The "four nos" national defence policy (), also known as the "four nos and one depending" () or "four nos, one also and one depending" () policy, is the common name for the defence policy and doctrine of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Formally nominated, defined and represented in various editions of the National Defence White Papers published by the Vietnam Ministry of National Defence, the "four nos" policy declares the country's commitment to non-alignment and independence in the context of military, politics, and foreign affairs, together with bamboo diplomacy strategically shaping the Vietnamese foreign policy doctrine.
The late Vietnamese Deputy Defense Minister and Colonel General Nguyễn Chí Vịnh (1959-2023) is widely credited to be the mastermind behind the development of the four nos policy. Official Vietnamese narratives actively avoid characterizing the policy as labelling Vietnam to be a neutral country, with Vịnh himself voiced again such misrepresentation, claiming that Vietnam is "independent" with flexibility, not "passive" neutrality.
Content According to the 2019 Vietnam National Defence White Paper, the so-called "four nos" are written as:
The fourth "no" (no using force or threatening to use force in international relations) is the latest addition to the policy, marking a transition from the previous "three nos" - which was firstly introduced in the 1998 white paper edition - to the current "four nos". After various wordings and representations, the Vietnamese four nos are currently been defined with two "supplementing clauses", colloquially known as the "one also" () and "one depending" (), defining flexibility to the Vietnamese doctrine:
Reception Official narratives associated with the Government of Vietnam and Communist Party of Vietnam eventually praise the four-no, claiming that the Vietnamese policy is "of justice, peace and self-defence", "independent, self-reliant and multilateral", as well as not being "isolationist" or aligning with anyone to against anything, while also claim Vietnam's commitment to international laws, diplomacy and peaceful means to deal with disagreements as a doctrine for "proactive national defence" by preventing military conflicts. On the other hand, Vietnamese dissidents and anti-communists are usually critical of the four-no, claiming that it would restrict Vietnam's potential cooperation with the United States, which would have helped Vietnam in a hypothetical conflict of China, and other have criticized that the four-no definition was "overly redundant", with the first "three nos" could simply be defined as "no military alliance", while the fourth one was basically meaningless as "Vietnam would not dare to open fire when it's the weaker side". Vietnam has issued multiple articles and counter-arguments reasoning that those criticisms are misrepresentation and mischaracterization of the policy, as well as being conspiracies to weaken Vietnam's political stability and make Vietnam a proxy for geopolitical disputes.
Contradicting Vietnamese anti-government opinions, Naval War College Review rendered the four-no as to challenge Chinese expansionism in the region and was a good opportunity for the United States. It is said to mechanically balance the Vietnamese position between China and the United States, having both of them top-tier trade partners to Vietnam, while still retaining enough flexibility for Vietnam if the situation would be changed. On the other hand, RAND interprets the policy to be Vietnam's unwillingness to forge deeper cooperation with the United States, which would antagonize Beijing in exchange.
Four avoidings Besides the primary "four nos" guidelines, Communist Party of Vietnam's ideologues also developed a supplementing "four avoidings" () framework:
The four-avoiding suggest Vietnam to avoid situations making the state being internationally sanctioned, which would practically isolate the country from necessary interactions with the international community, while orienting the state to deliberately avoid any military conflict engagements and retain its policy and its political sovereignty.
References