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
Sophie BOISSEAU du ROCHER
Former Associate Research Fellow, Asia/Indo-Pacific Center, Ifri
Françoise NICOLAS
Senior Advisor, Center for Asian Studies, Ifri
Iran: Anatomy of a Power at War
The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.
“Remodeling” the Middle East?
Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.
Silicon Valley and War: Lessons from Ukraine
Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.
Does Artificial Intelligence Change the Nature of War?
From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.