Nonalignment in Southeast Asia

During the Cold War which reached its peak in the 1950s up to the 1980s, the world was divided into three geopolitical camps. There was the communist bloc led by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and China. The second was the United States and the NATO countries in Europe. There was also the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) which belonged to this bloc. Finally, there were the nonaligned countries which tried to remain neutral. Some of the notable leaders in this third force were Nehru of India, Nkrumah of Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia.

Today, there are countries that still try to remain neutral in a continuing global struggle between the same opposing forces. The difference is that the nonaligned forces are not as organized as in the past. Still, across the globe, from India to Indonesia, Brazil to Turkey, Nigeria to South Africa, developing countries continue to seek neutrality in the struggle between the major powers. These countries try to keep their options open and continue to pursue a strategy of hedging because the future of the superpowers remains uncertain.

With limited resources with which to influence global politics, developing countries must be ready to change their own foreign policies to unpredictable circumstances.

For example, the United States remains the most powerful country in terms of its economic and military strength in the world. However, there are increasing forecasts that in the future China will overtake the United States.

Unlike in the past, however, the nonaligned countries are less organized and there are no accepted global leaders in the same way that Nehru was highly respected worldwide.

The BRICS is an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It has tried to create an image of a union that is independent of the so-called Western powers. Unfortunately, the presence of Russia and China has created an image of nonalignment in a new emerging Cold War.

In Southeast Asia, most of the countries are trying to stay neutral. It will be remembered that during the Cold War, Southeast Asia was a very divided region. Many countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia were strongly anti-communist and violently suppressed internal communist movements. At that time, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were ruled by Marxist-Leninists. In fact, in 1967, the ASEAN was founded by noncommunist states to prevent the expansion of Marxism-Leninism.

The bloodiest war in modern history after the Second World War was fought in Vietnam and Cambodia. This was a war that was fought primarily to prevent the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia. Today, the ASEAN has expanded its members to include former adversaries. It has transformed itself from an anti-communist group to a regional alliance with a broad political and economic agenda.

The region remains home to many different political systems with varied ideological beliefs. This has prevented the ASEAN from becoming a cohesive organization like the European Union. Both the United States and China have actively pushed the ASEAN countries to align with them.

This has made it difficult for ASEAN countries to follow a nonaligned policy. The United States has developed an Indo-Pacific strategy which is viewed as demanding countries to pick a side, preferably to side with the United States. China has also followed an economic policy which actually has undermined its position in Southeast Asia.

For example, China’s loans have led to unsustainable debt levels for recipients. Laos now owes China some $12 billion which is 65 percent of Laos’ GDP. Indonesia’s external debt to China stood at $21 billion, nearly five times what it was at the end of 2011. Cambodia has been the target of a combination of investments and loans from China which has led to its image of being the most pro-China country in the ASEAN.

China’s ownership claim of practically the whole of the South China Sea (SCS) has caused tension between it and the countries bordering the SCS like Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Under president Duterte, the Philippines followed a generally pro-China, anti-US foreign policy. Under the new Philippine President Marcos Jr., this policy has taken a 180-degree turnaround and the Philippines has now followed a generally pro-US policy. This was caused by China’s continuing harassment of Filipino vessels and fishermen in Philippine territorial waters.

This hard stance has also led Beijing to undermine its own aims in Southeast Asia. In 2017, for example, Beijing disinvited Singaporean Prime Minister Lee from a Belt and Road Forum after Lee defended an international court ruling about maritime claims that went against China and in favor of the Philippines.

Almost every country in Southeast Asia realizes that an open conflict between China and the United States is undesirable. They also realize that it would be bad for politics and business if either state dominated the region. The most desirable would be neutrality or nonalignment.

The question, however, is whether nonalignment can be achieved. Recent events in Southeast Asia have made nonalignment an extremely difficult position.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]