Sino-American Competition in Southeast Asia

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-252
Author(s):  
David Shambaugh

This chapter explains that the global competition between the United States and China is increasingly centered in Southeast Asia, and the region will be considerably impacted by the US-China rivalry—much more than most ASEAN states recognize or care to admit. The Sino-American rivalry in Southeast Asia is thus going to be an epic challenge for regional governments (and ASEAN itself) to maneuver effectively between the two major powers, maintain their independence of action, and protect their national sovereignty. The chapter then looks at the spectrum of ASEAN states’ relations with the United States and China. It also studies how both major powers bring certain comparative advantages and disadvantages to their interactions with different Southeast Asian countries. While the Sino-American competition in Southeast Asia is increasingly and comprehensively competitive, it remains fluid and can develop differently in the future. The chapter concludes by assessing the future of the region’s ties with the major powers, considering four distinct possibilities.

Author(s):  
Kenton Clymer

The U.S. relationship with Southeast Asia has always reflected the state of U.S. interactions with the three major powers that surround the region: Japan, China, and, to a lesser extent, India. Initially, Americans looked at Southeast Asia as an avenue to the rich markets that China and India seemed to offer, while also finding trading opportunities in the region itself. Later, American missionaries sought to save Southeast Asian souls, while U.S. officials often viewed Southeast Asia as a region that could tip the overall balance of power in East Asia if its enormous resources fell under the control of a hostile power. American interest expanded enormously with the annexation of the Philippines in 1899, an outgrowth of the Spanish-American War. That acquisition resulted in a nearly half-century of American colonial rule, while American investors increased their involvement in exploiting the region’s raw materials, notably tin, rubber, and petroleum, and missionaries expanded into areas previously closed to them. American occupation of the Philippines heightened tensions with Japan, which sought the resources of Southeast Asia, particularly in French Indochina, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia). Eventually, clashing ambitions and perceptions brought the United States into World War II. Peeling those territories away from Japan during the war was a key American objective. Americans resisted the Japanese in the Philippines and in Burma, but after Japan quickly subdued Southeast Asia, there was little contact in the region until the reconquest began in 1944. American forces participated in the liberation of Burma and also fought in the Dutch Indies and the Philippines before the war ended in 1945. After the war, the United States had to face the independence struggles in several Southeast Asian countries, even as the Grand Alliance fell apart and the Cold War emerged, which for the next several decades overshadowed almost everything. American efforts to prevent communist expansion in the region inhibited American support for decolonization and led to war in Vietnam and Laos and covert interventions elsewhere. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, relations with most of Southeast Asia have generally been normal, except for Burma/Myanmar, where a brutal military junta ruled. The opposition, led by the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi, found support in the United States. More recently American concerns with China’s new assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea, have resulted in even closer U.S. relations with Southeast Asian countries.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Wen-Qing Ngoei

This introduction presents an overview of the book’s study of imperial transition in Southeast Asia from the colonial order through Anglo-American predominance to U.S. empire. It explains that the book examines two Southeast Asian countries—Malaya and Singapore—marginalized by major studies of U.S. policy to illuminate regional developments in U.S.-Southeast Asian relations otherwise overlooked by the predominant focus of historians on U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Using this wide-angle view of Southeast Asia, the book reveals how the bases of U.S. Cold War policy draw from longstanding Euro-American anxieties about race, specifically the perceived threat of China and its diaspora to western power. From this insight, the book is able to reveal that Britain, the United States and their indigenous anticommunist allies crafted a pro-West nationalism underpinned by region-wide anti-Chinese prejudice, a process that ensconced most Southeast Asian regimes within the American orbit even as U.S. policy failed in Vietnam.


Worldview ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 23-27
Author(s):  
Fumio Matsuo

The main problem in Southeast Asia is economic development, a problem the United States and Japan are largely responsible for. Southeast Asia, the U.S., and Japan are all involved, therefore, in determining how to achieve economic viability in Southeast Asia—where a new era of peaceful coexistence has begun after decades of war.Leaders in Southeast Asian countries, including the Socialist states in Indochina, agree that the most pressing problem is how to overcoihe extreme hardships and difficulties in order to achieve economic and social development.


Author(s):  
Frédéric Grare

India’s relationship with the United States remains crucial to its own objectives, but is also ambiguous. The asymmetry of power between the two countries is such that the relationship, if potentially useful, is not necessary for the United States while potentially risky for India. Moreover, the shift of the political centre of gravity of Asia — resulting from the growing rivalry between China and the US — is eroding the foundations of India’s policy in Asia, while prospects for greater economic interaction is limited by India’s slow pace of reforms. The future of India-US relations lies in their capacity to evolve a new quid pro quo in which the US will formulate its expectations in more realistic terms while India would assume a larger share of the burden of Asia’ security.


Author(s):  
Rohani Hj Ab Ghani ◽  
Zulhilmi Paidi

The Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation between 1963-1966 was an important event attracting the attention of politicians and scholars alike as the conflict had threatened the long existing relations between the two countries. Indonesian confrontation with Malaysia was due to its refusal to accept the formation of the new federation of Malaysia, founded on 16th September 1963. Sukarno’s confrontational stand on this had broken the long-standing sentiments of regional brotherhood or “saudara serumpun” that had nurtured between the two countries for many years. The conflict also saw the involvement of major powers like the United States (U.S.), Britain, China and Russia in the midst of bipolar power struggle between the communist and the anti-communist as part of the ongoing Cold War. The three years of confrontation witnessed great attempts at peace efforts by U.S. Although U.S. involvement in the conflict was merely as a moderator for both countries it was also fueled by its efforts of containment of communism in the Southeast Asian region. The U.S. viewed that the conflict should be resolved in the context of “Asian solution” as it involved two Asian countries A settlement to the Malaysia-Indonesia confrontation was finally achieved through the Bangkok Agreement, signed in August 1966. This paper discusses the role of U.S. in its attempts at finding an amicable settle to the confrontation in the form of “Asian solution.”  


Author(s):  
A Subotin

Abstract. The demise of the bipolar system of international politics has revived interest in such closely related and contested terms as "superpower", "hegemon", "empire" and "imperialism". This article represents an attempt to define the most probable trend in the future evolution of the international system with regard to the role of the United States of America as the most prominent state power of today's world. This article seeks to analyse the US power posture in today's world politics by comparing its core capabilities to those of the classical empire of the previous century - the British Empire - with analytical emphasis on both the "hard power" and the "soft power" dimensions. The author maintains that the notion of US hegemony or even American Empire is still relevant despite a clear historic tendency of hegemonic decline seen throughout the second part of the 20th century. The United States still ranks high on the scale of most traditional power factors and, what is by far more important, they continue to be able to shape and control the scale and the volume of international exposure of all other major players within the framework of contemporary global international system. The relative decline of US influence upon world politics at the beginning of the new millennia has been effectively off-set by the profound change in the nature of American power which is now assuming the form of a structural dominance. The author's personal view is that US hegemony is not doomed to wane, given the enormous impact the United States have already made economically, politically and intellectually upon the post World War II international relations. The continuance of the US playing the pivotal role in the international politics of the 21st century will be dependent on the ability of the US political class to adapt to and to harness the social power of numerous non-state international actors that are due take over the leading role in the future world's politics.


Jurnal ICMES ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-196
Author(s):  
Firmanda Taufiq

Throughout 2018, relations between Turkey and the United States seemed to deteriorate. The leaders of the two countries issued sharp diplomatic statements and the US even imposed economic sanctions on Turkey. This article aims to analyze how the future of relations between Turkey and the United States. Cooperation between the two has a long historical side after the Cold War. Relations between the two countries are based on various interests, both economic, political, military and security interests. The theory used in this study is the theory of national interest. The US has great interests in the Middle East and Turkey is the front-line ally in achieving those interests. However, there are many US foreign policies that ignore the Turkish concern and create tensions between the two countries. On the contrary, Turkey also has considerable economic interests, but the role of the government elite (in this case, President Erdogan) has a significant influence in the determination of Turkish foreign policy. The findings of this study, although it will go through complex challenges and processes, the US and Turkey will continue to maintain their relations.


Author(s):  
Jon B. Mikolashek

Patton’s wound is slow to heal; during this time, however, Patton is promoted to colonel. Discharged from the hospital, Patton returns to duty as the war ends. He hopes for the Medal of Honor but is awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. With the war over, Patton spends the rest of his time overseas maintaining discipline, giving lectures on armored warfare and the future of tanks, and preparing for his return to the United States and his family. Patton prepares himself also for the fight to keep tanks in an independent Tank Corps as a vital weapons system for the US Army.


2019 ◽  
pp. 167-180
Author(s):  
Chia Youyee Vang

Chapter 9 presents interviewees’ reflections as they reassess the war and its impact. The interviewees explore the unintended consequences of the Hmong’s entanglement with the CIA during the US war in Southeast Asia. They measure the losses and upheavals of the war against an appreciation of the subsequent opportunities that came with resettlement in the United States. They revisit betrayals and resentments and express gratitude and pride. Their recollections consist of contradictory viewpoints and perspectives as they struggle to make sense of the war and its enduring legacy. Additionally, the chapter addresses their competing memories and varied truths as narrators.


2020 ◽  
pp. 206-242
Author(s):  
Francine R. Frankel

India asserted its influence at the Geneva Conference through the informal participation of Krishna Menon in behind-the-scenes discussions. The Geneva settlement reduced fears among smaller powers that China would intervene in Indo-China and weakened their incentives to join a US-sponsored mutual security alliance. It also deprived China of a rationale for its own expansion to meet a US threat. The “area of peace” thereby served India’s aspiration to protect its role in Indo-China. But this was immediately countered by the US plan to establish SEATO. Indian policymakers treated the United States as its enemy and competitor in Southeast Asia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document