East Asia

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 229–241 | Cite as

The Sino-US-Vietnam Triangle in a Belt and Road Era

  • Ngo Di LanEmail author
  • Truong-Minh Vu


Given systemic anarchy, small states like Vietnam have two basic foreign policy options: (1) align closely with one great power or (2) maintain a hedging posture. The choice between alignment and hedging for small states generally represents a trade-off between survival and autonomy and is mostly predicated on the action of relevant great powers. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is particularly important in this case, as it could be the key factor deciding Vietnam’s overall posture toward China over the long term. While China’s expansionist behavior in the South China Sea has pushed Vietnam toward alignment with the USA, the BRI, if implemented successfully, could convince Vietnam that maintaining the default hedging position is the best option.


Belt and road initiative Asymmetry relationship Sino-USA-Vietnam South China Sea 



  1. 1.
    BBC Vietnam. (2018, August 6). Đổ tiền cho đặc khu có rủi ro tầm quốc gia [Invest money in special zones is a national risk]. BBC Vietnam. Retrieved on 5 August, 2019 from
  2. 2.
    Cha, V. D. (2016). Powerplay: the origins of the American alliance system in Asia. Princeton.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chance, A. (2016, January 26). The ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ is not ‘China’s Marshall Plan’. Why not? The Diplomat. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from why-notGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chanda, N. (1987). Brother enemy–the war after the war: history of Indo-China after the Fall of Saigon. Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chi, H. (2017, August 28). Việt Nam với sáng kiến “Vành đai và Con đường” [Vietnam and the Belt and Road initiative]. Cong an nhan dan online. Retrieved on January 5, 2018 from va-Con-duong-455683/
  6. 6.
    Dosch, J., & Vuving, A. L. (2008). The impact of China on governance structures in Vietnam. DIE Discussion Paper, 14/2008Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dueck, C. (2015). The Obama doctrine: American grand strategy today. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foot, R. (2006). Chinese strategies in a US-hegemonic global order: accommodating and hedging. International affairs, 82(1), 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garver, J. W. (2006). Development of China’s overland transportation links with Central, South-West and South Asia. The China Quarterly, 185, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harknett, R. J., &Yalcin, H. B. (2012). The struggle for autonomy: a realist structural theory of international relations. International Studies Review, 14(4), 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrero, A. G., & Xu, J. (2017). China’s Belt and Road Initiative: can europe expect trade gains?. China & World Economy, 25(6), 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hey, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Small states in world politics: explaining foreign policy behavior. Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hiep, L. (2013). Vietnam’s hedging strategy against China since normalization. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 333–368.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hiep, L. (2017). Pull and push: Sino-Vietnamese relations and President Xi’s Hanoi visit. ISEAS Perspective, 92. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hiep, L. & Tsvetov, A. (Eds.). (2018). Vietnam’s foreign policy under Doi Moi. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hillman, J. (2017, May). China’s “Belt and Road” initiative must become a strategy.Global Economics Monthly, 6(5). Retrieved from
  17. 17.
    Holslag, J. (2010). China’s roads to influence. Asian Survey, 50(4), 641–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keane, A., & Olorunnipa, T. (2016, May 23). U.S. lifts lethal weapons ban to Vietnam 40 years after war. Bloomberg Politics. Retrieved on January 5, 2018 from arms-sales-to-vietnam
  19. 19.
    Keohane, R. O. (1969). Lilliputians’ dilemmas: small states in international politics. International organization, 23(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, T. (2016). The supply side of security: a market theory of military alliances. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lai, B., & Slater, D. (2006). Institutions of the offensive: domestic sources of dispute initiation in authoritarian regimes, 1950–1992. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Las, L. (2011). Sino-Japanese relations toward the second decade of the 21st century. Contemporary European studies, 53–63.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leverett, F., & Bingbing, W. (2017).The New Silk Road and China’s evolving grand strategy. The China Journal, 77(1), 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liff, A. (2015). Japan’s defense policy: abe the evolutionary. The Washington Quarterly, 38(2), 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lynh, K. (2017, May 16). Việt Nam đề xuất các nguyên tắc trong ‘Vành đai và Con đường’ [Vietnam proposes principles concerning the Belt and Road]. VNExpress.Retrieved January 5, 2018 from
  27. 27.
    Mai Chi. (2018, August 11). Sốt sắng lo chất lượng nhà đầu tư và “bẫy nợ” Trung Quốc tại cao tốc Bắc-Nam [Concerns about the quality of investers and Chinese “debt trap” regarding the North-South highway]. Dân Trí. Retrieved on 30 August, 2019 from
  28. 28.
    Mayer, M. (2018). China’s rise as Eurasian power: the revival of the Silk Road and its consequences. In Rethinking the Silk Road China’s Belt and Road Initiative and emerging Eurasian relations (pp. 1-42). Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medeiros, E. S. (2005). Strategic hedging and the future of Asia-Pacific stability. The Washington Quarterly, 29(1), 145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Menon, S. (2017, April 28). The unprecedented promises – and threats – of the Belt and Road Initiative [Editorial]. Brookings. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from
  31. 31.
    Morrison, W. (2015). China’s economic rise: history, trends, challenges, and implications for the United States. (CRS Report No. RL33534). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service
  32. 32.
    Morrow, J. D. (1991). Alliances and asymmetry: an alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 904–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Narizny, K. A critique of the newest realism. International Security, 42(2), 155–190.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: the means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pantucci, R., & Lain, S. (2016). China’s grand strategy: the Belt and Road Initiative. Whitehall Papers, 88(1), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perlez, J., & Huang, Y. (2017, May 13). Behind China’s $1 Trillion plan to shake up the economic order. New YorkTimes. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
  37. 37.
    Posen, B. (2014). Restraint: a new foundation for US grand strategy. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rolland, N. (2017). The Belt and Road Initiative: China’s grand strategy? China Analysis, 234. Retrieved from
  39. 39.
    Rothstein, R. L. (1968). Alliances and small powers. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schroeder, P. (1994). Historical reality vs. neo-realist theory. International Security, 19(1), 108–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shen, S. (2016, February 6). How China’s ‘Belt and Road’ compares to the Marshall Plan. The Diplomat. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from
  42. 42.
    Steinbock, D. (2017, May 15). How the Belt and Road could change the 21st century. China Daily. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
  43. 43.
    Swaine, M. D. (2015). Chinese views and commentary on the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative. China Leadership Monitor, 47(2), 3.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Unlocking the Gates of Eurasia: China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its implications for U.S. grand strategy. Texas National Security Review, 2(3).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Viet Nam News. (2017, October 7). Tread carefully on China’s Belt and Road initiative: experts. Viet Nam News. Retrieved on January 5, 2018 from initiative-experts.html
  46. 46.
    Vietnamese Communist Party, Resolution No. 28 of the Central Committee (2014)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    VietnamNet. (2013, March 9). The outstanding feature of the Vietnamese defense policy. VietnamNet. Retrieved on January 5, 2018 from
  48. 48.
    Vu, T. (2017). The politics of ‘struggling co-evolution’: trade, power, and vision in Vietnam’s relations with China in International Relations and Asia’s Southern Tier, Springer, 2017.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vu, T. M., & Mayer, M. (2019). Hydropower infrastructure and regional order making in the Sub-Mekong region. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 61(1).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Walker, C., & Ludwig, J. (2017, November 16). The meaning of sharp power: How Authoritarian States Project Influence. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from
  51. 51.
    Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Long Grove.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang, Y. (2016). Offensive for defensive: the belt and road initiative and China’s new grand strategy. The Pacific Review, 29(3), 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Westad, O. A. (2017). The Cold War: a world history. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Womack, B. (2006). China and Vietnam: the politics of asymmetry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Xinhua. (2017, May 13). Essential guide to understanding Belt and Road Initiative. Xinhua Net. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from
  56. 56.
    Yanna, L., & Long, B. (2017, August 27). Interview: Vietnamese expert sees Belt and Road Initiative as future Great Wall connecting friends, partners to achieve stronger socioeconomic development. Xinhua Net. Retrieved on January 5, 2018 from
  57. 57.
    Zhai, F. (2018). China’s belt and road initiative: a preliminary quantitative assessment. Journal of Asian Economics, 55, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhang, Y. (2017). Belt and Road Initiative as a Grand Strategy. In China’s Belt and Road Initiatives and Its Neighboring Diplomacy (pp. 3-12).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.University of Social Sciences and HumanitiesVietnam National UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  3. 3.School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA)The Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations