Originally published on the CGS blog on May 28, 2016.
Recently, President Obama announced the end of the arms embargo against Vietnam, “ensur[ing] that Vietnam has access to the equipment it needs to defend itself and…underscoring the commitment of the United States to a fully normalized relationship with Vietnam.” While the Obama Administration has maintained that this is not being done as a response to China’s growing military, and hold over the disputed South China Sea, others see it as strategic decision to balance a rising China.
But some, like John Sifton of Human Rights Watch, have criticized the move as being “undeserved at this time.” With Obama too noting that “there are still areas of significant concern in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, [and] accountability with respect to government,” many argue that Vietnam’s current treatment of human rights does not merit closer ties with the U.S. For example, an activist was grabbed and held until after Obama had left the country.
Moreover, Amnesty International’s John Coughlan suggested Obama’s visit was a potential opportunity to stand in “solidarity” with the people of Vietnam:
People in the country see America as representing certain values like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These are rights in Vietnam that are very tightly restricted. So, if Obama was to call on the government to relax restrictions, people will not be thinking, “how dare he.” It would be seen as an act of solidarity. I think when Obama comes, most Vietnamese people will feel extremely proud. The problem is that human rights do not seem to be central to the visit.
Yet one could also argue that security – both that of the U.S. as well as its allies – is key to U.S. being able to continue to influence and protect human rights around the world. Particularly in the South China Sea, where “failure to respond to Chinese coercion or use of force could damage U.S. credibility,” it is arguably important for the U.S. to remain strong, either through its own actions or the actions of its allies. Expanding Vietnam’s options to defend itself not only helps deter further conflict with China, but also allows the U.S. to better exert its influence and prove its commitment to its allies. It may even have a positive impact on human rights, if sales are in fact held to the strict requirements Obama mentioned in his announcement.
It is hard to know how to weigh human rights versus security – what is the right balance between the two? For those on either side of the issue it is black and white: actions that will benefit one to the detriment of the other must be avoided. It begs the question: is there a policy in which both can win?
