In March 1993, from University of Wisconsin-Madison, professor Donald K. Emmerson wrote a famous paper “Let’s lift Vietnam embargo”. He raised five reasons: business opportunities, declining leverage, regional stability, historical realms, and political timing. These came true soon after that.

In 2002, Prof Emmerson was member of the board that gave the Shorenstein award to Stanley Karnow, the author of the book “Vietnam: a History”.

Above are some small examples of Emmerson’s involvements in Vietnam. Not to mention other works of him on South East Asia, APEC, etc.

The other visitor, it is hard to say exactly that Daniel C. Sneider is a journalist or a political expert. He was bureau chief at the Moscow of the Christian Science Monitor when the Soviet Union collapsed. He was in Tokyo when the Japanese – Korean tension got to the peak. He was also in United Nation, India, South and South East Asia. His current research interests include North East Asian alliances and generational changes.

The discussion topics of the roundtable will include:

- Integrations in East and South East Asia, and US policies on this issue.

- How Vietnam gain better position in international relations.

- Challenges and difficulties of US in international relations.

Vietnam is speeding up to rush into international integration. However, many of us still struggle with many questions: economic integration or total integration? Regional or global integration? What will be Vietnam’s position? How will bilateral and multilateral relations develop? And for sure, a lot more question… Let’s join VietNamNet to discuss with our guesses today.

Who attend, speak and discuss with you at the Southeast Asia forum?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: We invite outsiders to come to Stanford. I think that this year we will end up having 12-14 speakers during the course of the academic year. In fact, someone, the vice chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Vietnamese National Assembly is coming; Madame Ninh, we saw her just yesterday. She will be giving a presentation. So we're very eager to have her speak at Stanford.

Have you visited some universities in Vietnam already?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: Here in Hanoi, we had a fascinating day, all day yesterday, and this morning, with the Institute for International Relations. As you know, they are a large institute, they have scholars, they have people that work for the government, they teach.

What do you think about Vietnamese universities? What is different about the models of teaching and researching?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: Well, this is a very brief visit to Vietnam but we understand that Vietnamese universities are trying to change their curricula, and the ways that they teach. Perhaps there will be less emphasis on memorisation, rote learning, and more emphasis on dynamic interaction between the teacher and the student. And I think that is quite encouraging because, presumably, higher education should induce critical thinking, help you think critically, independently, analytically and autonomously, and for that you need much more than just reading the book and memorising it, and repeating it on the exam. So, I'm very encouraged by that.

Mr. Sneider, what do you think about Vietnam today? You know we are preparing for the 10th Party Congress. What do you think about that?

Mr. Daniel Sneider: Well, we've been talking about the upcoming 10th Party Congress with a number of the people we've met here, and we understand that it has been somewhat of an unusual process of preparation for the congress, as the draft political declaration was circulated in advance and they were soliciting opinions from around the country; and I gather they got a lot of response from all sorts of people, and via your Internet programmes, and that's very interesting to us.

I think that is hopefully a sign of change in Vietnam in terms of greater political participation. I understand there are some controversial issues being discussed at the congress, such as whether party members can engage in business, whether, if you will, capitalists can also be communists. And that again, seems to be a sign of reform. I have also heard some criticism, though, that maybe the Party Congress is not going fast enough, that the pace of change is not quick enough in terms of reform to meet the demands that are on Vietnam to participate in the global economy. So, I'm sure it will be an interesting Party Congress.It may not be completely satisfactory to everybody. It certainly is very interesting for us to watch, as we're very interested in the process of reform in Vietnam. We know how much - this is my second visit to Vietnam. I started coming here twenty years ago. I have a sense of how much change has taken place here. I think the pace of change has been very rapid, but I'm interested to see how things go here.

In your report you say you are not certain about the future of ASEAN. What do you think about the concept of ASEAN + and ASEAN + 3?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: I take it you have read the article. Thank you for that. It is always nice to be read. The effort in that particular article was to try to answer the question, is Southeast Asia under ASEAN a community? Now I suppose that it depends on what you mean by a community. But I think particularly, since you live in Southeast Asia, we're in California, remember, but I think more than most outside observers you are aware of how diverse Southeast Asia is. I mean, if you speak of Chinese civilisation, and Indian civilisation, in between the two, in Southeast Asia, is there a single Southeast Asian civilisation on the basis of which you could argue that Southeast Asia is a community? No. I don't think so.

Instead what you have, all the major world religions are represented, you have hundreds and hundreds of ethnic groups and languages. You have a variety of economic and political experiments going on. Compare say, Brunei and the Philippines: in terms of their political systems they are radically different. So, in a sense, the great resource that Southeast Asia has is its diversity. But that doesn't mean that Southeast Asia has a kind of common identity that could serve as the basis for community. Unless, we define community more loosely, which it seems to me to be what ASEAN is doing. And I think that the effort, particularly after the Indonesians launched this initiative toward launching a security community, ASEAN is now speaking of an economic community, and perhaps trickiest, a socio-cultural community.

I can imagine ASEAN becoming a security community and an economic community before, perhaps long before, it becomes a socio-cultural community. And if you add additional countries, you have ten already, not counting East Timor, which might become a member, who knows. If you have ten in Southeast Asia with incredible diversity and you add on to that the three in Northeast Asia, that is Japan, Korea, China, the diversity increases even more.

I can't quite see how enlarging the frame, especially if you go beyond as we did in December at the East Asian Summit in Malaysia. You bring in Australia, you bring in New Zealand, you bring in India. Russia was playing kind of a role at that meeting as well. At that point the diversity is so great that it makes no sense to talk about a community, except in a very superficial way.

What comments can you make about the role of Vietnam in ASEAN?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: Well, I think that the first comment one has to make, is that since ASEAN accepted Vietnam in 1995, historical tensions have been set aside. It is no longer relevant. Following the formation of ASEAN in August of 1967, we had official statements coming out of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that were highly critical of ASEAN, highly critical. They dismissed it as a creation of the Americans, a creation of the Cold War. And we could argue about the truth or not of those accusations. It is a historical conversation that we're not going to have right now. But the point is, that it is a new Southeast Asia and a new Vietnam. At least in terms of Doi Moi it is a renovated Vietnam. So my sense of it is that Vietnam wants to look to the future, ASEAN wants to look to the future, so let's leave the past to history.

What is the role of Vietnam in ASEAN right now?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: That's a difficult question. It would be presumptuous of me to answer the question. I am not Vietnamese, I'm not a Southeast Asian, I'm an outsider. I guess I would say something along these lines. I've noticed in the time we have been here and on previous visits to Vietnam, there is a tendency on the part of the Vietnamese, especially now, since they have opened up to the outside world and they compare themselves to other countries.

Perhaps in a way that they didn't before, I think there is a tendency to think of Vietnam as a small country, a vulnerable country. Vietnamese friends whom we have met who said that are in some sense correct. But you can also reverse that. Vietnam is the second-largest country inside ASEAN. It has the second-biggest population. It's economic growth rate last year was dramatically higher - roughly 8.4% - dramatically higher than the rates that were registered by Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, by Thailand, by Indonesia, all registering around 5%.

Now the projection for this year, as I understand, the middle scenario, is 7.5%. Now that's not quite as good as last year, but it is dramatic. If you maintain that economic growth rate over a period of time, Vietnam becomes an economic powerhouse. It will take a while, I admit. So I think that it's important to think of Vietnam not only as a small country that plays a minor role in ASEAN, but rather a dynamic economy, in many respects a successful economy, undergoing a transition of reform, and like my colleague Dan, we are very interested in this process of reform.

I think Vietnam has a future of not just being a minor member of ASEAN but a major one. The only other thing I would say is that I think there has been a tendency to divide from the outside analytically, the main lands from the islands. And of course Indonesia is by far the largest country in Southeast Asia. But if we look at the mainland, and we look at it historically, there have historically in mainland Southeast Asia been two centres of power: in Thailand, and in Vietnam. Maybe your readers would disagree, but you could argue that for the first time in the history of Vietnam, it has good relations with all of the outside powers, including China. And including the US. That is a remarkable achievement. Number one, it's a growing country, it's a growing power; number two, it's quite influential in the Mekong area; and number three, it has good relations with the neighborhood, which is a further opportunity for Vietnam to play a constructive role internationally.

What do you think about IT strategies for ASEAN countries?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: It is very hard to compete with the Chinese when it comes to certain kinds of manufacturing industry, particularly ones in which labour costs are the crucial factor, because the Chinese have a huge supply of labour and the cost of labour is extraordinarily low. In certain areas, Vietnam, and other countries in Southeast Asia have competed in low-wage labour, but I think it makes more sense, in some sense, to go down the Indian path. That is to find areas of competitive advantage that don't rely so much on low-wage labour.

Obviously, you have a competitive advantage in the cost of labour - that's important. But I think in the Indian case, it's not only the cost of labour, it's also the quality of labour. Particularly their ability to produce fairly skilled engineers, computer scientists, others. And the one thing that India has that is very crucial is English. I think in some senses, the historical legacy like the Indian British colonialism has come to a source of tormented advantage for India, when it helps produced hundreds of thousands of university graduates for university system, basically a higher education system, which is largely conducted in English, and their best secondary schools are on English.

Therefore, the whole call-centre industry in India largely depends on English. We know that in the United States because everyday I get a phone call in my house from somebody offering to sell me something, insurance or new loans on my house or some IT services and I finally, at the end of the call, found out that it is from India.

Now obviously some places in Southeast Asia have similar competitive advantages like India, Singapore for example and perhaps the Philippines for some degrees. Vietnam doesn’t have that language advantage but you do have very big population, well educated population. And I know that in Vietnam they desire to move up and change as quick as possible.

They not only do textile and shoe manufacturing but to move more quickly up their IT change. And I think the key in the lesson of India to me is education. Your development really depends on the development of the education system, at all level. I see a lot of activities here in terms of universities, a lot of restructuring of, destruction and expansion of universities. And I think that where your future lies is when you have got to produce a high quality, well educated manpower.

Should ASEAN countries improve or make higher quality for their education system?

I think that the ability to compete in this world is very difficult in a competitive environment. Those who have the best education as the ones who can compete best. And that’s true in the US as well.

What do you think about Prof. Emmerson’s opinion?

Mr. Daniel Sneider: I think his opinions are very well taken. I mean he has made a number of good points. I would only add this: obviously my colleague didn’t mean and imply that call centers are everything. One thing that call centers don’t do is to improve infrastructure. If they are exporting products they must have a good road, a good transportation system to get them to a port so they can ship them somewhere. In fact the fascinating comparison here seem to me between India and China. Compared to China, India has poor infrastructure and they need to further upgrade.

I think again Vietnam has an opportunity to invite foreign capital. Intel has recently opened up a factory in HCM City. This is a good sign which can help bring together capital and brain and intelligence. English is really important but you really need investment to upgrade infrastructure.

In your research you mention three countries that require their students to read more book, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Do you think that one day in the future Vietnam will be the fourth country that you will mention in your research?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: The answer is absolutely yes. The reasons for including those three countries is perhaps more historical given the background that exposure to capitalism in a way that historically Vietnam was not. But I think the historical differences are becoming radically irrelevant. And yes, if I were to rewrite that article, revise it and update it, I would love to include Vietnam. Why not? Absolutely.

Vietnam will host APEC Summit this November. what do you think about the role of Vietnam in APEC and the influence of APEC on Vietnam?

Mr. Daniel Sneider: I have been impressed... well the first thing that I noticed when we arrived here, which was in HCM City, is a big billboard of APEC 2006. It means that this is already the major focus of the Vietnam government to prepare for their hosting of the summit. And I understand that to hold an event like this, it is in itself significant.

You know it will bring attention to Vietnam, it'll bring obviously the leaders of 21 countries to VN including the President of US. And I'm happy the president is coming here. And so it'll give other people a chance to see what is going on in VN.

I understand also it provides some kind of impetus to deal with some issues that have been long-standing issues like Vietnamese membership in the WTO. I know that there is on-going negotiation with the US to finish the process of WTO membership and that there's a desire on the part of Vietnamese government and US government to finish that process before the APEC summit. Sometimes having a summit meeting like that is good in terms of giving a push to resolving those kinds of issues.

For that is good, I think the APEC meeting is going to be a very good international party for Vietnam. On the other hand, I think APEC itself is a very important organization and it needs its own push. In recent years, I don't know that APEC has made this kind of progress. We would like to see APEC to become more serious institutional structure. It is more kinds of opportunities for countries to talk each other and to promote the idea of Asia-pacific economic cooperation. But we have yet to see the substance of that reality.

Whenever you are the host, you have something to say about the decoration and the direction of the meeting. So I hope the Vietnamese government will be thinking seriously about what direction it wants to lead APEC and we have some conversation about that. It's part of the discussion here. But it's a good opportunity for Vietnam to really show its leadership in some of these issues.

What do you think about the possibility that Vietnam will become a member of WTO before President Bush comes to Vietnam for the APEC Summit?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: Well, I think it's desirable, not only for Vietnam but also for the international community. Vietnam in a way faces the problem of the late entrance, a late arrival. That is to say negotiations with China, with the range of other countries have already taken place. There maybe... I'm not sure as I have not interviewed American policy makers on that but there're maybe some concerns in the US that China is perhaps not living up to some promises it made as part of the agreement when it entered the WTO. This may be a problem for Vietnam. And so far it was the standard of reason. I suppose that the later you apply, the tougher it is in the way to get in. And I think the Vietnamese government acknowledges that. Nevertheless, I very much hope that negotiations will be successful.

I would say this, there maybe a tendency to exaggerate the importance of any one single level for promoting economic cooperation, trade relations, investment with other countries. Think of it. I mean, at the bottom, you have bilateral agreements which are extensively valuable. There's clearly a relationship between the bilateral agreement with the US that finally came into effect in 2001 and the fact of today. My understanding is that the US is the number one export market for Vietnam. So you know, this has very little to do with global trade arrangement. It has some to do, yes, but not very much. And then if you move one step up, you have after the ASEAN Free trade arrangement. And frankly, I think the record on after is somewhat mixed as you know the Singaporeans for example got tired of waiting for what they consider to be necessary progress on after survey initiates the whole range of bilateral arrangement including free trade agreement with the US. And so I think the regional level is important, yes, but it has limitations.

So if you move, finally to the globalization, you know you got the APEC which is the Asia-Pacific arrangement and then all kinds because of the involvement of the US in APEC that all kind of arrangement can be reached in APEC level which can not possibly be struck at an ASEAN level.

But finally you have WTO at that global level. I mean among economists in the US, there was a debate that is still going on between: do you concentrate on regional arrangements which then become stepping-stones building blocks to a global economy that is improved or do those lock in certain preferential trading arraignments which are not helpful for global free trade.

I think from the stand point of an individual or government that countries including Vietnam would have to do this - identify the issues and then figure out what the map it is to resolve those issues, what appropriate arrangements are at each of those 4 levels: bilateral, regional, trans-Pacific and global. And I hope that in the preparation that Vietnam makes for APEC, these kinds of activities are kept in mind.

If you take APEC for example, what Vietnam identifies with in APEC? Probably you would say eco-tech. There are numbers of other concerns but I think eco-tech is the major issue. Each countries that hosts APEC leaves its imprint on APEC and so I think Vietnam needs to ask itself not just the government but now, because of reform, people of this kind who are sending in questions to this program.

Many people said that stable security is a big advantage of Vietnam in attracting foreign direct investment. What is your opinion?

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: Internal security?

Yes, I mean that they praise Vietnam to have good security, a safe country. And that’s the strong advantage of us in competing with other countries for the flows of foreign investment capital.

Mr. Daniel Sneider: I'm sure that is a factor for many companies. Obviously terrorism is a concern in Southeast Asia. And I'm sure that companies are now making decisions about where to invest. The security is one factor, but I'm not sure it is a decisive factor. It's probably one factor. I mean the other thing is that companies probably tend to look at more. They look at infrastructure, they look at labour cost, they look at tax policy, legal environment in terms of security, in terms of the rule of law for their contracts... I suspect those things would be more important than the physical security.

One area where security does them all is tourism industry. And I know that Vietnam is becoming a very popular tourists' destination in Southeast Asia. This is a very beautiful country and people who are hospitable, great culture. I think this is the country's unlimited potential when it comes to international tourism. And in the case of international tourism, security is a very much a factor. So clearly you know, people who are thinking of going to Bali may prefer to go to Vietnam because they are afraid of terrorism. So I think in that area, certainly it has some impact.

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: It's corruption as well. I mean the mechanism. Corruption is a real draw-back from the stand point of companies that have to pay more than the market price for services. Obviously, most of the countries in Southeast Asia can make progress on that.

Yes, I know that you was in Moscow when the Soviet Union collapsed. At that point of time, what do you think about Vietnam?

Mr. Daniel Sneider: That moment? I don't know that I was thinking lot about Vietnam at that moment. You know the collapse of the Soviet Union, I mean the true collapse, as they clearly are not exactly the same thing. There was the collapse of the Soviet Union. There's a unified nation including 15 different countries. That, to me, was an issue of empire. The Soviet Union really was an empire. There was the Russian empire in a different form and that empire work apart. And then there were somewhat separate issues in someway of the communist party, the end of communist party rule. That may be more relevant to the case of Vietnam.

I'm sure that the Vietnamese leaders and as certainly was the case in China and elsewhere in the communist world looked at that process with some degrees of concern because they watch the rapid end to the communist party, political power and maybe if they want to stay in power, they have to figure out what is the lesson of that event. There was a debate in Russia and that debate is going on in China. And I suppose that the debate is going on here as well. What comes first? The political reform or economic reform. Many people in Russia thought that "we should do political reform first, that you have to do political reform in order to have economic reform.” The Chinese model was the opposite. Economic reform comes first. It creates wealth, economic growth and then you can do political reform.

And I think Vietnam is following that model. Maybe they came to that model themselves but in anyway, it's somewhat ideal. You know today in Russia, there are many people who argue: Are we made a mistake? We should have gone the Chinese path, we should have done economic reform first and then political reform. I don't think it is easy to answer these questions. When I was in Russia at that time, I thought the Russians made the right choice, that it was the Soviet system. It was really impossible to carry out economic reform without political reform. Govbachov tried to make economic reform first and he acknowledged the bureaucratic state was too powerful.

Maybe in the case of Vietnam, and China, you have different culture, different history. I think you have an entrepreneurial culture, that's very strong. So maybe it's possible to go in different path. Maybe for the Russians, they didn't have that option. But just leave history.

Do you think that Vietnamese leaders have had correct selection? We’ve chosen economic reforms firstly, then come to political reform.

Mr. Daniel Sneider: To be honest with you, at the time of the collapse of the Communist rule, I thought the Russians was with right path: political reform first, economic reforms follow. Now I'm not so sure. And frankly if I were assured, it's not for me to make that judgment. That's the judgment the Vietnamese people have to make for themselves. The same thing is true in China, I don't think it's really not appropriate. There are much bases for outsiders to say: you should do this, this is the only way to go. I think there's no single path, and certainly it's not something for Americans to be telling other people what to do.

Prof. Donald K. Emmerson: I would love to comment of this. I was here in Hanoi in 1987. And at that time, the Soviet Union was already undergoing the beginning of the crisis which ultimately would destroy it in 1991. And one consequence of that turmoil was that the price of oil, gas which has been previously more subsidized, was through very serious import terms from the Soviet Union. I remember at that time, I could no longer afford to take taxis in Hanoi because I did not have enough money. I mean it was my fault as I did not bring enough money with me. And so I thought of using cyclo.

Now what is remarkably about that critical time is that I think in 1987, there was, on the thought of some Vietnamese leaders, a failure which was shared by virtually all of the observers that I know in the US to realize what was happening that the Soviet Union was doomed. So I visited to the Foreign Ministry, I had an interview with someone on the desk, a North American desk and I asked this person, a Vietnamese official. It was 1987, remember, a long time ago. I said: "Well, do you think it might be possible to have normal relations with the US?" And he looked at me and he said: "My country has not had relations with yours for 4,000 years. And we can afford to wait for another 4,000 years".

Now that hard-line became utterly irrelevant within a few years. In 1991, not only did the Soviet Union collapse but the leadership in Vietnam recognised a changing world. So that is not just the question of debate about whether you put economic reform first or political reform. It was how you survive when you have lost you main support, when your main support - the Soviet Union was definitely degraded. And it seems to me that one has to credit the Vietnamese leadership for having adapted very rapidly to that situation because 1991 was not only the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was the normalization with China. Here in Vietnam, it was the agreement on Cambodia, which involved the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops which began at the end of the preceding decade.

So I think it's encouraging to remember that time because it suggests the leadership of Vietnam is capable of adapting to a rapidly changing world

Source: Vietnamnet, 21/3/2006