The empire that covered your whole country in cluster bombs and still refuse to do anything about it vs the country that helped build high speed rail and make up like half of the tourism income
Vietnam is slightly more reasonable, with Deng's war against Vietnam, and more recent South China Sea issues, but still
Vietnam is slightly more reasonable, with Deng's war against Vietnam, and more recent South China Sea issues
It’s still hard to believe a month-long border war (that Vietnam won) and maritime boundary disputes are really a more painful memory than the Vietnam War.
it might be a flawed census (for example, only taking them from the capital where there may be more people that speak English and have better connections with the west than China, thus leading to more syncretic beliefs), the people may be critical of the current government thus may reflect to their affiliations with china, or it might be a case of them sympathising with fellow SEA people's, who generally are more pro-american, and may look at instances like the incidents in south china sea or china supporting a reactionary junta in Myanmar as cases for not supporting China (rather than simply supporting USA)
We have to remember the period following the American cluster bombing of their region, china also supported Pol Pot's Cambodia, as well as skirmishes with Vietnam, while this is not exactly the case now, their current realpolitik that also still involves selling weapons to UAE because it would be America otherwise does not help, even if it is materially consistent and potentially the right move to make
Besides, we could consider the fact that a large portion of Vietnam's growth actually came from foreign investment along with a socialist market economy, rather than directly from china, which would reflect as wanting a continued domestic growth versus potential moral or ideological alliances with china, which wouldn't be an insane idea, though why would this be the case in Laos, unless the people themselves want something akin to what Vietnam went through?
Laos being 50-50 is unbelievable
The empire that covered your whole country in cluster bombs and still refuse to do anything about it vs the country that helped build high speed rail and make up like half of the tourism income
Vietnam is slightly more reasonable, with Deng's war against Vietnam, and more recent South China Sea issues, but still
It’s still hard to believe a month-long border war (that Vietnam won) and maritime boundary disputes are really a more painful memory than the Vietnam War.
it might be a flawed census (for example, only taking them from the capital where there may be more people that speak English and have better connections with the west than China, thus leading to more syncretic beliefs), the people may be critical of the current government thus may reflect to their affiliations with china, or it might be a case of them sympathising with fellow SEA people's, who generally are more pro-american, and may look at instances like the incidents in south china sea or china supporting a reactionary junta in Myanmar as cases for not supporting China (rather than simply supporting USA)
We have to remember the period following the American cluster bombing of their region, china also supported Pol Pot's Cambodia, as well as skirmishes with Vietnam, while this is not exactly the case now, their current realpolitik that also still involves selling weapons to UAE because it would be America otherwise does not help, even if it is materially consistent and potentially the right move to make
Besides, we could consider the fact that a large portion of Vietnam's growth actually came from foreign investment along with a socialist market economy, rather than directly from china, which would reflect as wanting a continued domestic growth versus potential moral or ideological alliances with china, which wouldn't be an insane idea, though why would this be the case in Laos, unless the people themselves want something akin to what Vietnam went through?
It says in the survey that it is across people who have influence over foreign policy, it is not a survey of average citizens.