As tensions escalate between the United States and China, Southeast Asian nations are grappling with how to navigate an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape. With both superpowers asserting their influence in the region, countries from Myanmar to Indonesia are reassessing their strategic positions, balancing between economic opportunities and national security concerns.
The growing rivalry between the US and China has already had profound implications for Southeast Asia, which lies at the heart of global trade routes and is a crucial site for power projection in the Indo-Pacific. From territorial disputes in the South China Sea to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects that China is pushing, the region is caught in the crossfire of a competition for global supremacy.
The US Strategy: A Renewed Commitment
In recent months, the US has sought to reaffirm its alliances across Southeast Asia, positioning itself as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence. With military partnerships in countries like the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, the US has increased its presence in the region, conducting joint exercises and reinforcing defense agreements.
“Ensuring that Southeast Asia remains free, open, and prosperous is essential to our vision of a stable Indo-Pacific,” said U.S. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, during a recent diplomatic mission to Hanoi. The US has also ramped up trade and technological collaborations, offering alternative infrastructure investments as a way to counter China’s BRI and support sustainable development in Southeast Asia.
However, the US approach has not been without criticism. Some Southeast Asian nations are concerned that the US’s emphasis on military alliances and countering China could further destabilize regional security and undermine their non-alignment stance. Critics argue that the region’s economic integration with China presents a dilemma — one that cannot be easily dismissed.
China’s Economic and Military Rise
On the other hand, China continues to expand its influence, particularly through its economic initiatives. The BRI has been a key tool for China to cement ties with Southeast Asia, financing large-scale infrastructure projects across the region. This has allowed Beijing to become an indispensable trade partner for many nations, including Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia.
But China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, where it has built artificial islands and claimed expansive maritime territories, has also raised alarms. While Beijing insists its actions are legitimate, countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines have contested China’s claims, accusing Beijing of violating international law. The US, under its security guarantees with these nations, has voiced support for freedom of navigation in these contested waters.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, in recent remarks, emphasized the importance of “peaceful development” in the region, calling for dialogue and cooperation. However, his government has also made clear that it will defend its interests in the South China Sea and beyond.
Southeast Asia: Walking the Tightrope
As the US and China vie for influence, Southeast Asian nations find themselves in a delicate position. Historically, the region has embraced a policy of non-alignment, seeking to avoid being drawn into conflicts between global powers. But as US-China tensions intensify, many countries are recalibrating their foreign policies to safeguard both their economic interests and sovereignty.
Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia, has been outspoken in advocating for peaceful dialogue and regional cooperation, underscoring the importance of ASEAN unity. “We believe in a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Indonesian President Joko Widodo remarked in a speech last month, emphasizing ASEAN’s role in mediating conflicts and promoting multilateralism.
Meanwhile, smaller nations such as Brunei and Myanmar are quietly exploring ways to deepen relations with both the US and China. For some, the economic benefits of maintaining good ties with China, particularly in trade and infrastructure, are undeniable. Yet, security concerns and the threat of Chinese expansionism are creating unease, especially in countries with territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
For the Philippines, the stakes are especially high. The country is balancing its security ties with the US, which has been a longtime ally, with its growing economic engagement with China. The Philippines recently conducted joint military drills with the US, even as President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has sought to strengthen ties with Beijing. The future of this complex relationship remains uncertain, as political pressures mount on both sides.
A Fork in the Road for ASEAN
The question of whether ASEAN can maintain its unity in the face of rising US-China competition remains unresolved. In recent years, ASEAN’s ability to act cohesively has been tested, with different member states holding varying views on how to approach the US and China. As the US increasingly frames the strategic competition in ideological terms — democracy versus autocracy — ASEAN’s commitment to non-interference and peaceful resolution of disputes is being put to the test.
What’s Next?
As 2025 unfolds, Southeast Asia’s next steps will be critical in determining the region’s future. While some nations may lean more towards the US, drawn by security guarantees and economic partnerships, others may continue to embrace China’s economic largesse, despite the security challenges it presents.
In the coming months, Southeast Asian leaders will face pressure to make tough decisions — not only about which global power to align with, but how to balance national sovereignty with regional cooperation. The outcome will have significant ramifications for the stability and prosperity of the entire Indo-Pacific region, setting the stage for what could be a new era in Southeast Asian diplomacy.
As one ASEAN official stated, “We have always been a region of opportunities. But the stakes are higher than ever. Our path forward must be one of strategic pragmatism.”
source: aei.org