Power Influence in Southeast Asia - Comments from Anonymous

Anonymous said...

The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.

Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.

Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.

Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.

Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

-------------------------------------
KH says:

Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.

My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.

In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.

Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.

My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.

Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.