The real intentions of the U.S. are not constructive for the regional security environment, and in fact negatively impact regional security. According to Richard Fontaine and Patrick M. Cronin from the Center for a New American Security, "Vietnam's capacity to resist creeping assertions of sovereignty is outmatched by China's superior might." They argued that steps to normalize military relations through joint exercises and strategic dialogue between the U.S. and Vietnam are not enough, so the U.S. should lift the existing ban on sales of lethal arms to Vietnam. They also reminded their audience that the "weapons should also be limited to the types of defense articles that are most useful in deterring external coercion, such as maritime domain awareness systems, frigates and other vessels, and anti-ship weapons," explaining that lifting the ban on arms sales would help strengthen Vietnam's deterrent capacity against China. However, they counseled that the U.S. should not allow sales of the types of weapons that could be used for domestic repression.

However, this logic has not been consistently followed by some U.S. and Vietnamese officials and scholars. When asked if the decision was made to counter China, Jennifer Psaki said it is intended to "fully integrate Vietnam into maritime security initiatives that we have partnerships on throughout the region," and that it is not an anti-China move. During a speech at the Asia Society, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Vietnam Pham Binh Minh refused to answer this question, and simply laughed in response. Vietnamese Foreign Ministry deputy spokeswoman Tran Thi Bich Van said in a statement that any step that aims to promote the Vietnam-U.S. partnership is welcome. Pham Binh Minh said that the implementation of a lethal weapons embargo against Vietnam is not normal in the process of normalizing relations. But the question is, is it necessary for the two countries to make such a deal? What will the deal be used for? Against whom?

Ian Storey from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore suggested a possible motive for the U.S. decision. He said that the oil rig incident in the waters off the Xisha Islands this year led the U.S. to end the weapons ban sooner. "It underscores America's increasing concern about recent developments in the South China Sea, and in particular how Chinese assertiveness is seen as potentially undermining U.S. interests in the region." According to this logic, China might be a direct target of Vietnam. Furthermore, Pham Binh Minh said dispute between Vietnam and China as well as other countries in the South China Sea is an important factor in the change. However, the South China Sea issue is not just an issue between China and Vietnam - there are also territorial disputes over some islands and waters between Vietnam and other ASEAN countries. If these weapons can be used to counterbalance China, they can also probably be used to fight other countries. After all, it's more difficult to deter China than another country's inferior military in the region. In this sense, Vietnam's neighbors with weaker forces and arms should be more vigilant than China.

The U.S. and Vietnam must convince countries throughout the region of their ultimate intentions. Vietnam's military spending climbed 130 percent from 2003 to 2012, and IHS Jane's forecasts that Vietnam's total defense budget will rise from $4.5 billion in 2014 to $5.6 billion in 2018. When Vietnam obtains lethal weapons and P-3 Orion anti-submarine and maritime surveillance aircraft from the U.S., it will be tougher against its neighbors and will become more assertive in regional security issues, at least as they regard the stability of the South China Sea. However, as the U.S. still continues close surveillance of military information in Vietnam, these weapons also might be used against the U.S., just as Vietnam did decades ago.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn For more information please visit

http://www.ccgp-fushun.com/opinion/zhoushixin.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn