The Tightrope Walk: Southeast Asia Navigates Great Power Competition

Southeast Asian nations are increasingly recognizing the uncomfortable truth: they may have no choice but to pick sides in the escalating Sino-American rivalry, at least in specific sectors.This acknowledgment, voiced during a recent US congressional advisory panel hearing on Thursday, underscores the complex geopolitical landscape confronting the region.

For decades, countries like vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia have skillfully navigated the competing interests of the United States and China, leveraging economic opportunities from both while maintaining their strategic autonomy. Though, the intensifying competition between Washington and Beijing is making this balancing act increasingly challenging.

Dr. Anya Sharma, a Southeast Asia Geopolitics Analyst, explains, “The space for true neutrality is shrinking. Southeast Asian nations are increasingly perceiving they must make choices, especially in specific sectors, due to the escalating US-China rivalry.”

The pressures driving this shift are multifaceted, encompassing economic interdependence, territorial disputes, and sector-specific competition. These factors combine to create a situation where southeast Asian nations may find themselves choosing sides on particular issues, even if they desire to maintain relationships with both powers.

A Sector-by-Sector Strategy: Shaping Choices Before Beijing

The United States is exploring a “sector-by-sector” approach to engagement with Southeast Asia, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all strategy is unlikely to succeed. This approach contrasts with the customary “swing state” strategy, which focuses on cultivating alliances with countries that are not firmly aligned with either the US or China, aiming to sway their overall strategic orientation.

Rather, the sector-by-sector approach acknowledges that countries may align with the US in some sectors while maintaining ties with china in others. For example, a nation might welcome US investment in renewable energy and cybersecurity while continuing to participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.

This strategy requires a nuanced understanding of each country’s unique needs and priorities, allowing for targeted partnerships that address specific vulnerabilities and opportunities in areas like technology, finance, and security. It shifts the focus from overall allegiance to individual sector alignment, understanding that complete decoupling in every sector is unrealistic and, in some ways, counterproductive.

Consider the situation with 5G technology. While the US has been urging allies to avoid using equipment from Chinese companies like Huawei, some Southeast Asian nations have been hesitant to wholly cut ties due to cost considerations and existing infrastructure. A sector-by-sector approach would allow the US to focus on providing competitive alternatives in critical areas while allowing these nations to maintain some level of engagement with Chinese providers in less sensitive sectors.

Expert Perspectives: “Swing Sectors” vs.”Swing States”

Dr. Sharma elaborates on the nuances of these two approaches, explaining why the former might be more effective in the current context. “The conventional ‘swing state’ approach focuses on cultivating alliances with countries that are not firmly aligned with either the US or China, aiming to sway their overall strategic orientation. While this remains vital with regional powerhouses of great strategic importance for both China and the United States,a sector-by-sector strategy offers a more targeted and possibly more effective method.”

She emphasizes that a sector-specific focus permits the US to address specific vulnerabilities and opportunities in each country.”This methodology requires a nuanced understanding of each country’s unique needs and priorities,” she adds. “The sector-specific focus allows for targeted, sector-specific partnerships, addressing specific vulnerabilities in areas like technology, finance, and security.”

The adaptability of this approach is also crucial. “This approach is more flexible and adaptable, recognizing that the geopolitical landscape is constantly evolving and that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed,” Dr. Sharma notes.

Case Study: Indonesia – A Key Regional Player

Indonesia, as the largest economy in Southeast Asia and a strategically important archipelago, exemplifies the complexities of navigating the US-China rivalry. The country has significant economic ties with China, particularly through trade and investment in infrastructure projects.Though, Indonesia also values its security partnership with the United States, especially in maritime security and counter-terrorism.

A sector-by-sector approach would allow the US to deepen cooperation with Indonesia in areas like cybersecurity and renewable energy, where there is strong alignment of interests, while acknowledging Indonesia’s continued engagement with China in other sectors. As an example, the US could offer assistance in developing Indonesia’s cybersecurity infrastructure to protect against cyber threats, while Indonesia continues to participate in BRI projects aimed at improving its transportation network.

This targeted approach is more likely to be accomplished than a blanket demand for Indonesia to choose sides, which could alienate the country and push it closer to China.

Addressing Potential Counterarguments

One potential counterargument to the sector-by-sector approach is that it could be seen as a piecemeal strategy that lacks a cohesive vision for the region. Critics might argue that it fails to address the broader strategic challenges posed by China’s growing influence and could lead to a fragmented and less effective US presence in Southeast Asia.

However, proponents of the sector-by-sector approach would argue that it is precisely this versatility and adaptability that makes it more effective in the current environment. By focusing on specific needs and opportunities,the US can build stronger relationships with individual countries and create a more resilient network of partnerships that can collectively address the challenges posed by China.

Furthermore, a sector-by-sector approach allows the US to leverage its comparative advantages in specific areas, such as technology and finance, to offer compelling alternatives to Chinese offerings. This can be more effective than trying to compete with China across the board, which is a costly and perhaps unsustainable strategy.

Recent Developments and Practical Applications

Recent developments in the region highlight the increasing importance of a sector-by-sector approach. For example,several Southeast Asian nations have expressed interest in diversifying their supply chains away from China,creating opportunities for US companies to invest in manufacturing and technology sectors in the region.

the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is another example of a sector-specific initiative aimed at strengthening US economic engagement with Southeast Asia. The IPEF focuses on areas like trade facilitation, digital economy, supply chain resilience, and clean energy, offering a framework for deeper cooperation in these critical sectors.

Furthermore, the US is increasingly working with Southeast asian nations to enhance their maritime security capabilities, providing training and equipment to help them protect their sovereign rights in the South China Sea. This cooperation is focused on a specific security challenge and does not require these nations to completely align with the US on all issues.

Conclusion: A Critical Juncture for US Strategy in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia stands at a critical juncture, facing increasing pressure to navigate the complex dynamics of the US-China rivalry. The traditional approach of maintaining neutrality is becoming increasingly challenging, requiring a more nuanced and targeted strategy from both Washington and Beijing.

The “swing sector” strategy offers a promising path forward for the United States, allowing it to build stronger relationships with individual countries by focusing on specific needs and opportunities. By leveraging its comparative advantages and offering compelling alternatives to Chinese offerings, the US can strengthen its presence in the region and promote a more balanced and stable geopolitical landscape.

However, the success of this approach will depend on a deep understanding of each country’s unique circumstances and a willingness to engage in flexible and adaptable partnerships. The United States must also be prepared to address potential counterarguments and demonstrate a long-term commitment to the region, building trust and fostering mutual benefit.