It's not protectionism. Most of that manufacturing is not moving back to the U.S., it's moving to U.S. allies like Vietnam or Mexico, that would also be called third world countries.
It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.
What definition are you using of ally? Normally countries are considered allies when they have formal agreements (treaties) between each other to cooperate for mutual benefit. By this measure, the US and Mexico are definitely allies.
Mexico is the USA's second largest trading partner worldwide. Exports of goods and services to Mexico support an estimated 1.1 million jobs (Department of Commerce). Mexico is also the second largest source of foreign crude oil to the USA, and the top export destination for US petroleum & natural gas. The US-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) entered force in 2020, replacing NAFTA. The countries have a variety of complex ties. There are other treaties and areas of cooperation too, such as the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). A security cooperation agreement called the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities went into effect in 2021.
As for Vietnam, the US and Vietnam established a bilateral trade agreement in 2001. The US provides maritime security assistance to the country through the Maritime Security Initiative, Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, and through foreign military financing. US transferred Coast Guard cutters to Vietnam in 2017 and 2020 to bolster its law enforcement capabilities.
Those sound like alliances to me, but I'm interested to hear what other definition you're using.
Ally derives from "alliance". US is not part of any alliance with Vietnam nor Mexico.
If you want to redefine ally to mean something closer to "partner", then Vietnam is also a "China ally" because it has a good partnership with China. Mexico could also be called a China ally by this loose definition.
But if you follow Vietnamese IR, you would know they take geopolitical neutrality very seriously, due to drama of 20th century. Both US and China separately invaded Vietnam because they thought it a Soviet proxy. No chance of Vietnam becoming an actual ally of either in the short term.
Similar for Mexico. US-Mexico relationship is extremely complicated right now. Right-wing US calling for invasion of Mexico on "drug war" grounds. Mexico purchasing and nationalizing Texas oil company, etc.
You're right that I'm using "ally" informally, to mean that the country would be in the U.S. camp if there is a direct confrontation between the U.S. and China in the future. The U.S. doesn't have mutual defense treaties with either. I'm basing that claim on public opinion - the publics Vietnam loves America and distrusts China. The public of Mexico like both nations, though geography means manufacturing in Mexico can be relied on.
> You're right that I'm using "ally" informally, to mean that the country would be in the U.S. camp if there is a direct confrontation between the U.S. and China in the future.
The government of Vietnam has emphasized that it will not "choose" between US or China. ASEAN nations in general feel this way. They oppose war itself, and can't be tricked into taking sides in one instigated by Washington (or Beijing).
> Vietnam: 84% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., 11% have a favorable opinion of China
Please actually read the articles you link. This is for Vietnamese American citizens, not citizens of Vietnam. It is utterly unsurprising that immigrants have a overwhelmingly favorable opinion of their new home country, and reveals next to nothing about the PRC-SRV relations .
We've gotten a bit far from the original point - for the purposes of the U.S. supply chain, Vietnamese government neutrality and strong public support is plenty to negate the risk that the country suddenly cuts off the supply chain. My original point is that de-coupling from China is a national security decision, not protectionism, and production is moving to Vietnam because it's a friendlier country than
Informally, I do think Vietnam can be considered a U.S. ally. China is signaling a desire to expand, and most of its neighbors consider it the biggest threat to their security. There's a reason that Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all among the countries that have the highest opinion of the U.S. It's not a trick - they are acting in their own security interests.
Vietnamese neutrality makes perfect sense, and I don't think they'd get involved in a war that didn't involve them. But the country is certainly friendly enough to rely on for the U.S. supply chain.
Your just using the word alliance to define your reality.
Think about it. It's the other way around. Reality is not defined by the word alliance, clearly there exists a gradient of countries who are more friendly than others.
Stick with the intention of the word by the person using it not the absolutist pedantic definition.
I actually mostly agree with you! Ally has a formal meaning and usually means a mutual defense pact. I was using "ally" informally, to refer to countries that are roughly in the U.S. camp.
I can think of few places that embrace less "American values" than Vietnam. I say that as someone that lived there and now lives in Thailand, ie I'm aware of the tradeoffs of such places.
More correctly be economically controlled by the US. See the Plaza accord and the subsequent Louvre accord. Japan never would have signed either if US wasn't able to strong arm them into sinking their own economy. Guns are a hell of a thing, especially when you ban other parties from having them.
It really is what it says on the tin. It's a risk for the U.S. to be economically dependent on a state whose government does not share American values, and that is threatening its neighbors with invasion.