Cambodia and Vietnam: When a Canal Should Not Divide

Various recent media reports and expert commentaries have put the spotlight on Cambodia’s proposed Funan Techo Canal project, which aims to connect the Mekong River to a seaport in the province of Kep. As the Mekong is an international river, any developments that could affect it are not solely the responsibility of one country. Indeed, the actions of all countries along the river can generate significant cross-border impacts.

To ensure fair and equitable use of international rivers, various agreements and treaties have been established. In 1997, for example, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC) to address this issue. In the case of the Mekong River, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam signed the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin in 1995. This created the Mekong River Commission to facilitate collaboration on the river.  At the bilateral level, Vietnam and Cambodia also signed an agreement on waterway transportation in 2009, allowing goods to and from Cambodia to be transhipped via Vietnamese ports and through the Vietnamese portion of the Mekong River.

Aside from intricate matters such as politics and international law related to the proposed project, the fostering mutual understanding and moral principles in promoting amicable relations among nations in the river basin is just as important. In this context, a personal anecdote shared by Mr. Nguyen Manh Cam, Vietnam’s former deputy prime minister and foreign minister, holds particular relevance and deserves mention.

In the 1990s, the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam proposed building two bridges across the Tien River and Hau River in the Mekong Delta region, which is rich in potential but was then very poor and underdeveloped. Domestic and international experts concluded that it was only necessary to build a bridge with enough vertical clearance for larger ships to pass from the sea and up one of the tributaries to reach Phnom Penh Port in Cambodia. This is because building a bridge with a higher clearance would be significantly more expensive than building a bridge with a lower clearance. Moreover, in the 1990s, Vietnam’s economy was still struggling and heavily reliant on international aid for such projects. It would have been wasteful to build both bridges with large clearances.

Despite the fact that the two bridges would be entirely within Vietnamese territory, the Politburo instructed Mr Cam to meet then Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia to discuss this issue. Mr Cam presented the economic and technical reasons for building one of the bridges with a lower clearance and hoped that Cambodia would understand Vietnam’s interests and concerns. Vietnam’s goal was for ships going from and to Cambodia to go up one (and not two) of the tributaries of the Mekong. Building one bridge rather than two would have saved on costs and impact on the Vietnamese people.  However, Mr Hun Sen responded, “Our ships will travel on both the Tien River and Hau River.” Mr. Cam was disappointed but still reported Mr. Hun Sen’s request to the Politburo, which had to discuss for a long time to find a solution.

In the end, for the sake of good neighbourly relations, the Vietnamese government made the decision to construct both bridges with higher vertical clearances, allowing for larger ships to navigate the entire Tien and Hau Rivers. The Tien River’s My Thuan Bridge, with a clearance of 37.5 meters, was completed in 2000, while the Hau River’s Can Tho Bridge, with a clearance of 39.0 meters, was unveiled in 2010. Partly due to this reason, Vietnamese people living in the Mekong Delta had to endure longer hardships to get the second bridge built. This impacted Vietnam’s development.

Vietnam was willing to sacrifice its own interests because it understood the importance of maintaining friendly relations with its neighbours and did not want to use construction projects on its territory to negatively affect other countries sharing the same river. As Mr Cam confided to this author, “This is how mutual understanding and righteous conscience help to build good neighbourliness.”

In light of the ongoing bilateral differences regarding the Funan Techo Canal project, the two countries should continue to work together in a transparent manner, paying due respect to each other’s legitimate interests and looking for solutions based on collaboration and mutual understanding.

In the case of Laos, Vietnam has also applied a similar approach by signing a bilateral agreement in 2001 to allow Laos to use its Vung Ang Port in the central province of Ha Tinh, enabling the landlocked country to get access to the sea. This is a rare and admirable practice in international relations.

History has taught us that even between friendly neighbouring countries, there can be disagreements and differences in interests, in addition to the geographical, historical, and anthropological ties that bind them. The relationship between Vietnam and Cambodia is no exception. Therefore, it is crucial for the two countries to respect each other’s interests, listen to each other’s opinions, and work together with mutual understanding to resolve any differences. This will help deepen the neighbourliness between them and maintain stability and long-term development in their bilateral relations.

The various monuments scattered throughout Cambodia that commemorate the Vietnamese volunteer soldiers who sacrificed their lives to help the country escape genocide serve as a powerful reminder of the enduring friendship between the two nations. This friendship has endured despite difficulties and challenges, and was even built up through the ultimate sacrifice of many of the two countries’ best and brightest. It is a testament to the deep historical ties and sacrifices shared between Vietnam and Cambodia, making it a precious legacy worth preserving and nurturing by the leaders and people of both countries.

In light of the ongoing bilateral differences regarding the Funan Techo Canal project, the two countries should continue to work together in a transparent manner, paying due respect to each other’s legitimate interests and looking for solutions based on collaboration and mutual understanding. This will help maintain good neighbourliness and stability in their bilateral relations, thereby ensuring that the proposed project will not create unnecessary division between the two nations.

2024/163