The content of this article comes from the Internet, if it is inconsistent with the actual situation or there is infringement, please contact to delete.
The whole world was stunned! When U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Vietnam and formally met, a strange detail appeared: the Vietnamese flag flew high, while the American flag was empty. This is really interesting, because the details of international exchanges often reveal the problem. The so-called "carelessness" is likely to be "intentional", and there must be deep considerations behind this subtle signal.
This situation does make one wonder, whether intentional or unintentional, youthful or deliberate, a detail that plays a key role in international diplomacy. On this rather symbolic occasion, if the Vietnamese side wants to leg U.S. Secretary of State Erlang, they seem to have succeeded. So far, Vietnam has not made it clear that this is just an accident, and obviously, there is more to it.
Since this is the case, it is necessary to think carefully about what Vietnam intends to do. This event can be interpreted from two different perspectives.
I. Vietnam wants to send a signal to China through the flaws in the flag arrangement to show their delicate balance between the United States and China. The ultimate goal of the United States is to include Vietnam in the Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China's influence. However, for Vietnam, China is ASEAN's main trading partner, so there is no good reason for them to explicitly side with the United States. In addition, Vietnam has been at war with the United States, so they treat relations with China more equally. Therefore, Vietnam may use the details of this flag to tell the world that their foreign policy is not as simple as it seems, but involves complex considerations.
Blinken's visit is also problematic, and Vietnam may use the flag incident to gently retaliate. Although President Biden has spoken by phone with the Vietnamese leadership, Blinken's itinerary does not appear to be sincere. He mentioned a possible visit to China, which left the impression that he had not been able to visit China for the first time, before deciding to visit Vietnam, making a visit to Vietnam seem like a secondary option. In addition, the timing of the G7 summit overlaps with the visit to Vietnam, which may lead to the perception that the visit to Vietnam is only a passing visit. So the details of the Vietnamese flag may represent Vietnam's attitude, which is willing to elevate relations with the United States but does not want to offend China or become a pawn of the United States in the Indo-Pacific.
Before Blinken's visit to Vietnam, Vietnam released some details that showed their intentions. President Biden's mention of upgrading relations between the two countries was supported by Vietnamese leaders and warmly welcomed Blinken's visit. However, Vietnamese leaders explicitly mentioned "specific areas" for promoting cooperation, namely economic and scientific and technological cooperation. This suggests that Vietnam is no longer just a U.S. patrol boat, but more focused on economic and technological cooperation. At the same time, the United States stressed the need to guarantee "freedom of navigation in the South China Sea," but Vietnam adheres to the principle of non-use of force or the threat of use of force to maintain peace. This makes Vietnam appear cunning and firm in diplomatic negotiations.
So when they see Blinken counting huge sums of money in Vietnam to build the U.S. embassy, Vietnam may be secretly laughing, not because of hospitality, but because the U.S. secretary of state seems a little naïve. Behind this incident lies a more complex diplomatic chess game, Vietnam is skillfully defending its national interests, and the United States needs more sincerity to win Vietnam's support.
Revelation:
The event conveyed some interesting messages, highlighting the details and political motives behind international engagement. Here are some revelations and truths:
Details are everything: This event once again underscores the importance of details in international interactions. Whether it's the arrangement of the flag or the itinerary of the leader, these subtleties can convey important information. Diplomacy between states often communicates intentions and positions through these details.
Transmission of political signals: International events often involve the transmission of political signals. Vietnam may be interested in sending a signal to China through the flag issue that it is not so easy to be wooed by the United States in foreign policy, especially when it comes to China.
The importance of diplomatic sincerity: Diplomacy requires sincerity and sincerity, otherwise it will lead to misunderstandings and doubts. The U.S. Foreign Ministry's arrangements for this visit to Vietnam may not be sincere enough, which may affect the development of relations between the two countries.
Rise of Economic and Scientific Cooperation: Vietnam's clear desire to strengthen cooperation in the economic and scientific and technological fields reflects a new focus in modern international diplomacy. Economic and scientific and technological cooperation has gradually become the core issue in international relations, rather than traditional military cooperation.
The political game behind it: International diplomacy often involves complex political games. It is not just the flag issue, but also the words and actions of leaders are influenced by politics and geopolitics. Behind the scenes, the state will adopt various strategies in order to protect its own interests and status.
Summary:
The incident revealed subtle details and political motives in international diplomacy. The flag issue of Vietnam and the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Vietnam both conveyed some interesting messages. In general, Vietnam may be trying to convey the following message through these details:
First, Vietnam understands that the U.S. strategic goal is to encircle China by wooing Vietnam. But Vietnam, as one of China's main trading partners, will not easily offend China for the benefit of the United States. Vietnam may send a signal to China through the question of the flag that their foreign policy will not be carried out exactly according to the wishes of the United States.
Second, Blinken's itinerary may be seen as insincere. He had previously spoken of visiting China, which led to the misconception that he had switched to Vietnam because he had failed to visit China. Moreover, his visit to Vietnam coincides with the G7 summit, which may give the impression that Vietnam is just a substitute for his visit to China. Vietnam may convey this through the flag issue, indicating that they are willing to upgrade relations with the United States, but do not want to offend China.
Most importantly, Vietnam has made clear that it wants to strengthen economic and scientific and technological cooperation with the United States, rather than focusing on military cooperation. This reflects a trend in modern international diplomacy where countries are more focused on economic prosperity and technological development than on traditional military alliances. The United States emphasizes freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but Vietnam's adherence to the principle of non-use of force or threat of force in international relations shows that it wants to preserve peace.
In this event, the complexity of international diplomacy and political games are unfolded. The details and the political motives behind them are key factors in international relations, and countries adopt strategies to defend their interests and status. Through this incident, Vietnam sent a wise message to the world that it is willing to cooperate with the United States, but is unwilling to abandon economic ties and peace principles with China. This incident reminds us of the importance of understanding details and the political considerations behind them in international diplomacy.
The above content and materials are derived from the Internet, relevant data, theoretical research in the Internet materials, does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. We are not responsible for any issues arising above or in connection with the above and the author of this article do not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.