Caught between China and the US: Southeast Asia’s Strategic Fence-Sitting
The secret of success for many Southeast Asian countries has been their choice of economic and diplomatic multilateralism. Fence-sitting between rival powers is becoming fraught. China inspires a degree of fear in the region, due to its clout and geographical proximity. And under Trump, the United States is on the offensive against the multilateral trade system, with major diplomatic consequences. Can Southeast Asian countries maintain their balance by embracing new partnerships?
We often read that, highly sought after for their location and potential, Southeast Asian (SEA) countries are maneuvering between two major powers, China and the United States, close to the former for economic reasons and to the latter for security reasons. The reality is more complex and nuanced, and increasingly so. SEANAP countries have sought to avoid taking sides, and their ability to derive the maximum benefit from their relationships has been one of the keys to their economic success and stability. In fact, they have been the major beneficiaries of the Sino-American rivalry thus far.
They have been able to capitalize on globalization and the ties they have forged with their two major partners, but also with partners such as Japan, European countries and, to a lesser extent, Australia, South Korea, and India. The secret to their economic success lies in their commitment to economic openness and multilateralism, as well as their integration into global value chains. This choice of multilateralism is also reflected in the diplomatic arena; the motto of these countries, remarkably illustrated during the Cold War, is indeed: “Don't ask us to choose.”...
However, Donald Trump's return could change the situation and make the balancing act more perilous. The US president's massive offensive against the multilateral system and his obsession with reducing the US trade deficit by attacking its economic partners, even allies, may alter the calculations of ASEAN countries. But rather than rushing into the arms of their big neighbor China, they may seek to increase their options and partners.
Sophie Boisseau du Rocher is a senior researcher specializing in Southeast Asian politics. She has previously taught at Sciences Po Paris and is a former associate research fellow at Ifri's Center for Asian Studies.
Françoise Nicolas is a senior advisor at Ifri's Center for Asian Studies.
This article is available only in French and has been published in Politique étrangère, Vol. 90, No. 4, 2025.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
The Future of Europe in the Context of Sino-American Competition
This special issue of Politique étrangère focuses on the proceedings of the Conference organized by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri) for its 40th anniversary, held on April 10th, 2019, in Sorbonne University's Grand Amphithéâtre.
The Waning of Universalism
During the 19th century, Westerners provided ideological justifications for their colonization, namely spreading the Enlightenment across the globe. This project was received favorably until the second half of the 20th century. Over the last 20 years, it has met new hostility. The “universal values” promoted by the West are viewed today as a form of imperialism to be opposed – especially by China, Russia and Turkey.
The Future of the International Monetary and Financial System
Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the international community sought new stability in the financial system and the assurance of sustained growth. The crisis that began in 2007-2008 has revealed weaknesses that affected advanced economies first and foremost. Efforts have since been made to consolidate the international financial architecture, to coordinate macroeconomic policy, and to improve foreign exchange relations, even if this latter objective has proven complex.
International trade disagreements: Beyond Trump
The trade war between the United States and China is not only due to Donald Trump’s impulsiveness. Its roots are in fact profound and follow three structural changes in the multilateral trading system: the reversal of comparative advantages, the now central role of certain developing countries, and the re-balancing of power that makes coordination between states difficult. In this context, the future of world trade has yet to be written.