Ulama believes that the only way to overcome entrenched historical grievances and promote peaceful co-existence is to engage all parties and refuse to indulge in the sentiment of enmity and hatred based upon a claim of unique communal victimhood,” the group said in a statement in September explaining its engagement with RSS.
For the RSS, engagement is about redressing historical grievances dating to centuries of Muslim invasions and rule, defending Hindus against perceived contemporary Muslim threats, and ensuring that India is a Hindu rather than a non-discriminatory multi-religious state.
A 2019 amendment to India’s citizenship law suggested how the RSS defines a Hindu state. The amendment extends the right to apply for citizenship to members of religious minorities — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians but not Muslims — fleeing persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, Khwaja Iftikhar Ahmed, an Indian Muslim author and intellectual who maintains close ties with the RSS, insisted in an interview with the author that RSS ideology views Indians, irrespective of their religion, culturally as Hindus.
“They say that Hindu doesn’t have a religious connotation, Hindu being all those people living in this part of the world, they are culturally…Hindus… The religion is Santana Dharma or Eternal Faith (the Hindu reference to Hinduism). Hindu is the cultural identity… That is the middle ground,” Mr. Iftikhar said.
In 2021, RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat launched a widely acclaimed book authored by Mr. Iftikhar that argued in favour of Hindu-Muslim togetherness and harmony.
Nahdlatul Ulama and the RSS’ different visions have consequences for strategy. Although the RSS’ Indonesian engagement is with a movement led by clerics, in India, it tends to interact with secular Muslims who have no authority to reform Islamic jurisprudence rather than religious scholars.
Even so, Mr. Iftikhar said numerous Indian Muslim religious leaders of all stripes were in touch with the RSS, although many of them did so privately.
These include leaders of Deobandism, a revivalist ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim movement, which counts some 20 per cent of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims among its followers.
Deobandism emerged in the mid-19th century around Darul Uloom Madrassa, a religious seminary in Deoband in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, to preserve Islamic teachings under British colonial rule.
“The difficulty is that contrary to the RSS, Muslim authorities in India do not have a strategy. Theologically, they have not accepted India’s existence but, for political reasons, do not challenge it. It’s an attitude they have yet to abandon,” said an analyst of Indian Islam.
In a separate interview on an Indian Muslim television channel, Mr. Iftikhar argued that the Muslim community had failed to address its differences with the RSS.
“The community has avoided any discussion or debate on that. It has always taken refuge behind others, whereas the challenge was ours. The response should have been from us, and we should have tackled those issues. The issues are challenges that India as a country and we as Indians…as one single nation, are facing. It is not a Hindu challenge; it is not a Muslim challenge,” Mr. Iftikhar said.
In a chapter that he contributed to an edited volume on the politics of hate in South Asia, Indian Islam scholar A. Faizur Rehman seemed to spell out Mr. Iftikhar’s castigation of the Indian Muslim leadership and align himself with Nahdlatul Ulama’s call for reform of Islamic law.
Mr. Rehman took the Muslim community to task for not countering their own ultra-conservatives and militants on multiple issues, such as the defense of relations with non-Muslims, the rights of Muslim and non-Muslim minority communities in Muslim lands, and draconic blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan.
“If the Muslim community fails to question and stop these fanatics, it would be unwittingly contributing to Islamophobia,” Mr. Rehman said.
Mr. Rehman argued that Muslims needed to clarify their beliefs by stating that India is not part of the Muslim notion of an abode of war and, like Nahdlatul Ulama, declare that the concept of the kafir or infidel does not apply to non-Muslims.
A gathering of 20,000 Nahdlatul Ulama clerics ruled in 2019 that the concept of the kafir was no longer legally valid.
Mr. Rehman contended that Muslims should discard the concept of dawah or proselytisation “as a tool of supremacism” and abolish apostasy and blasphemy as capital crimes under Islamic law.
“In short, what is needed…is a radical rethink of Muslim theology,” the scholar said.
Three years into the dialogue, the jury is still out on Nahdaltul Ulama’s interaction with RSS, which started as a cautious dialogue and has expanded into a degree of cooperation.
So far, the endeavour, embraced by moderate Indian Muslims and reformers, appears to have worked more in the RSS’ favour than that of Nahdlatul Ulama.
Nahdlatul Ulama’s credentials offer the RSS Muslim legitimisation.
The RSS has used the Muslim group’s push for reform of religious jurisprudence, the concept of a pluralistic Humanitarian Islam, and unequivocal endorsement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to tell India’s 200 million Muslims, the world’s largest Muslim minority, what their faith should look like.
To be fair, there may be no Hindu-Muslim reconciliation without the RSS, a five million-member-strong movement whose disciples constitute the core of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and government. The RSS is the ideological cradle of Mr. Modi, who has been a member since childhood.
In a rare recent interview published in Hindi and English by two RSS sister publications, Mr. Bhagwat, the group’s leader, discussed the movement’s strategy and objectives that frame engagement with Nahdlatul Ulama although he did not refer to the Indonesian Muslims.
Mr. Bhagwat’s statements offer reasons for both optimism and pessimism.
From a tactical point of view, Nahdlatul Ulama is likely to have taken note of Mr. Bhagwat’s acknowledgement that the RSS can no longer refuse accountability for what its associates in office do.
“People forget that swayamsevaks (RSS associates) have reached certain political positions through a political party. Sangh (RSS) continues to organise society for organisation’s sake. However, whatever swayamsevaks do in politics, Sangh is held accountable for it,” Mr. Bhagwat said.
“Even if we are not implicated directly by others, there is certainly some accountability, as ultimately it is in the Sangh where swayamsevaks are trained. Therefore, we are forced to think – what should be our relationship, which things we should pursue with due diligence,” Mr. Bhagwat added.
To be sure, Mr. Bhagwat was talking about the RSS’s relationship with the BJP and its current accountability rather than the historical responsibilities of the group and Hindus at large. He stressed that the RSS was concerned about “national policies, national interest, and Hindu interest,” not electoral politics.
By drawing a line between the RSS and the BJP, accepting the principle of accountability, and framing the groups’ political involvement, Mr. Bhagwat appeared to hint at a potential divergence between the movement and the party.
“The RSS thinks about the endgame. Bhagwat thinks about the future. He is not elected and does not have to worry about re-election. The BJP does. That’s why the BJP is more prone to polarisation. The RSS does not need polarization for electoral purposes,” said an analyst who closely follows the RSS and BJP.
Even so, Mr. Bhagwat did not shy away from polarizing language when he asserted that Hindus were engaged in a “1,000-year war.” Moreover, Mr. Bhagwat magnified the notion of war by insisting on the RSS’ majoritarian vision of India, or Hindustan in his words. as a Hindu rather than a multi-cultural nation.
The RSS leader defined the war as a fight against “foreign aggressions, foreign influences and foreign conspiracies” that seek to force others “to accept their path as it’s the only true path. And if you refuse to do so, you will have to choose between our mercy and death.”
Mr. Bhagwat made clear that he was referring to Muslim rather than Christian proselytisers by insisting that “Muslims should give up the mindset of superiority…(and) ‘we can’t live with others.’”
Mr. Bhagwat asserted, “foreign invaders are no longer, but foreign influences and conspiracies have continued. So, there is a war to defend Hindu society, Hindu Dharma (cosmic law), and Hindu culture.”
Drawing a contrast with Hinduism, Mr. Bhagwat asked rhetorically: “What is the Hindu worldview? Does a Hindu ever say that everyone should endorse his faith? This is not how we think. We want to present an example for others to see. We want to have (a) dialogue with everyone. Those who wish to improve will follow our example. If they do not, we do not intend to harm them.”
Mr. Bhagwat’s polarizing rhetoric notwithstanding, Nahdlatul Ulama sees common ground in the RSS’ rejection of what the Indonesian group describes as “obsolete and problematic elements within Islamic orthodoxy that lend themselves to tyranny.”
Nahdlatul Ulama, a conservative, nationalist organisation in its own right, hopes that its willingness to confront head-on intolerant and supremacist tenants of Islamic law will convince the RSS to develop a Hindu equivalent of Humanitarian Islam and take a critical look at Hindu theology, history, and anti-Muslim attitudes.
In an article entitled “What the media has misunderstood about Mohan Bhagwat’s interview,” Ram Madhav, an RSS executive committee member and associate of Mr. Modi, sought to finetune Mr. Bhagwat’s reference to war.
“The UNESCO Constitution begins with the statement that ‘wars begin in the minds of men’. Bhagwat’s emphasis was actually on removing that mindset of war. It is a historical fact that India has been subjected to various political and religious aggressions over millennia. That history has left an imprint, leading to occasional aggressive outbursts in sections of the society. Bhagwat was categorical that such aggression was uncalled for,” Mr. Madhav said.
“If there is a Hindu who thinks like that, he should discard it. A communist should also shed it”, Mr. Madhav quoted the RSS leader as saying.
In his interview, Mr. Bhagwat downplayed aggression by RSS members. “Since there is a war, people are likely to get overzealous. Although this is undesirable, yet provocative statements will be uttered,” the RSS leader said.
The dialogue with Nahdlatul Ulama did not stop the Indian group from accusing in its March 2022 annual report “a particular community” of seeking to “enter the government machinery” to further its ”malicious” agenda” as part of “a deep conspiracy.”
The report repeated allegations of imaginary Muslim jihads, such as the alleged forced conversion of Hindus to Islam.
“This challenge has a long history, but, of late, different newer ways of converting new groups are being adopted,” the report said.
Mr. Rehman, the Islam scholar. discounts Hindu fears of a demographic threat to their majority status in India but acknowledges that deep-seated distrust dates to the 12th-century Muslim conquests.
“By the turn of the 20th century, a deep distrust developed between Muslims and Hindus. The Muslims came to be seen as outsiders who had come to conquer and convert the original inhabitants of the subcontinent to Islam, “Mr. Rehman said.
Noting that Hindu distrust is rooted in the insistence of Muslim conquerors that India was Islamic territory, Mr. Rehman conceded that Hindu fears are fueled by “clerics and televangelists in India (who) continue to display their supremacist arrogance.”
Mr. Rehman points to ultra-conservative and militant clerics who forbid Muslims to congratulate non-Muslims on their religious holidays and denounce the operation of non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim lands.
Another Muslim reformer traces the roots of strained relations to Muslim invasions that started with the Umayyad conquest of Sindh in the 8th century.
“It all began with Muslims invading, slaughtering, enslaving Hindus, and burning their temples. Today, the demographic fear may be blown out of proportion. But how long would it take deer to overcome their fear of tigers if tigers became domesticated and tigers stopped killing deer? This is the way Hindus look at Muslims. The fear is still there that Muslims continue to believe that they should dominate and prey upon non-Muslims,” the reformer said.
For his part, Mr. Iftikhar, the Muslim intellectual, insisted in his interview with the author that Indian Muslims were as much victims of Muslim conquests as were Hindus.
“All the Muslims who ruled India in the last seven, eight centuries were either Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Uzbeks or Iraqis, not Indian Muslims… We have never ruled India… So why should I take it on myself when I was not part parcel of that history?… We belong to this land. We stayed here by choice. We are the citizens of this country. So why should we take the baggage of the foreign Muslim rulers?” Mr. Iftikhar asked.
The latent fear of Muslims, fuelled by perennial Indian-Pakistani tensions, enabled ideologues and politicians to weaponize demographic concerns in a population for which it is primarily a lingering prejudice rather than a living memory or a daily life challenge.
Moreover, the population figures speak for themselves. Muslims account for 200 million of India’s population of 1.4 billion. Demography, in the best of cases, is only a potential concern, if at all, if Indians look at South Asia as a whole. The subcontinent is home to three of the four largest Muslim populations that, alongside India, include Pakistan, with 231 million, and Bangladesh, with 169 million.
Even so, Mr. Bhagwat asserted in October that “population control and religion-based population balance is an important subject that can no longer be ignored” because “population imbalances lead to changes in geographical boundaries.”
Countering Mr. Bhagwat, Mr. Rehman, the Islam scholar, argues that “Hindu-Muslim mistrust in India today is based on imaginary fears. Both communities are not responsible for what their respective ancestors did. But they would be if they buy into the politically motivated propaganda that seeks to keep them divided.”
For his part, Mr. Iftikhar expressed support for Muslim dialogue with the RSS.
“If you keep a distance and detachment as your strategy, as your policy, then whatever opinions you form are stereotypes. Stereotypes are untested, untried so-called facts. If they become the source of opinion-making and opinion-building, then you can imagine that the argument will never have a logical base,” Mr. Iftikhar said.
The author went on to say that “the Muslim community should come forward and instead of putting conditions, raising doubts and making it an issue that do this and then it will happen, no, relations are not build up, understanding is never achieved as a goal when you put conditions. Engagement is the way forward, sit, talk, interact, exchange, put forward your viewpoint, listen to the other viewpoint.”
It’s an approach that Mr. Rehman and Nahdlatul Ulama embrace. For them, as well as for Mr. Iftekhar, the onus is on all parties. For Muslims, that means conceptual and judicial reform; for the RSS, it means defining accountability in word and deed.
Gates, Smooth and Striped Spaces, and the Royal Lore of the Aerial Silk Road
The Coastal City, a Chinese-invested aviation center in Cambodia, will be used to illustrate the deep interface idea in the context of the Air Silk Road, a new vertical component of China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI). Following the mobile aeroplanes reveals three deep interaction gates. Diplomatic movements on international aviation coordinations open institutional gates. The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) launched the Air Silk Road to ally with ASEAN by rearticulating the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) No Country Left Behind (NCLB) program. Dara Sakor International Airport, a new kind of air-earth complex, is the second gate. However, the mangrove conservation zone that was commodified by special economic zones resisted. Cambodia’s Koh Kong coast mangrove woods become the third gate between land and sea, stalling the special zone project. As though throwing a pebble into the water and seeing it burst through the static concept of the surface and its underlying spheres, a new way of thinking about spatial practices as a dynamic, tumultuous, voluminous whole is opened up now. Through relays, the deep interface links the biological, material, and atmospheric.
Striking up the air: opening the door to civil aviation rights
The Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 1944, has steadily dominated civil airspace utilization in its 193 member countries. The Chicago Convention does not quantify airspace by airway altitude because there are no agreements on sovereign airspace’s vertical extent. Instead, it’s about the nine degrees of “freedoms of air,” which limit a country’s airlines’ access to another’s airspace. The first two freedoms relate “the transit of commercial aircraft across foreign airspace and airports,” while the others involve international transport of persons, mail, and cargo. The fifth freedom of air, which allows the contracting country to load and disembark passengers and goods as an intermediary station in an airway to a third country, is sought for by airlines. Only multilateral and bilateral conventions allow air liberties. Thus, sovereign nations can employ aeriality technology like air traffic control and vertical surveillance.
China began diplomatic efforts to lead ICAO in this context. In 2015, former CAAC chief Liu Fang became ICAO Secretary-General. China demanded results from bilateral aviation development agreements. China as an ASEAN brother with a “situated vision” is a compelling new narrative. Liu noted that China might influence NCLB implementation not as a member of the advanced group, which easily invokes the memory of colonization, but as one of the Asian siblings, who have recently gone through years of battles to rise out of the post-colonial setting. As Liu and many Chinese intellectuals believe, China is replete of still-fresh lessons and experiences from its decades of self-advancement, making it a stronger candidate who understands the struggles of emerging nations. ASEAN countries at the start of aviation growth may need this more. China’s experience is also more regional, geopolitical, and geoeconomic due to its proximity to these countries. ASEAN and China must then establish an “integrated plan for the aviation industry” in a new BRI zone.
China’s story of placed vision highlights the NCLB scheme’s new Asian focus: the BRI region. Diplomatic acts form a buoyant global network that seems to transcend earth. ICAO and CAAC signed the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation Letter of Intent in Aviation Cooperation in May 2017. In his meeting with Luxembourg Prime Minister Bettel one month later, Xi Jinping formally launched the name “Air Silk Road” as a new direction to increase financial and production capacity cooperation within the “Belt and Road Initiatives”. The Chinese Central Enterprise Aviation Industry Corporation of China chose the phrase for their Air Silk Road Alliance initiative. The planned alliance has two layers: a cross-sectoral alliance linking a full chain of the aviation industry—aviation equipment manufacture, aviation infrastructure construction, and aviation operating services—and a cross-boundary alliance that channels the “going abroad” of the domestic aviation industry and capital. As of 2017, China has bilateral aviation transportation agreements with 62 Belt and Road countries and direct air links with 43 countries.
China signed a document with ASEAN on the region’s Fourth Freedom of Air in 2010, but made no progress at country level. Air service provision and air security and safety were added to the agreement in 2014. Cambodia’s National Assembly approved the ASEAN-China Aviation Cooperation Framework in 2016. These inter-state agreements allow China to enter ASEAN airspace and participate in transnational aviation standard-setting.
Diplomatic efforts to place Chinese professional elites in ICAO’s transnational authority reconfigure ontological territory. Here, elites, transnational organizations, and their norms create a pathway for airplanes to take off from China, enter ASEAN airspace horizontally, and land vertically on their soil as “existential constructions of… our planet” on their takeoff and return journeys. The gate broke the relationally smooth airspaces of two sovereign countries and provided a new stripe with a new institutional path for airplanes going between them. The Air Silk Road’s image is bolstered by its intangible geopolitical networks. The NCLB scheme’s narratives on aviation safety and China’s story of Asian brothers for a placed vision wooed Cambodia into bilateral air service operations treaties. Chinese companies in aviation products and services, professional training, supporting facilities, and economic zones are intervening in the aviation economy under the integrated strategy.
Stratifying the earth: airport check-in
Surprisingly, Chinese land-development developers who weren’t initially beneficiaries supported China’s airspace outreach in ASEAN countries. This has led to the rapid construction of an aviation special zone with an airport at its center. The Royal Government of Cambodia and Tianjin-based Union Group developed the Coastal City Resort Developmental Zone, a special economic zone. After the Cambodian government adopted the special economic zone model for industrialization and urbanization in 2008, the Union Group entered the land-development competition. The Coastal City was intended as a resort development along Dara Sakor’s coast to take advantage of natural resources like the world’s second-largest mangrove forest and Botum Sakor National Forest Park. The resort-style master plan included hotels, holiday villas, yacht marinas, and golf courses. The project stalled for several years. The Union Group quickly revamped Coast City’s aim to be ASEAN’s regional aviation center with a second-class airport, echoing the Air Silk Road Scheme.
Sphere of influence
The flying relay from China to Cambodia passes through three institutional gates, the airport’s material context, and mangrove environments. The three gates, which function in atmospheric, terrestrial, and biological worlds and involve diverse actors and policies, form one interface to invite, assist, regulate, or reject relay succession. After being conditioned by contingently coupled socio-technical forces, the three sites function as gates along the same chain of effects. The three sites then connected air, earth, and water.
The moving airplane disrupts the original spatial configuration of the aerial system and causes a series of reorganizations due to the interdependence between the two gates of aviation arrangement and airport. Cambodians expect foreign firms to privatize airports. Since 1995, French corporation Vinci Airport has privatized all three major airports in the nation. The NCLB scheme and Cambodia’s “an integrated plan of the aviation industry” spurred additional bidders to compete for airport privatization and aviation-led development. Vinci expanded Sihanoukville Airport’s runways from 2800 to 3300 m in 2016 after finishing Phnom Penh’s airport development. Yunnan Investment Group, another Chinese enterprise, signed the contract for the Siem Reap Angkor International Airport Project, a top-tier airport.
Regional aerial networks were reorganized after effective territorialization on Earth. The Asia Pacific Regional Aviation Routes Committee held four sessions in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, China, and Cambodia from 2017 to 2018 to hear ideas from allies. The U.S. and Indonesia replanned the aerial route between Australia and Asia, but Thailand and Vietnam halted Cambodia’s idea. The Cambodian top-standard airport project garnered criticism from various countries. Steven Mnuchin, US Treasury Secretary, questioned Cambodia’s longest runway, which fighter-jet pilots prefer. The US imposed visa and financial sanctions on Coast City military personnel for wrongdoing. Local opposition parties echoed these claims. A local researcher noticed that the two superpowers “start to compete, push, and splash water at each other” in Cambodia.
The importance of Iran’s membership in the SCO
The members of Majlis (the Parliament) have approved the emergency of the plan of Iran’s commitments to achieve the position...
Sabah: ‘The Americans have deceived themselves, the Europeans and Ukraine’
The US is repeating the same mistakes as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Now – in Ukraine. So it...
Saudi-Chinese Friendship: Should India be Concerned?
Saudi Arabia hosted the grand China-Arab summit in December last year and leaders of the two nations deliberated on future...
China’s assurance of Rohingya repatriation between Myanmar-Bangladesh
We now have new hope thanks to news reports that were published in the Bangladeshi dailies on Tuesday and contained...
Deployment of 5G Technology: Scrutinizing the Potential Menace & Its Repercussions globally
5G, or fifth generation, is the latest generation of mobile telecommunications technology. It promises faster internet speeds, lower latency, and...
Serbia must reject the ultimatum regarding Kosovo
The President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vucic on January 20th had a meeting with the Western negotiating team about the solution...
A turning moment in Ukraine Crisis
Germany’s decision to send tanks to Ukraine is a major moment in the Ukraine Crisis. It will have a far-reaching...
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Why there is New Escalation in Ukraine War?
Africa4 days ago
Sergey Lavrov Embarks on Geopolitical Lecturing Tour to Africa
World News4 days ago
Washington draws Israel and South Korea into Ukraine conflict
Intelligence4 days ago
Operation Neptune Spear and the Killing of Osama bin Laden
Economy3 days ago
Trade and Gender in South Asia
Economy2 days ago
Pakistan’s geo-economic policy and regional connectivity
World News4 days ago
Jacinda Ardern resigned as New Zealand’s PM or was forcibly ousted from power?
Finance2 days ago
Ray Dalio: Dollar-dominated global order is ‘fading away’