When the world was reeling under recession in 2008-2009, China, through enormous government spending efforts managed to weather the storm. It single handedly buoyed the global economy. Since Beijing’s policy focus has been “growth at all costs’’, dragon China leveraged to achieve unprecedented growth. China remains a central pivot in geopolitical power balance. With China becoming increasingly muscular and a greater strategic competitor for the US, other Asian countries see Washington as over-involved or under-involved in Asia. How does US see ASEAN? Why are the Asian voices on conflicting trends and differing interpretations important?
The perplexed view
Constituting less than 5 percent of the world’s population, Americans generate and earn more than 20 percent of the world’s total income. The US policy on trade and production has not remained constant. When Captain Chaos/Donald Trump was in power, Asia perceived that US would step its role in the world trade down. As signalled by the US, it would cease to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, shorten its supply chains and wouldn’t produce as much in Asia as in US and countries nearby. But with the coming of Joe Biden government, the winds seemed to reverse for Asia. Biden’s “bilateral trade on a smooth trajectory’’ leads to a state of confusion. Asia can hardly decide where US is heading. This perplexity arises from the economic perspective.
China creating uncertainties
US has changed. So has China. The countries are overloaded; inhabitants are workaholics. In 2008, China assessed the ‘’US decline’’ and that time had come for China to reclaim its natural greatness in the heart of Asia. Given the phenomenal progress they had made since 1949, they were in a position to pursue policies which were in alignment with their own aspirations.
Chinese policy has been much like that of the US – they too stress on building domestic capabilities, emphasise on strengthening self ‘internally’ and protecting country ‘externally’. The challenges lie with Asia finding itself with both ‘fast changing America’ and ‘faster changing China’.
Globalisation and its discontents
China aspires to go global. It has thrown many initiatives that have provided alternatives to Asia in terms of its relationship with the US. For example, China’s stand on trade has been clear over years that it supports globalisation of trade. The US and China are also in a race in technological development whether it is AI, Blockchain or Quantum Computing. The producers of technology face constant pressure from US; to avoid selling their parts or components to China especially for high-tech products such as advanced semiconductors, 6G, Metaverse etc. On the globalisation issue, the greater part of the problem are the terms of globalisation. There is a notion that globalisation has worked in China’s favour; their massive trade deficits have hollowed out domestic manufacturing. This was a reason on why India stepped out of the regional FTA back then.
China has never stepped back in weaponising the interdependences that were produced by globalisation. Chinese control over critical elements of the supply chain is a dependence which is politically unacceptable to many. Thus, there is a political logic to decouple the exposure to China. India is closer to US than the rest of South East Asia; it, to an extent, acknowledges the benefits of further integration with China but there is a rupture in the narrative that globalisation benefits everyone.
China’s militarisation of waters
China’s constant militarisation of waters, for example South China Sea, poses a challenge to the global orders. These are home waters to other Asian countries. The region is not united; those affected by Chinese territorial expansion in South China Sea feel the problem strongly. Therefore Vietnam and Philippines face more heat than others. Some parts of Asia see it better to bandwagon with China while others, like Japan and India, believe that balancing China is critical.
While dealing with the US-China subject, the centrality of ASEAN is something other countries hold in their corner. The West has seen this association as an ineffective one; not responding rigorously to China’s assertions. ASEAN is not in a position to challenge China thus alternative arrangements and new alignments need to come up and work together on the same lines as QUAD and AUKUS did.
On the engagement of US in Asia, the response of the region has remained mixed. Countries like Vietnam, Japan or India see the rigorous presence of US to provide balance but others like Indonesia have avoided the matter believing it will lead to arms race and cold war. Till sometime before, relative harmony existed between US-China- Japan. But the reasonable environ seems breaking down because of Chinese aggressions. The developments in Chinese military aggressions are a consequence to the same.
The US judgemental resolve
The competence and credibility of US has been questioned since it withdrew from Afghanistan. The US decision making behind the withdrawal is manifold. One- US paying more attention to the Indo Pacific (the challenges thrown by China).
For few countries, this attention is a welcome as US shows stability in terms of how it deals with larger issues in Asia; there would be less concern about the credibility and sustainability of the upcoming American policies.
There is relief and restlessness in air. Some Asian countries are opposed to the insufficient US engagement with Asia while some object to its unnecessary presence.
In a nutshell, Asian countries want US near as well as far. Amidst these differences, Washington should clearly articulate its vision of its role in Asia.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author.
The facts, analysis, assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK.