Next year, the Philippines is going to host the ASEAN Conference and the President is going to chair this meeting of the heads of state of the ASEAN members. This is a critical time in the history of our region. The US-China competition has become more intense, complex and dangerous than even the US-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War.
China is a much more formidable competitor than the old Soviet Union. There are also many potential flash points in Asia, including in the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. As this rivalry becomes more intense, each superpower will try to get as many countries on its side. There are some countries in the region, like the Philippines, that already has strong alliance treaties with the United States. The Philippines believes that it has very little choice except to maintain security ties with the United States because of the aggressive claim of China of territories that belong to the Philippines.
There are countries in the ASEAN who believe that the presence of US military power in the region results in a balance of power that is conducive to peace and stability.
Most countries in the region have not yet chosen between Beijing and Washington and would prefer to stay neutral. The usual view is that Southeast Asian countries look to the United States for security and to China for trade and investments.
These different attitudes over relations with China and the United States have tested ASEAN’s solidarity in the past and will do so again in the future.
Two Singapore-based professors at the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang University of Singapore developed an index which shows where each ASEAN country is aligned – China or the United States. They call it ‘The Anatomy of Choice Alignment Index.’
Again, according to them, the index offers two major findings. Their findings show that four countries have remained relatively neutral. These are Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Three countries are clearly aligned with China: Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. Brunei is trying to be neutral but is leaning towards China. The Philippines is clearly aligned with the United States. Vietnam is expected to become more neutral in the near future.
Trump’s return to the White House has led to anxiety about US military commitment to the region.
The ASEAN countries have even now expressed concern about Trump’s announcement that it would reduce US overseas commitments. Last April, Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated that ASEAN must be prepared for a world in which ‘America is stepping back from its traditional role as the guarantor of order and the world’s policeman.’
If the United States seriously disengages economically and militarily from the region, the 10 ASEAN countries will increasingly have to rely on one another. For the Philippines, one clear option is to form a mutual defense agreement with Australia, Japan and South Korea. These three countries share the same security concerns and Chinese aggression in their territory.
The Philippines has also witnessed changes in its foreign policy towards China in the last two decades. Under president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from 2002 to 2010, the Philippines leaned towards China. Her successor, Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino Jr. who ruled from 2010 to 2016, pulled the country back towards the United States. Rodrigo Duterte, who followed Aquino, actually formed an alliance with China. However, his successor, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has brought back the alliance with the United States.
Even as China rises, polls reveal that Southeast Asians have considerable reservations about how China might use its power. According to the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s 2024 poll, when asked whom they trust, elites from the various sectors of society rank Japan first, United States second, the European Union third and China, a distant fourth.
The annual ASEAN meeting next year will be very crucial for Southeast Asian nations.
The recently organized Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) has just begun its work. At this early stage, it has generated some controversy. I would like to join the debate on whether the commission hearings should be livestreamed or not.
I definitely support the idea of conducting the hearings open to the public. If the hearings are kept secret or away from the public eye, this will generate suspicion as to whether the commission itself is keeping anything secret or confidential. This will lessen trust in the hearings. Right now, the ICI is the only public institution left that has the support and the confidence of the Filipino people. The commissioners must take every step to maintain this trust so that the results of the hearings will be believed by the whole nation.