Contending Explanations of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207903400410 |
| Date | 01 December 1979 |
| Author | Bruce Burton |
| Published date | 01 December 1979 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
BRUCE
BURTON
Contending
explanations
of
the
1979
Sino-Vietnamese
War
A
wide
range
of
differing
explanations
has
already
been
advanced
by
analysts
to
account
for
the
bitter
border
conflict
fought
between
China
and
Vietnam
earlier
this
year.'
Some
commentators
have
stressed
the importance
of
'ancient
enmities,'
2
while others
are
con-
vinced
that
it
is
Hanoi's
connection
with
the
Soviet
Union
'above
all
else
which
has
soured
Sino-Vietnamese
relations.'
3
Certain
American
scholars
reportedly
saw
the
Chinese
invasion
of
Vietnam
as
a
strategic
move
'to
force
Hanoi
to
move
its
troops
from Cam-
bodia
to
its
northern
border
areas,'
while
others
apparently
sug-
gested
that
it
was
an
attempt
by
Deng
Xiaoping
to
consolidate
nationalist
feelings
in
China
behind
his
leadership.
4
American
State
Department
officials
for
their
part
referred
to
China's
'histor-
ical
obsession
with
the
sanctity
of
its
borders.'
5
Most
commentators
have
viewed
the
exodus
of
the
overseas
Chinese
from
Vietnam
as
at
least
an
important
contributory
factor
in
the
conflict.
One
Western
analyst
focussed
on
the
opposing strategic imperatives
of
Vietnam
and China,
6
while
official
explanations
from
both
Hanoi and
Associate
Professor
of Political
Science,
University
of
Windsor,
Ontario.
1
Chinese
troops
launched
their
'counterattack'
against Vietnam
on
17
February
and
reportedly
completed
their
withdrawal
to
Chinese
territory
by
16
March.
2
See,
for
example,
Robert
McFadden,
New
York
Times,
18
February
1979,
and
Don
Oberdorfer,
Washington
Post,
1
April
1979.
3
John
Gittings,
'Peking
Exacts
Price for
Company
Hanoi
Keeps,'
Manchester
Guardian
Weekly,
25
February
1979.
The
same
view
was
expressed
by
Ross
Terrill
in
the
Montreal
Star,
26
February
1979.
4
New
York
Times,
sg
February
1979.
5
Elizabeth
Becker,
Far
Eastern
Economic
Review,
Cut
(2
March
1979).
6
Dennis
Duncanson,
'China's
Vietnam War:
New
and
Old
Strategic
Imperatives,'
World
Today,
xxv
(June
1979),
241-8.
700
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Beijing
single
out
the
hegemonism
and
expansionism
of
the other
party
as
the crucial
factors.
It
is
hardly surprising
that
we
should
be
presented with
such
an
array
of
interpretations.
The
issues
involved
in
the
Sino-Vietnamese
conflict
are
numerous and
complex.
Practically
all
of
these
explana-
tions,
and
others
yet
to
be
mentioned,
can
be
found
to
have
some
relevance.
The
problem confronting
the
would-be
analyst
is
of
course
to
determine
which are
the
most
pertinent.
That
quite nor-
mal
problem
is
aggravated
in
this
case
by
proximity
in
time
to
the
events
in
question and
by
the
surprising
dearth
of
analyses of
post-
1949
Sino-Vietnamese
relations.
7 Many
aspects
of
that
relationship
have
yet
to
be
properly
explored.
The
following
attempt
to
find
a
path
through
this
particular
'thicket
of
theories'
8
is
therefore
bound
to be
rather
tentative.
One
way
to
make
the
path
a
little
more
reliable
is
to
start
off
by
trying
to
pose
the
right
question.
Most analysts who
have
so
far
examined the
conflict
have
begun
by
asking
'why
did
China
invade
(or
attack)
Vietnam?'
This
wording
of
the
question
is
too
one-sided
and
focusses
narrowly
on the
possible
motives
of
one of
the
parties
to
the
dispute.
9 More
than
one
party
was
involved
in the
fighting
and
more
than
motive
needs
to
be
taken
into
consideration
when
probing
the
causes
of
any
conflict.
'Why
did
the
conflict
hap-
pen?'
would
appear
to
be
a
more
satisfactory
question
than
'why
did
X
(or
Y)
do
so-and-so?'
This
paper
will
therefore
adopt
the
7
For
an
overview
of
relations
since
1950
see
Jay
Taylor,
China
and
Southeast
Asia:
Peking's
Relations
with
Revolutionary
Movements
(2nd
ed;
New
York
1976),
chaps
1,
3,
6.
Also
useful
are:
King
C.
Chen,
Vietnam
and
China,
z938-
1954
(Princeton
1969);
Robert
O'Neill,
Peking-Hanoi Relations
in
1970
(Can-
berra
1971);
Donald
Zagoria,
Vietnam
Triangle:
Moscow,
Peking,
Hanoi
(New
York
1968).
8
The
phrase
is
borrowed
from
James
Kurth,
'The
Multinational
Corporation,
u.s.
Foreign
Policy,
and
the
Less
Developed
Countries,'
in
Abdul
A.
Said
and
Luiz
R.
Simmons,
eds,
The
New
Sovereigns:
Multinational
Corporations
as
World
Powers
(Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ,
1975),
p
139.
9
The
wording
of
the
question
is
curiously
reminiscent
of
the
type
that
was
raised in
most
initial
inquiries into
the
causes
of
the
1962
Sino-Indian border
war.
The
'orthodox'
query in
1962
and
1963
was:
why
did China
commit
ag-
gression
against
India?
Most
later
studies on this
war
started
out
with
a
less
loaded
question.
To continue reading
Request your trial