Asean needs a coherent policy on China and the US
Play
Much intent has followed the Obama administration's stated policy to return American focus to Asia.
Some Republicans say the US never left. But many in Asia, and especially Southeast Asia, feel a change in both perception and action. Summitry with Asean is at a new high point, and the US presence is strongly felt on competing claims in the South China Sea.
Many welcome the renewed attention, but questions arise about American intentions and staying power vis-a-vis a rising China. In Beijing, reactions to the American “pivot” seem mixed to negative. Burma sets a stark example, with dramatic political changes, opening to the West.
Some see America’s return, and Chinese retreat, and it is easy to imagine an emerging contention – if not in military terms, then in a competition for influence. Would similar logic apply to all Southeast Asia?
Maybe. But countries in the region are not blank pages on which great powers can freely write. Attitudes and actions of the countries in between can matter. Look again at Burma.
Most believe China’s increasing dominance made Burma’s leaders uncomfortable. But the effort to bring in others does not necessarily exclude China. While much attention was given to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Burma, fewer noticed that Beijing concluded a strategic agreement just before she arrived.
Inescapable geography requires continuing cooperation with a giant and growing neighbour. So, rather than a switch to the West, what is developing may be better described as a shift in balance.
Similar considerations must be in the minds of other Southeast Asians.
Indonesia is larger and further away but its major exports of energy and other resources are sold into the Chinese market. Growth there drives Indonesia’s economy. Enter Obama, leveraging his personal connection from early years living in Jakarta and recognising Indonesia’s importance.
A comprehensive partnership between the two countries was launched in November 2010 and, one year later, a US$600 million Millennium Challenge compact was added to help reduce poverty. Indonesia-US ties have broadened and deepened. Yet military-to-military ties have been slower. Indonesia has been adroit in also managing relations with China, to ensure continuing parity.
Policies in Vietnam seem less balanced. While some issues still linger from the war, security cooperation with the US is growing rapidly. In 2010, the two held their first Defence Policy Dialogue. Port calls by American military vessels are up, and naval drills have been held – said to focus on maintenance and navigation.
This all comes, moreover, after concerns escalated about the South China Sea, over which Vietnam has, in the past, clashed with China, and lost lives. Hanoi seems intent to bring in America to counter potential Chinese aggression. On the economic front, Washington has reciprocated by bringing Vietnam into the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for deeper integration.
In contrast, Sino-Vietnamese ties have been unsettled. China’s embassy in Hanoi has been subject to street protests – which many believe must have been allowed or even arranged by authorities. Vietnam has also signed an agreement with India to explore for oil in areas that are claimed by China.
These examples show that countries in Asean are by no means passive in ties with the US. The question is whether their actions will help maintain peace in the region or turn provocative. It also remains to be seen whether each country will go its own way or if Asean can find coherence and balance.
The group is diverse and has not instituted a common security or foreign policy, unlike the European Union. But Asean has banded together before to deal with conflicts, like the occupation of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. It may now again be timely for Asean members to harmonise their policies in dealing with the US vis-a-vis China.
The American return to Asia does not necessarily lead to conflict with the place of China today and into the future. But much depends not only on what these two giants do but how others in Asia respond.
Asean can try to agree, at least, on what provocations to avoid. Approaches to be even-handed and avoid the perception of siding with one or the other can also be shared. This will not be easy but is key to preserving Asean unity as US-China competition heats up.
If Asean countries take a more coherent and balanced approach, they can increase hopes for continuing peace.
Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and teaches international law at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law.
