Straight News: What do you think of the U.S. announcement of a $150 million investment in ASEAN, the largest of which $60 million will be used to invest in maritime-related projects?
Special Commentator Sinan Zhang: That's right, and I don't think the United States has shied away from that at all.
In the "joint vision statement" issued by the "U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit", not a word was mentioned about China, but according to foreign media reports such as Reuters, Biden tried to show ASEAN leaders through this $150 million investment that the United States will focus on the "Indo-Pacific" rather than Europe, focusing on the so-called "China's long-term challenges" rather than the escalating Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
As the old saying goes, news should be put together to be interesting. On April 28, Biden asked the U.S. Congress to approve a $33 billion additional appropriation bill to support Ukraine against Russia, and on May 9, the House of Representatives increased Biden's $33 billion to $39.8 billion.
Although the bill is currently temporarily blocked in the Senate, we can already see that on the one hand, it is giving $39.8 billion to one country in Ukraine, which is not counting the previous cumulative aid of $3.8 billion; on the other hand, it is giving $150 million to ten ASEAN countries, while Biden also righteously said that "Indo-Pacific" is the focus of the United States.
This sense of discord is not that Biden is wrong, in November 2011, the Obama administration launched the "Asia-Pacific rebalancing" strategy, and for the next 11 years, the United States continued to tilt toward the Asia-Pacific and the "Indo-Pacific" region. U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gildy declared last October that the Pacific Ocean is home to 60 percent of the U.S. Navy's combat forces.
Therefore, it is not that the United States does not attach importance to the "Indo-Pacific", but that the United States does not attach importance to ASEAN. Even in the 11 years of a comprehensive tilt toward the ASEAN region, the United States has provided a total of $11.56 billion to the ten ASEAN countries, less than one-third of the 39.8 billion additional appropriations bill for Ukraine in 11 years, according to the U.S. federal government data. As Campbell, the National Security Council's Indo-Pacific coordinator, said ahead of the special summit, the United States had focused on East Asia or "Indo-Pacific" affairs at a firm pace, but was quickly distracted by "other pressing challenges."
So will the Biden administration be different this time? The Financial Times wrote that Biden's pledge of $150 million was intended to hedge against China's growing influence. For the United States, the growth in China's influence reflects the long-standing lack of importance that Policymakers in Washington have placed on ASEAN, and the $150 million investment is more of a continuation of this "under-emphasis" than a change in some sense. The United States did not launch this special summit because it valued ASEAN, but because it was jealous of China's influence on Southeast Asia based on economic and trade, and it was eager to curry favor with ASEAN, refusing to pay real money and silver, but also making a "only I care about you" posture to ASEAN.
Straight News: So how does ASEAN view U.S. co-optation?
Special Commentator Zhang Sinan: On the one hand, "refusing to choose sides between China and the United States" is the overall consensus of ASEAN countries. For example, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, the current chairman of ASEAN, clearly and publicly pointed out in Washington, D.C., before meeting Biden: "Cambodia will not choose sides between the United States and China, and Cambodia's policy is to adhere to peace and follow ASEAN's neutral position." ”
This neutral position is based first and foremost on pragmatic economic and trade considerations. According to China's Ministry of Commerce, China became ASEAN's largest trading partner for the 13th consecutive year in 2021, with bilateral trade reaching US$878.2 billion, accounting for 26.14% of ASEAN's GDP. The United States is ASEAN's second largest trading partner, with bilateral trade totaling $362.2 billion, accounting for 10.78% of ASEAN's GDP.
That's why, in an interview with the BBC last March, Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made it clear: "We can't choose either side because we have very close and extensive cooperation with the United States and China in the economy and beyond, as do many other countries." "Trade with China and the United States covers nearly 40% of ASEAN's overall GDP, and ASEAN cannot be willing or afford to choose sides between China and the United States, and then fall into potential economic and trade confrontation."
Second, this neutrality is based on geopolitical security concerns. China has never asked Southeast Asian countries to choose a side, and the concept of "taking sides" comes from the United States' demand that ASEAN recognize the regional leadership of the United States and assist its Asia-Pacific strategy or "Indo-Pacific strategy" to contain any potential challengers and take advantage of the fire of the United States. As the influence between China and the United States on ASEAN has diminished, the United States has also changed its mouth to preach the so-called "not pursuing ASEAN countries to choose sides", but the meaning of the United States is actually "not allowing ASEAN countries to stand in China", continuing to focus on creating regional contradictions and confrontations, rather than promoting lasting prosperity and stability, and Southeast Asian countries are not stupid.
On the 6th of this month, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointed out in a video conference with Luhut, the leader and coordinating minister of Indonesian cooperation with China, that the East Asian region has formed a regional cooperation framework centered on ASEAN, which is the key to maintaining peace and stability in the region. Wang Yi stressed that the "Indo-Pacific strategy" pursued by the United States moves against the trend of the times and does not conform to the common and long-term interests of regional countries.
On the other hand, the United States is not without leverage for ASEAN, that is, the security balance between Southeast Asian countries. We usually think of the issue between China, ASEAN, and the United States as a tripartite issue, ignoring that ASEAN is actually a loose consortium, and that there are extensive territorial disputes or security dilemmas between ASEAN members that have not yet been effectively resolved, such as between Indonesia and Malaysia, between Malaysia and Singapore, between Vietnam and the Philippines, between the Philippines and Brunei, and so on. An interesting example is that Singapore, roughly at the center of ASEAN geometry, is still pursuing a strong offensive military deterrence strategy.
In fact, from the first day of ASEAN's birth, the US military presence has played a kind of stabilizer role, avoiding Southeast Asian countries from resorting to force to resolve contradictions, which is also the main grasp of the United States' long-term involvement in ASEAN affairs. From this point of view, if the so-called "side-picking" problem is to be fundamentally resolved, it is not what China or the United States does, but that ASEAN itself must take responsibility, find a way to independently resolve contradictions between countries, and establish a real common defense mechanism, rather than relying on the security guarantees provided by countries outside the region. Only an endogenous and stable ASEAN can say no to the side, and a loose ASEAN is nothing more than a source between the cracks in the great power game, praying that tomorrow is not the day of the final showdown.
The author 丨 Zhang Sinan, the main writer of straight news, is a special commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV's "Live Broadcasting, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan"
Editor 丨Yu Zhemin, editor-in-chief of Shenzhen Satellite TV News
Typography 丨Dong Yi