Southeast Asia doesn’t need to choose sides

The world of politics is not yet entirely bipolar. And even though the United States and China are competing for influence in Southeast Asia, it isn’t necessary for countries here to side with either one of them.
Recent visits to China by President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia might suggest that their foreign policies are tilting towards Beijing. The safer interpretation is that those two nations are rebalancing their relations with the big powers in recognition of the fact that every Asian country must to some degree “dance with the dragon”. Engagement with China, whose political and economic power is steadily increasing despite occasional setbacks, is unavoidable.
The members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have found their own individual ways to engage with China, varying according to degrees of conflict and cooperation. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam are at loggerheads with Beijing over territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and Indonesia over fishing grounds. Disagreements over development projects and border issues hamper other Asean countries’ relations with China.
Duterte’s visit to Beijing last month caught the world’s attention because he declared an end to the Philippines’ historic relationship with the US, in the interest of a more independent foreign policy. It sounded like a diplomatic coup for China, though Duterte has since backtracked somewhat on the statement, recognising that his country needs America as an ally even as it deals with China separately from US influence.
Najib’s trip to China last week gave Beijing another boost. Gu Xiaosong of the Guangxi Academy of Social Sciences, a government think-tank, was subsequently crowing in state media about Southeast Asia “shifting towards China”. Najib was there to buy four patrol boats – the first time Kuala Lumpur has ever done so, having always previously purchased military hardware from the US, Europe and Russia. It could very well have been a signal that the balance of power in the region has altered. Najib also oversaw the signing of more than two dozen pacts on bilateral business and government cooperation in trade, finance and culture, as well as defence.
Economic relations between Malaysia and China are generally reciprocal. Kuala Lumpur doesn’t need China’s assistance, but does benefit from “favours” granted. Chinese President Xi Jinping was reportedly open to Najib’s proposal to restore Malaysian palm oil imports to the level of three years ago. And, citing the difficulties facing 10,000 small-scale farmers in his country, Najib also asked that China – the world’s largest consumer of bird nests used in soup – allow their import from Malaysia in the raw, still-unclean form.
Progress was thus made, and yet, like the Philippines and Vietnam, Malaysia too has a territorial quarrel with China in the South China Sea. In Beijing Najib merely reiterated the often-stated wish that the maritime problem be solved peacefully, through negotiation. He and Xi discussed the matter but evidently arrived at no new solutions, simply agreeing to contact one another directly if trouble flares up.
If there is one issue that the leaders of China and most Southeast Asian nations can agree on, without the need to even broach the subject, it is that authoritarian rule works best. Najib, Duterte, Hun Sen of Cambodia, Tran Dai Quang of Vietnam and to a certain extent our own Prayut Chan-o-cha must all feel comfortable in the arms of Beijing. At best, we can only hope that they don’t see warm relations with China as a shield against criticism from their own citizens and from the rest of the international community over their intolerance of democracy.