Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ASIA RESPONDS TO
ITS RISING POWERS
China and India
Edited by
Ashley J. Tellis, Travis Tanner, and Jessica Keough
With contributions from
M. Taylor Fravel, Michael J. Green, Chung Min Lee, Rory Medcalf,
Harsh V. Pant, Kenneth B. Pyle, Teresita C. Schaffer, Ashley J. Tellis,
Carlyle A. Thayer, Dmitri Trenin, and S. Enders Wimbush
THE NATIONAL BUREAU of ASIAN RESEARCH
Seattle and Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL BUREAU of ASIAN RESEARCH
Published in the United States of America by
The National Bureau of Asian Research, Seattle, WA, and Washington, D.C.
www.nbr.org
Copyright 2011 by The National Bureau of Asian Research
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.
This material is based upon work supported in part by the Department of Energy (National Nuclear
Security Administration).
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to '
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
NBR makes no warranties or representations regarding the accuracy of any map in this volume.
Depicted boundaries are meant as guidelines only and do not represent the views ofNBR or NBR's
funders.
Design and publishing services by The National Bureau of Asian Research
Cover design by Stefanie Choi
Front cover photo: Werner Van Steen / The Image Bank / Getty Images
Publisher's Cataloging-In-Publication Data
(Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.)
Asia responds to its rising powers: China and India / edited by Ashley j. Tellis, Travis Tanner,
and Jessica Keough; with contributions from M. Taylor Fravel ... let al.].
p.: ill., maps; cm. -- (Strategic Asia 1933-6462; 2011-12)
Based upon work supported in part by the Department of Energy (National Nuclear Security
Administration).
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN: 978-0-9818904-2-5
1. Asia--Foreign relations--China. 2. Asia--Foreign relations--India. 3. China--Foreign
relations--Asia. 4. India--Foreign relations--Asia. 5. China--Foreign economic relations. 6.
India--Foreign economic relations. 7. Asia--Strategic aspects. I. Tellis, Ashley j. II. Tanner,
Travis. III. Keough, jessica. IV. Fravel, M. Taylor. V. National Bureau of Asian Research (U.S.)
VI. Series: Strategic Asia; 2011-12.
DS33.3 .A85 2011
320.95
Printed in Canada
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirement of the American National
Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI
Z39.48-1992.
Preface .
Richard f. Ellings
Overview
The United States and Asia's Rising Gi
Ashley f. Tellis
An overview of the themes and
examining the causes behind t h ~
implications for the U.S., and the
Special Study
International Order and the Rise of AI
History and Theory .
Kenneth B. Pyle
An examination ofhow Asia's rise ~
the integration of rising powers in
Country Studies
China Views India's Rise:
Deepening Cooperation, Managing I)
M. Taylor Fravel
An examination of how China vi
implications ofIndia's rise for ChiJ
objectives.
~ N R E S E ~ R C H
" WA, and Washington, D.C.
sian Research
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
ectronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
lisher.
part by the Department of Energy (National Nuclear
sponsored by an agency of the United States
ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
lied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
any information, apparatus, product, or process
nfringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
"rvice by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
mement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
ed States Government or any agency thereof.
egarding the accuracy of any map in this volume.
nJy and do not represent the views ofNBR or NBR's
I Bureau of Asian Research
mage Bank I Getty Images
ata
a and India I edited by Ashley j. Tellis, Travis Tanner,
rom M. Taylor Fravel ... let al.].
933-6462; 2011-12)
the Department of Energy (National Nuclear Security
index.
sia--Foreign relations--India. 3. China--Foreign
ns--Asia. 5. China--Foreign economic relations. 6.
sia--Strategic aspects. I. Tellis, Ashley j. II. Tanner,
. Taylor. V. National Bureau of Asian Research (U.S.)
inimum requirement of the American National
ce of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI
Contents
Preface
Richard f. Ellings
ix
Overview
The United States and Asia's Rising Giants ,
Ashley f. Tellis
An overview of the themes and conclusions of the volume,
examining the causes behind the rise of China and India, the
implications for the U.S., and the responses of other Asian states.
3
Special Study
International Order and the Rise of Asia:
History and Theory ,
Kenneth B. Pyle
An examination of how Asia's rise relates to classic questions about
the integration of rising powers into the international system.
35
Country Studies
China Views India's Rise:
Deepening Cooperation, Managing Differences
M. Taylor Fravel
An examination of how China views the rise of India and the
implications ofIndia's rise for China's core interests and strategic
objectives.
65
India Comes to Terms with a Rising China .' 101
Harsh V Pant
A discussion of the changing trajectory of Indian policy toward
China and an exploration of how India is responding to China's
rise across a range of issue areas central to its strategic calculus.
Japan, India, and the Strategic Triangle with China
Michael]. Green
An examination of Japan's relations with and strategies toward
Chin'a and India.
131
Coping with Giants:
South Korea's Responses to China's and India's Rise 161
Chung Min Lee
An assessment of Korean efforts to maximize a range of security
and economic interests with the major powers of the Asian
strategic landscape-especially China and India-without
weakening South Korea's central alliance with the United States
or loosening its growing linkages with the international system.
Grand Stakes: Australia's Future between China and India 195
Rory Medcalf
An examination of Australia's response to the rise of China and
India, including tensions among economics, security, and values,
as well as implications for U.S. strategy in Asia.
Challenges and Opportunities:
Russia and the Rise of China and India 227
Dmitri Trenin
An analysis of Russian perceptions and policies regarding the
rise of two Asian giants: one near neighbor, China, and one
long-time ally, India.
Regional Studies
Great Games in Central Asia 259
S. Enders Wimbush
An exploration of the competition for influence in Central Asia
between China, India, and other powers, as well as Central
Asian responses.
India Next Door, China Over the Horb
The View from South Asia .
Teresita C. Schaffer
An assessment of the responses of,
rise of India and China.
The Rise of China and India:
Challenging or Reinforcing Southeast
Carlyle A. Thayer
A comparative analysis ofthe impao
Southeast Asian regional a u t o n o m ~
for the United States.
Indicators
Strategic Asia by the Numbers .
About the Contributors .
About Strategic Asia .
Index .
ing China 101
I trajectory of Indian policy toward
how India is responding to China's
eas central to its strategic calculus.
.angle with China 131
elations with and strategies toward
's and India's Rise 161
~ r t s to maximize a range of security
; the major powers of the Asian
ally China and India-without
ltral alliance with the United States
ages with the international system.
between China and India 195
's response to the rise of China and
ng economics, security, and values,
, . strategy in Asia.
I India 227
eptions and policies regarding the
e near neighbor, China, and one
.................................. 259
tition for influence in Central Asia
other powers, as well as Central
India Next Door, China Over the Horizon:
The View from South Asia
Teresita C. Schaffer
An assessment of the responses of countries in South Asia to the
rise of India and China.
285
The Rise of China and India:
Challenging or Reinforcing Southeast Asia's Autonomy?
Carlyle A. Thayer
A comparative analysis of the impact of China's and India's rise on
Southeast Asian regional autonomy that considers implications
for the United States.
313
Indicators
Strategic Asia by the Numbers 349
About the Contributors 363
About Strategic Asia 369
Index 373
About the Contributors
Richard J. Ellings (PhD, University of Washington) is President and Co
founder of The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). Prior to serving
with NBR, from 1986 to 1989 he was Assistant Director and on the faculty of
the Jackson School ofInternational Studies of the University of Washington,
where he received the Distinguished Teaching Award. He served as Legislative
Assistant in the U.S. Senate, office of Senator Slade Gorton, in 1984 and
1985. Dr. Ellings is the author of Embargoes and World Power: Lessons from
American Foreign Policy (1985); co-author of Private Property and National
Security (1991); co-editor (with Aaron Friedberg) of Strategic Asia 2003-04:
Fragility and Crisis (2003), Strategic Asia 2002-03: Asian Aftershocks (2002),
and Strategic Asia 2001-02: Power and Purpose (2001); co-editor of Korea's
Future and the Great Powers (with Nicholas Eberstadt, 2001) and Southeast
Asian Security in the New Millennium (with Sheldon Simon, 1996); founding
editor of the NBR Analysis publication series; and co-chairman of the Asia
Policy editorial board. He also established the Strategic Asia Program and
AccessAsia, the national clearinghouse that tracks specialists and their
research on Asia.
Michael J. Green (PhD, Johns Hopkins University) is Associate Professor at
the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and
Japan Chair and Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International
Studi s (CSIS). He previously served as Special Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs and as Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the
National Security Council (NSC) from January 2004 to December 2005
after joining the NSC in April 2001. Dr. Green spent over five years in Japan
working as a staff member of the National Diet, as a journalist for Japanese
and U.S. newspapers, and as a consultant for U.S. business. He also has been
on the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
(SAIS), a Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a staff member at the
Institute for Defense Analyses, and a Senior Adviser to the Office of Asia
Pacific Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Dr. Green is a member
of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, and the Aspen Strategy Group, as well as Vice Chair of the Japan -U.S.
Friendship Commission. He serves on the advisory boards of the Center for
I
also founding editor of the Journal
rofessor Pyle has been a member
. Jackson Foundation since 1983,
e Maureen and Mike Mansfield
to 1988. In 1999, the government
e Order of the Rising Sun for his
exchange. The Japan Foundation
o Professor Pyle.
. economic, political, security, and
he is a Nonresident Senior Fellow
es as a Senior Adviser to McLarty
onal strategic advisory firm. Prior
ars as a U.S. diplomat, serving in
mbassador to Sri Lanka. She also
State for the Near East and South
,st position in the State Department
eign Service, Ambassador Schaffer
nter for Strategic and International
lve years. She is the author of India
g Partnership (2009) and co-author
Negotiates with the United States:
ebsite, South Asia Hand, includes
r at The National Bureau of Asian
Kenneth B. and Anne H.H. Pyle
these roles, Mr. Tanner creates and
etermines significant and emerging
and is responsible for the success of
ewas Deputy Director and Assistant
at the Nixon Center in Washington,
istant at the Peterson Institute for
's interests and expertise include
a's economy and foreign affairs, and
lude Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia's
rpose (co-edited with Ashley J. Tellis
a 2009-10: Economic Meltdown and
sWey J. Tellis and Andrew Marble,
t, Training, and Education in China's
lisen and Andrew Scobell, 2008), and
About the Contributors 367
Taiwan's Elections, Direct Flights, and China's Line in the Sand (co-authored
with David M. Lampton, 2005). Mr. Tanner holds an MA in International
Relations from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
(SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University.
Ashley J. Tellis (PhD, University of Chicago) is Senior Associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international
security, defense, and Asian strategic issues. He is also Research Director of
the Strategic Asia Program at The National Bureau of Asian Research and is
co-editor of the seven most recent annual volumes in the series, including
Strategic Asia 2010-11: Asia's Rising Power and America's Continued Purpose
(with Andrew Marble and Travis Tanner, 2010). While on assignment to the
U.S. Department of State as Senior Adviser to the Undersecretary of State for
Political Affairs (2005-8), Dr. Tellis was intimately involved in negotiating
the civil nuclear agreement with India. Previously he was commissioned into
the Foreign Service and served as Senior Advisor to the Ambassador at the
U.S. embassy in New Delhi. He also served on the National Security Council
staff as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Strategic
Planning and Southwest Asia. Prior to his government service, Dr. Tellis
was Senior Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation and Professor of Policy
Analysis at the RAND Graduate School. He is the author of India's Emerging
Nuclear Posture (2001) and co-author of Interpreting China's Grand Strategy:
Past, Present, and Future (with Michael D. Swaine, 2000). His academic
publications have also appeared in many edited volumes and journals.
Carlyle A. Thayer (PhD, Australian National University) is Emeritus Professor
at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force
Academy, Canberra, from where he recently retired after 31 years of service.
He spent his entire academic career teaching in a military environment, first
at the RE\)'al Military College-Duntroon between 1979 and 1985, and then
at the Australian Defence Force Academy from 1985 to 2010. His later career
involved attachments to the Asia- Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii
(1999-2002), the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies (2002-4), and the
Australian Command and Staff College (2006-7 and 2010). Professor Thayer
has been honored by appointments as the inaugural Frances M. and Stephen
H. Fuller Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ohio University in 2008 and
the c.v. Starr Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University in 2005. He is the
author of over four hundred publications, including Southeast Asia: Patterns
ofSecurity Cooperation (2010).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'I his chapter presents a c0111parative analysis of the in1pact of China's
and India's rise on Southeast Asian regional autonon1y and considers
i111plicat ions for the C.S.
.\lA1:\ >\lr.\:T:
Southeast Asian states seek to advance their national interests through the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in order to pr01110te
regional autononly and ASEAN's centrality in the region's security
architecture. 'vVhile \\'elcol11ing the rise of the region's two large neighbors,
especially for the ccononlic opportunities they offer, ASEAN states are also
concerned \\'ith preser\'ing regional autonon1Y. They seek an equilibriu111 in
external relations based on engage111ent \vith China and India, the
ofhoth rising p()\\,ers in ASEAN-centric n1ultilateral institutions,
and the continuance of C.S. presence in the region. Although Southeast Asian
C.S. regional in\'olven1ent they do not \vant to be forced to choose
bet \\'een external po\\'ers.
POI ICY L\lPLICAT10\:S:
Regional are concerned that a po\ver shift in China's favor is
under\\'ay. '111e C.S. should continually denlonstrate that it retains
sutt1cient n1ilitary p()\\'er to deter Chinese assertiveness.
As East Asia gro\\'s in econon1ic strength, the U.S. nlust redouble its efforts
to renlain an attracti\'e nlarket and source of technological innovation.
Southeast Asian states ha\'e beconle n10re proactive in pron10ting
ASl-',A:-J's centrality in the region's security architecture. The U.S.
\\'ould benefit fronl putting n10re diplon1atic effort into consulting and
coordinating \\'ith regional states in advance of ASEAN-related sun1nlits
and nlinisterial
India i.ll11hitions to becon1e a global power. The U.S. should support a
greater, independent Indian role in Southeast Asian security attlirs.
The Rise of China an,
or Reinforcing Southe,
This chapter presents an analysis of
illlplications for Southeast Asia, as well
Southeast Asian states welcome Chin
opportunities it offers, while they look
and a Inarket for goods and investment
preserving regional autonomy in their n
seek an equilibrium based on continuing
of China in multilateral institutions, an(
region's security architecture. In particul
the United States' long-standing primacy
China relations thus have a considerablE
in the 11laritilne d0l11ain. Although each
its own set of bilateral relations with thl
prefer not to choose bet\veen China and
a united approach through the Associ
(ASEAN). Men1ber states therefore prOffi(
security architecture to enhance region
power interference.
The rise of China and India as m,
heightened salience of the maritime de
C0l11munication (SLOC) that traverse thl
China Sea. Since the 1990s, India has pu
to prOlllote econon1ic linkages. As a res
Carlyle A. 'Ihayer ,1t the Cniwrsil
ForL'C AL',ldcI11Y, C,ll1bnrll. Hc L'lll1 ht' retlL'hed at <c.tha)
J
I
Southeast Asia
analysis of the inlpact of China's
regional autononly and considers
their national interests through the
)ns (ASEAN) in order to pronl0te
entrality in the region's security
of the region's two large neighbors,
ies they offer, ASEAN states are also
ononlY. They seek an equilibrium in
ment \vith China and India, the
EAN-centric nlultilateral institutions,
the region. Although Southeast Asian
er do not \vant to be forced to choose
a po\,ver shift in China's favor is
ually denl0nstrate that it retains
nese assertiveness.
the U.S. nlust redouble its efforts
urce of technological innovation.
ne nlore proactive in prOITIoting
s security architecture. The U.S.
JlOnlatic effort into consulting and
.dyance of ASEAN-related sunlnlits
al po\ver. The U.S. should support a
Asian security affairs.
The Rise of China and India: Challenging
or Reinforcing Southeast Asia's Autonomy?
Carlyle A. Thayer
This chapter presents an analysis of the rise of China and India and its
implications for Southeast Asia, as well as for U.S. interests in the region.
Southeast Asian states welcome China's rise because of the econonlic
opportunities it offers, while they look to India as a source of technology
and a nlarket for goods and investnlent. But they are also concerned \vith
preserving regional autonolny in their relations \vith the nlajor po\vers and
seek an equilibrium based on continuing U.S. engagenlent, the ennleshnlent
of China in I11ultilateral institutions, and an enhanced role for India in the
region's security architecture. In particular, China's rise poses a challenge to
the United States' long-standing prinlacy in Southeast Asia. Tensions in C.S.
China relations thus have a considerable inlpact on the region, particularly
in the nlaritinle donlain. Although each Southeast Asian state has developed
its own set of bilateral relations with these nlajor pc)\vers, individual states
prefer not to choose between China and the United States, instead favoring
a united approach through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). Melnber states therefore pronlote ASEAN's centrality in the region's
security architecture to enhance regional autononly and nlininlize' nlajor
power interference.
The rise of China and India as nlajor econonlies has resulted in the
heightened salience of the nlaritiI11e donlain, particularly the sea lines of
COnlITIUnication (SLOC) that traverse the northern Indian Ocean and South
China Sea. Since the 1990s, India has pursued a "look east" policy designed
to promote econonlic linkages. As a result, the boundaries bet\\'een South
Carlyle A. Thayer i" Emeritu" <It thc L'l1i\'L'r"ity of :\l'\\ \",lk" ,It thl' .\u"tr,d\,lI1 [kklhl'
Forcc AC<ldcl11:', C,lI1bcrra. t-k L'JI1 bc rc,lchcd ,It < C.th<lycr\<1 adLl.cdu"lll
314 Strategic 2011-12
and Southeast Asia are becon1ing blurred. India can no longer be viewed
as n1erely a subcont inental po\ver; instead, it is an enlerging power with
strategic interests in the security of Southeast Asia.
chapter is divided into six sections. The first section assesses the
in1pact of the rise of China and India on Southeast Asia's strategic interests.
These interests are defined as national resilience (prolnoted through
policies of cOIl1prehensive security) and regional resilience (prolTIoted
through the assertion of regional autonomy and ASEAN norn1s). China's
rise poses challenges to the contelnporary regional security order as well as
to Southeast Asia's econon1ic development. In response to these challenges,
ASEAN has encouraged the United States to ren1ain engaged in the region
\vhile vie\\'ing India as adding ballast-that is, geostrategic weight-to
relations \vith China. ASEAN seeks to Inoderate great-power rivalry by
enll1eshing the n1ajor po\\rers in ASEAN-centric multilateral institutions
such as the ASEAN Regional Forun1 (ARF), ASEAN Defense Ministers'
Nleeting- Plus (ADJ\!INI- Plus), and East Asia Sun1Init (EAS).
Section two canvasses the key forms of China's and India's interactions
\vith Southeast Asia across six dimensions: historical, geostrategic,
econon1ic, cultural, Inilitary, and nonproliferation. The third section
considers Southeast Asia's changing perceptions of China's and India's
rise. During the Cold \lVar, China was viewed as a threat and India was
viewed as a Soviet surrogate. As a result of don1estic economic reforms,
however, first in China and then in India, both are now viewed as nlajor
econon1ic partners and contributors to regional security. Section four
then discusses the n1ain strategies pursued by ASEAN in its relations with
both countries: econ0111ic interdependence, socialization into ASEAN
norn1s, and soft -baIanci ng.
Section five assesses the in1pact of relations among China, India, and
Southeast Asia on the United States and its interests. Whereas China's
ll1ilitary n10dernization challenges U.S. naval supren1acy in the Western
Pacific, India and the United States have developed a nascent strategic
partnership that rell1ains a \vork in progress. Southeast Asian states have
sought reassurance that the United States will ren1ain engaged in the
region, \vhile also encouraging India to playa greater role in the region's
n1ultilateral institut ions.
Last, section six analyzes four key Southeast Asian states' bilateral
relations \vith China and India. These states are grouped into three categories:
continental (Nlyan 111ar and Thailand), littoral (Vietnarn), and n1aritin1e
(Indonesia). The continental states have atten1pted to engage both China
and India as econon1ic and security partners. Vietnan1, as a littoral state, has
de\Tloped a con1plex strategy of "cooperating and st ruggling" with China to
protect its national interests. Indonesia ha
of engaging both China and India on eco
cooperates n10re with India on n1aritime
The Impact of the Rise of Chir
Southeast Asia's Strategic Inte:
With a total population of nearly 60
of $1.5 trillion in 2008, Southeast Asic
Asian trading partner after China and
overall). It is also the largest destination
Of all the regions in Asia, Southea
sense of regional identity and the
ASEAN. Strategic analysts often divide
the n1ainland or continental states an
inlportant shipping routes that extend
Straits of Malacca and Singapore to thE
of China and India has altered this gee
the inlportance of the n1aritime domai
Southeast Asian states thus n1ay be gro
(Myannlar, Thailand, Laos, and Caml
Malaysia, and Vietnan1), and maritime
During the past six and a half dec
dependent on U.S. leadership for main1
In 1967, five key Southeast Asian
ASEAN. All were anti-Comn1unist
allied \vith or inclined to\vard the l
relations with the major po\vers by pr
of Southeast Asia and the centrality 0
architecture. In 1971, for example, A
Asia was a Zone of Peace, Freedom ar
they adopted the Treaty of Amity ar
n1enlber states fron1 using force or t1
Likewise, in 1995 ASEAN states adopt
nuclear weapon-free zone. ASEAN fl
expanding its n1en1bership to include
1995, Laos and Myann1ar in 1997, and
I See "ASEAN for America," East-\Vest eel
interactiye m.1;'- be accessed at http://asc
"n1t' fin' th.1t founded :\SEA:\ Jre Indonesia,
A
...
India can no longer be viewed
it is an en1erging power with
least Asia.
ions. The first section assesses the
Southeast Asia's strategic interests.
al resilience (promoted through
1d regional resilience (pron10ted
omy and ASEAN norn1s). China's
yregional security order as well as
nt. In response to these challenges,
to remain engaged in the region
-that is, geostrategic weight-to
moderate great-power rivalry by
N-centric Inultilateral institutions
ARF), ASEAN Defense Ministers'
lsia Summit (EAS).
; of China's and India's interactions
historical, geostrategic,
1proliferation. The third section
erceptions of China's and India's
vie\ved as a threat and India was
It of domestic economic reforms,
lia, both are now viewed as major
o regional security. Section four
led by ASEAN in its relations with
Jence, socialization into ASEAN
relations an10ng China, India, and
lnd its interests. Whereas China's
naval supremacy in the Western
ave developed a nascent strategic
)gress. Southeast Asian states have
tates \vill remain engaged in the
) playa greater role in the region's
y Southeast Asian states' bilateral
tes are grouped into three categories:
littoral (Vietnaln), and maritime
'e attenlpted to engage both China
ners. Vietnan1, as a littoral state, has
'ating and struggling" with China to
CTI1ayer - Southeast 31S
protect its national interests. Indonesia has also developed a dual-track policy
of engaging both China and India on econon1ics and security n1atters, hut it
cooperates more with India on maritime security issues.
The Impact of the Rise of China and India on
Southeast Asia's Strategic Interests
With a total population of nearly 600 Inillion and a con1bined econon1Y
of $1.5 trillion in 2008, Southeast Asia is the United States' third-largest
Asian trading partner after China and Japan (and the fifth-largest partner
overall). It is also the largest destination for U.S. investlnent in Asia.
l
Of all the regions in Asia, Southeast Asia has developed the strongest
sense of regional identity and the I110St enduring n1ultilateral institution,
ASEAN. Strategic analysts often divide Southeast Asia into t\VO suhregions
the n1ainland or continental states and the n1aritill1e states-bisected hy
in1portant shipping routes that extend fron1 the Persian C;ulf through the
Straits of Malacca and Singapore to the Western Pacific. The econoll1ic rise
of China and India has altered this geostrategic fran1e\Vork hy heightening
the in1portance of the maritime domain, particularly the South China Sea.
Southeast Asian states thus n1ay be grouped into three categories: n1ainland
(Myann1ar, Thailand, Laos, and Can1bodia), littoral (Philippines, Brunei,
Malaysia, and Vietnam), and l11aritime (Singapore and Indonesia).
During the past six and a half decades, Southeast Asia has been vitalh'
dependent on U.S. leadership for n1aintaining regional stahility and securit;'.
In 1967, five key Southeast Asian states joined together and founded
ASEAN. All were anti-Con1munist in orientation and either forn1ally
allied with or inclined toward the United States.': ASEAN has n1anaged
relations with the major powers by pron10ting both the regional autonon1y
of Southeast Asia and the centrality of ASEAN in Southeast Asia's security
architecture. In 1971, for exalnple, ASEAN states declared that Southeast
Asia was a Zone of Peace, Freedon1 and Neutrality (Z()PFAT\), and ill' 1()76
they adopted the Treaty of AI11ity and Cooperation (TAe) that enjoined
member states frol11 using force or the threat of force against each other.
Likewise, in 1995 ASEAN states adopted a treaty declaring Southeast Asia a
nuclear weapon-free zone. ASEAN further asserted regional autonon1y hy
expanding its nlembership to include Brunei in 1984, socialist Victnaln in
1995, Laos and Myanl11ar in 1997, and Canlbodia in 19()(). In 2003,
I See "ASFA N for America," Center amI In.... t1t uk (lj l1l'cht .\ .... lclJ) \1 Udll ..... I hI ....
interactive may be clt .... t()LlmlTkcl.(lrg
'Ihe tl\'e that founded ASEAN clrt' 1\IelLl)".]cl, tIlt' )rl', Jild I hdil,llllL
316 Strategic 2011-12
set the goal of creating an ASEAN con1nlunity by 2015, and in 2007 the
organization took on a fornlallegal personality by the adoption of a charter.
Although up until the end of the Cold War ASEAN avoided direct
in\"olvenlent in regional security, it has since then sought to promote its
ilnportance in Southeast Asia's security architecture. In 1994, it founded the
ARF as a vehicle to pr0I110te regional autonomy with ASEAN "in the driver's
seat." The ARF counted as founding meInbers all of ASEAN's dialogue
partners, including China and the United States. In 1997, ASEAN initiated
the ASEAN +3 process \vith China, Japan, and South Korea. Finally, since
2003 sixteen countries outside Southeast Asia have acceded to the TAC,
\\"hich \\"as opened for accession by external powers in 1987.
U.S. strategic interests in Southeast Asia have rernained relatively
constant over the past 65 years. First, the United States has maintained a
security order based on alliances, designed to prevent any power, regional
or external, froIn exerting hegenl0ny over the region. For example, the 2010
Quadren1lial Dej('1lse RcvieH' Report states: "The foundation of our presence
in Asia reInains our historical treaty alliances. These alliances have helped
Inaintain peace and stability for nlore than sixty years, particularly through
the continued presence of capable U.S. forces in the region, and we remain
cOlnnlitted to the security comn1itn1ents embodied in these
agreelnents." Second, vVashington has promoted a liberal international
econolnic order based on free trade and investment. Third, it has encouraged
econOlllic developnlent through assistance prograIns to Southeast Asia's
developing econoI11ies. Fourth, the United States has promoted delnocracy,
hunlan rights, and religious freedonl in the region. Finally, after the terrorist
attacks of SepteI11ber 11, \Vashington has pursued a global war on terrorism
that has focused specifically on terrorist groups in Southeast Asia.
Ho\v does the rise of China and India affect Southeast Asia's strategic
interests and relations \\"ith the United States? Regarding China, individual
states have ditferent perceptions of the challenges and opportunities posed
by its rise. Several states, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, initially viewed
C=hina's econolnic rise as a challenge because of fears that it would lead to
a diversion of trade and investnlent fronl Southeast Asia. SOIne states were
further concerned about being pulled into China's orbit in a dependent
relationship based on supplying raw lnaterials. Gradually, ASEAN states
began to collectively vie\\' China's econonlic rise as an opportunity and
nl0\"Cd to enhance their unity and cohesion by fornling a viable ASEAN
free Trade Area to collective bargaining with China. I\t the sanle
tinle, China's econonlic rise has raised concerns an10ng sonle ASEAN
1kp<lrtl11l.'l1t of 1)1.'lL'n"l.', ()/lddrl'lll/ldllhft'llc'e Report I ),C., l'ebrudr)
2() I () J,
states that the United States Inight diseng
protectionist policies-anxieties that \ver
signing of the North Anlerican Free Trade
China's econon1ic power has pro'
l110dern ization and transforn1ation of its
Beijing is developing robust anti-access/;
affect the ability of the U.S. Navy to ope
increased n1ilitary pro\vess also has impli
where four Southeast Asian states have co
disputes with China. China's gro\ving as
exercises has raised regional security COl
primacy and the United States' disengager
India's rise has provided ASEAN
geostrategic weight to the region's relati<
ASEAN's centrality in Southeast Asia. AS
in the ARF and, Inore significantly, in t
ASEAN have conle to vie\v each other as at
investn1ent in India's infrastructure, \vhile
sector. In addition, several A.SEAN states
potential partners in providing 111aritime s(
and northern approaches to the Strait of M
The greatest threat to Southeast A5
potential for great -power rivalry to under
friction between China and the United:
spill over into Southeast Asia. U.S. alli(
the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, an(
side with the United States, and all mer
whether ASEAN Illultilateralism \vas a 1
security than alignn1ent \vith a 111ajor f
United States could be undernlined if re
had entrapped thenl in a dispute not of tl
111ilitary friction bet\veen the United Sta
ASEAN's unity and cohesion.
Key Forms of Southeast Asian.
with China and India
This section revie\vs the key forms of
China and India across six dirnensions: b
cultural, Inilitary, and nonproliferation.
A
ommunity by 2015, and in 2007 the
'rsonality by the adoption of a charter.
le Cold War ASEAN avoided direct
las since then sought to pronlote its
y architecture. In 1994, it founded the
lUtonomywith ASEAN "in the driver's
members all of ASEAN's dialogue
tited States. In 1997, ASEAN initiated
apan, and South Korea. Finally, since
least Asia have acceded to the TAC,
ternal po\vers in 1987.
heast Asia have remained relatively
t, the United States has Inaintained a
;igned to prevent any power, regional
)ver the region. For exaIllple, the 2010
:ates: "The foundation of our presence
alliances. These alliances have helped
than sixty years, particularly through
forces in the region, and \ve renlain
ty commitments embodied in these
las promoted a liberal international
ld investment. Third, it has encouraged
istance programs to Southeast Asia's
nited States has promoted delnocracy,
n the region. Finally, after the terrorist
has pursued a global war on terrorisnl
st groups in Southeast Asia.
India affect Southeast Asia's strategic
d States? Regarding China, individual
le challenges and opportunities posed
ionesia and Malaysia, initially viewed
because of fears that it would lead to
"rom Southeast Asia. Sonle states vvere
ed into China's orbit in a dependent
v materials. Gradually, ASEAN states
rise as an opportunity and
:ohesion by fornling a viable ASEAN
Te bargaining \vith China. At the saIne
lised concerns anlong sonle ASEAN
"lhayer - 317
states that the United States ll1ight disengage fronl the region and pursue
protectionist policies-anxieties that \vere heightened in 1994 \\'ith the
signing of the North Anlerican Free Trade Agreenlent (NAfTA).
China's econonlic power has provided the foundation for the
nl0dernization and transfornlation of its anned forces. It is evident that
Beijing is developing robust anti-access/area-denial capabilities that \\'ill
affect the ability of the LJ.S. Navy to operate in the VVestern Pacific. "This
increased nlilitary prowess also has inlplications for the South China Sea,
where four Southeast Asian states have conflicting territorial and nlaritinle
disputes with China. China's growing assertiveness in the fornl of na\'al
exercises has raised regional security concerns about the decline in U.S.
prinlacy and the United States' disengagenlent fronl Southeast Asia.
India's rise has provided ASEAN \vith the opportunity to add
geostrategic weight to the region's relations \vith China, thus reinforcing
ASEAN's centrality in Southeast Asia. ASEAN secured India's nlenlbership
in the ARF and, nlore significantly, in the EAS process. Both India and
ASEAN have conle to view each other as attractive Ne\\' I)elhi values
investnlent in India's infrastructure, while ASEAN seeks access to India's IT
sector. In addition, several ASEAN states and India no\\' see each other as
potential partners in providing nlaritiIne security in the eastern Indian ()cean
and northern approaches to the Strait of Malacca.
The greatest threat to Southeast Asia's strategic interests lies in the
potential for great-power rivalry to undernline regional autononly. IVlilitary
friction between China and the United States in East Asia \\'oLdd quickly
spill over into Southeast Asia. U.S. allies and strategic partners such as
the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia \vould be pressured to
side with the United States, and all ll1enlber states \vould need to decide
whether ASEAN nlultilateralis111 was a better guarantee of their national
security than alignnlent \vith a nlajor pO\\Ter. Security relations \vith the
United States could be undennined if regional states felt that 'v\Tashington
had entrapped thenl in a dispute not of their o\\'n nlaking. At the least,
nlilitary friction bet\veen the United States and China \vould se\'erely test
ASEAN's unity and cohesion.
Key Forms of Southeast Asian Interaction
with China and India
This section reviews the key for111s of Southeast A.sian interaction \\'ith
China and India across six dinlensions: historical, geostrategic, econonlic,
cultural, Inilitary, and nonproliferation.
Strategic Asia 2011-12
Historical
Conten1porary Southeast Asia has been profoundly influenced by the
interaction of states in the region with the precolonial empires of India
and China. Precolonial Indian influence was pervasive due to the spread of
Buddhisl11 and Hinduisl11. Hovvever, the most significant fornl of strategic
interaction took place through China's tributary system. This system served
three purposes: it ackno\vledged il11perial China's primacy, it enhanced
C=hina's security by creating a buffer of friendly states on the country's
southern periphery, and it regulated trade, often to the advantage of the
supplicant. In contrast, India had no con1parable strategic n1echanism to
structure its relations \vith Southeast Asia.
Southeast Asia's autononl0US interactions with India and China were
largely curtailed during the colonial era by European powers incorporating
Southeast Asian states into their en1pires. Although Burma was ruled
as part of British India, else\vhere in the region relations with India and
China \vere truncated. The one exception to this was the 111igration of large
nun1bers of Chinese and Indians to work as laborers on plantations and
other infrastructural projects.
rlhe postcolonial era gave birth to new nation-states and new forms
of interaction bet\\'een Southeast Asian states and India and China. India
en1erged as a strong proponent of decolonization and played a leading role
in pron10ting nonalignn1ent. In particular, New Delhi's advocacy of the
five principles of peaceful coexistence resonated in Burma, Indonesia, and
Call1bodia. Elsewhere in the region, anti-Conlmunism assumed greater
salience following the Chinese Comillunist Party's ascension to power and
the onset of the Cold War in Asia. China established close relations with
Con1n1unist Vietnan1 in 1950 but found itself ostracized elsewhere. The end
of the Cold War later created the conditions for both China and India to re
engage \vith Southeast Asia.
C;eostrategic
I)ecolonization after \Vorld War II was a decade-long process nlarked
by the independence of the Philippines in 1946 and Malaya (subsequently
renan1ed Malaysia) in 1957. l The new states of Southeast Asia pursued three
different patterns of alignn1ent: pro- Western (Philippines, Thailand, Malaya/
Malaysia, and South Vietnan1), neutral or nonaligned (Burma, Indonesia,
C=an1bodia, and Laos), and pro-Communist (North Vietna111). The United
States exerted influence bilaterally vvith its treaty allies the Philippines and
j 'I hcllLllld W,1'-, ncver co!oni/ed, Brunei, and Timor became independent in 1963,
]YH4, ,111J 2002, rC"r'L'dl\'ely
i
Thailand and ll1ultilaterally through the S,
(SEA Indi a and China both erne
principles of peaceful coexistence and"
Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia,
major role as chair of the International C,
Laos, and Vietnam, \vhich oversaw the G
and China also supported the policies of
Carnbodia. At the same time, India deve
ties vvith Indonesia until the mid-1960s, v
Union, became a strong supporter of Nor1
The foundations of modern Sou
developed in World War II \vhen Brit
Command as an anti- Japanese theater l
Malaya, and Indonesia. Regionalism took
SEATO in 1954, the Association ofSoutht
in 1963.
6
By the 1960s, the idea of South
taken hold all10ng indigenous elites, who
a C0111ffiOn regional identity, and in 1967 it
region with the fornlation of ASEAN.
Economic
Southeast Asia sits at the
Indian and Pacific oceans that developed
centuries. During this period, Southeast
for trade froln Europe, the eastern Medite
Japan. The age of cOlnnlerce" came to an
and the role of India and China receded d
In the postcolonial era India turned j
trade links with the Soviet Union, ar
Southeast Asia. Similarly, the People's Rl
inward in the 1950s and 1960s and, with
Vietna111, remained cut off fronl Southeas
India only re-emerged as nlajor econom
the 1990s after separately carrying out d
seeking integration with the global eeo]
China, India, and Southeast Asia mutl
Thailand and the Philippines were the only regiOJ
New Zealand, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and tt
guarantees for the non-Communist states of Laos, Car
() The Association of included Malav
Maphilindo a association of :Y1alaysia, thl
j
J
been profoundly influenced by the
th the precolonial empires of India_
:e \vas pervasive due to the spread
he most significant form of strategIC
tributary systenl. This system served
perial China's prinlacy, it
of friendly states on the country s
trade, often to the advantage of the
comparable strategiC mechanism to
\sia.
eractions \vith India and China were
ra bv European powers incorporating
mpi;es. Although Burma was. ruled
1 the region relations with IndIa and
tion to this was the nligration of large
work as laborers on plantations and
to ne\v nation-states and new forms
ian states and India and China. India
colonization and played a leading role
ticular, New Delhi's advocacy of the
:e resonated in Burnla, Indonesia, and
1, anti-CoInmunism assumed greater
munist Party's ascension to power and
China established close relations with
lnd itself ostracized elsewhere. The end
lditions for both China and India to re-
r II \vas a decade-long process nlarked
ines in 1946 and Malaya (subsequently
wstates of Southeast Asia pursued three
Western (Philippines, Thailand, Malaya/
Itral or nonaligned (Burma, Indonesia,
mmunist (North VietnaIll). The United
with its treaty allies the Philippines and
runei, and East Timor became independent in 1963,
Thayer - Southeast Asia 31'-)
Thailand and nlultilaterally through the Southeast Asia Treaty ()rganization
(SEATO).:1 India and China both enlerged as proponents of the five
principles of peaceful coexistence and were pronlinent at the Afro- Asian
Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955. Sinlilarly, India played a
nlajor role as chair of the International Control Conlnlission in Canlbodia,
Laos, and Vietnanl, which oversaw the Geneva Agreenlents of 1954. India
and China also supported the policies of neutrality adopted by BUrIlla and
Cambodia. At the saIne tinle, India developed close political and nlilitary
ties with Indonesia until the I11id-1960s, while China, along \vith the Soviet
Union, became a strong supporter of North Vietnanl.
The foundations of nl0dern Southeast Asian regionalisnl \vere
developed in World War II when Britain set up the South East Asia
Command as an anti- Japanese theater of operations covering lhailand,
Malaya, and Indonesia. Regionalisnl took steps for\vard \vith the creation of
SEATO in 1954, the Association of Southeast Asia in 1961, and 1\;1aphilindo
in 1963.
11
By the 1960s, the idea of Southeast Asia as a distinct region had
taken hold anlong indigenous elites, who consciously pronloted the idea of
a common regional identity, and in 1967 it enlerged as a distinct geopolitical
region with the fornlation of ASEAN.
Economic
Southeast Asia sits at the crossroads of historic SLOCs bet\veen the
Indian and Pacific oceans that developed fronl the fifteenth to seventeenth
centuries. During this period, Southeast Asia becanle the vital entrepot
for trade from Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and India to China and
Japan. The "age of cOInmerce" canle to an end in the seventeenth century,
and the role of India and China receded during the colonial era.
In the postcolonial era India turned inward econonlically, developed
trade links with the Soviet Union, and renlained disengaged fronl
Southeast Asia. Sinlilarly, the People's Republic of China (PRe) turned
inward in the 1950s and 1960s and, with the exception of relations \vith
Vietnanl, remained cut off from Southeast Asia econolnically. China and
India only re-emerged as I11ajor economic players in Southeast Asia in
the 1990s after separately carrying out donlestic econonlic refornls and
seeking integration with the global econonlY. High gro\vth rates nlade
China, India, and Southeast Asia 111utually attractive nlarkets. A key
') "Ihailand and the were the only region<ll memlwr" <llong"ide .\u"tr<lli<l, h"<lIKe,
New Zealand, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and the L'nited Sl"A 10 pro\'IJed "t'curity
guarantees for the non-Communist of Laos, Cambodid, <ll1d \'il'tn<1ll1.
(1 'Ihe of Southeast included tIlL' Phillppinc", <ll1J "} h<liLll1d, \\hde
Maphilindo a stillborn of Philippil1c", <ll1d Indol1e"l<l.
320 StrategiL 2011-12
turning point in China's relations with the region can1e in 2002 with the
of a fran1evvork agreen1ent for the China-ASEAN Free Trade
Agreeinent India follo\ved suit seven years later by signing an
agreen1ent \vith ASEA N covering the free trade of goods.
As discussed above, India's cultural influence in Southeast Asia was
pervasi\'e in the precolonial era and led to what historians call Indianization.
Indianization refers to the process by which local rulers underpinned
their legitilnacy by grafting the values of Hinduisn1 and Buddhisn1 onto
indigenous belief systen1s. \Vith the exception of Vietnam, 1heravada
Buddhisn1 becaine the state religion of all Illainland states. Hinduism
and Buddhisn1 forn1ed the basis of state legitinlacy in the Indonesian
archipelago until the arri\'al of Islan1 in the thirteenth century. Such deep
cultural connections bet\\'een India and Southeast Asia have not proved
durable enough, ho\vc\'er, to translate into Inore pern1anent bonds in the
conteillporary period. Indian influence in Southeast Asia is now Illainly
transillitted by the large diaspora con1n1unities in Malaysia (2 n1illion),
.\lyann1ar (1 InHlion), Singapore (371,000), and Thailand (150,000), as well
as by overseas Indian residents \vho work in Southeast Asia.
X
In Singapore
the Indian diaspora has played a nlajor role in developing ties \vith India,
\vhereas political and econonlic discriIllination against the diasporas in
.\Iyann1ar and 1Vlalaysia, respectively, has inlpeded the developn1ent of
bilateral ties bet\veen India and those countries.
By \\'ay of contrast, in the precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial eras,
n1ade a sustai ned cultural in1pact on only one state in Southeast Asia:
\Tietnan1. Ho\vever, the PRC and Vietnanl becanle adversaries during the
conflict (197R-91), and all forn1s of cultural and educational
interaction \vere tenninated. In the late 1970s, up to 250,000 ethnic Chinese
f1ed Vietnanl to China. lhis hiatus in relations canle to an end in 1991
\vhen China and \Tietnan1 restored nornlal relations, and Vietnanlese now
represent the third-largest group of foreign students in China.
Today, the overseas Chinese con1n1unity constitutes a Illajority of the
population in Singapore (7 and over a quarter of the population in
A-/lalaysia There are also sizeable overseas Chinese cOlnmunities in
Brunei (1 lhailand (1 and Canlbodia (7%).Y Overseas Chinese
I hI" I" "OI11t'tII11l'" ,1bhrl'\'i,lkd ,\( 'I, L\ for ,\SFA.N -Chill,l Frct? Trade Agrt.'CI11t?Ilt.
, ('/.\, IIII.' \\'o,.ld }-udlJollA. (\\',l"hingtun, D.C .. CIA, 20{)L), ,l\'ailable ,1t
gO\'/ publil..,lt j( 111,,1 t 11L'-\\ orld- LILtbook/index.htI11I.
, IbId.
influence is arguably strongest in Thaila
business class took root historically, bu
Indonesia, and the Philippines. Althougl
assin1ilated into local COnlI11Unities, oth
cultural identity through Chinese
At tinles, overseas Chinese C0I11muni
racial discrinlination, particularly in II
governlllent only recently relnoved discr
indigenous ethnic Chinese conln1unity.
China has responded to the \videspr
in Southeast Asia by developing Confuc:
language and culture. By contrast, it is
India has begun to systenlatically pn
exchanges to enhance its relations il
mainland Southeast Asia.
Military
1here have been three instances of (
a Southeast Asian state in the contempo
Vietnanl. TIle PRe seized the southern P;
in 1974 and clashed \vith \Tietnanlese na
Johnston Reef in the Spratly Islands.
pun itive attack on northern Vietnan1 in
to Vietnaill's invasion of Call1bodia.
China only began to pr0I110te def
Asia in the 1990s under the rubric of it:
will be discussed belo,v. Betvveen 1999 (
cooperation fran1evvork agreen1ents \vit]
of these agreeinents (\\Tith Thailand, Mal
the Philippines, and Laos) include clause
a range of activities such as high-level ex
dialogues, sInall-scale exercises, Inilitar)
equipn1ent sales, and cooperation
In addition, China has pursued defel
brokering agreen1ents '\'ith ASEAN ane
prin1arily focused on nontraditional seCl
India's defense relations ,vith SOL
Defense ties \\'ith Singapore are particulc:
conducted increasingly con1plex annua
India also conducts joint exercises ,vit
Ihaycr
'ith the region canle in 2002 with the
t for the China-ASEAN Free Trade
suit seven years later by signing an
e free trade of goods.
tural influence in Southeast Asia was
ed to "vhat historians call Indianization.
I by \vhich local rulers underpinned
ues of Hinduisnl and Buddhisnl onto
he exception of Vietnam, Theravada
In of all 111ainland states. Hinduis111
)f state legiti111acy in the Indonesian
n in the thirteenth century. Such deep
l and Southeast Asia have not proved
ite into more permanent bonds in the
in Southeast Asia is now nlainly
comnlunities in Malaysia (2 million),
71,000), and Thailand (150,000), as well
) \vork in Southeast Asia.
K
In Singapore
,ajor role in developing ties with India,
iscrimination against the diasporas in
ely, has il1lpeded the development of
;e countries.
olonial, colonial, and postcolonial eras,
pact on only one state in Southeast Asia:
Tletnam becanle adversaries during the
d all forms of cultural and educational
late 1970s, up to 250,000 ethnic Chinese
.s in relations came to an end in 1991
normal relations, and Vietnamese now
.foreign students in China.
on1n1unity constitutes a nlajority of the
ld over a quarter of the population in
eable overseas Chinese con1ITIunities in
1d Cambodia (7o/0).L) Overseas Chinese
,SEA.:\-China Free Trade Agreement.
ton, D.C.. CIA, 200L)), Ll\"ailable at /www.cia.
influence is arguably strongest in "Thailand, \\'here a po\\'erful Sino-'Ihai
business class took root historically, but it is also strong in .\lalaysia,
Indonesia, and the Philippines. Although n1an: in the Chinese diaspora
assin1ilated into local conln1unities, others retained a separate sense of
cultural identity through Chinese language schoob and religious practices,
At till1es, overseas Chinese con1n1un itics ha\'e sut1tTed fron1 harsh
racial discrin1ination, particularly in Indonesia, \\'here the del110cTatic
governn1ent only recently ren10ved discrin1inatory against the
indigenous ethnic Chinese con1n1unity.
China has responded to the \videspread intcrL'st its rise has proyokcd
in Southeast Asia by developing Confucius Instit utes to pron10te Chinese
language and culture. By contrast, it is only in the last half decade that
India has begun to systen1atically pron10te educational and cultural
exchanges to enhance its relations in the region, particularly \\'ith
n1ainland Southeast Asia.
Military
TIlere have been three instances of China usin
u
n1 ilitar\' force auainst
a Southeast Asian state in the contemporary periOll and all' havc
Vietnan1. TIle PRC seized the southern Paracellslands fron1 South \rietnanl
in 1974 and clashed \:vith Vietnan1ese na\'al forces in .\larch lYHR at
Johnston Reef in the Spratly Islands. In addition, na conduL-ted a
punitive attack on northern Vietnan1 in February-\larch lY7'lJ in response
to Vietnall1's invasion of Can1bodia.
China only began to pron10te defense cooperation \\'ith
Asia in the 1990s under the rubric of its "ne\\r concept of security," \\'hid1
will be discussed belo\v. Bet\veen 19lJ9 and 2000, signed long-tern1
cooperat ion fran1e\vork agreenlents \vith all ten n1en1bers.
of these agreell1ents (\:vith 11lailand, Nlala\'sia, \riet nan1, Brunei Si ntraporl'
the Philippines, and Laos) include clauses '011 dcfcll,e (ooperati(;11
a range of activities such as high-level exchanges, na\'al port \"isits, "strategic
dialogues, sll1all-scale exercises, n1ilitary education and training, arI11S and
equipn1ent sales, and cooperation bet\\reen national defense
In addition, China has pursued defense cooperation Inultilateralh" b\
brokering agreell1cnts \vith ASEAN and alh'ancing initiatiYes in the
prin1arily focused on nontraditional security
India's defense relations \vith Southeast A arl' n1ainl) bilateral.
l)efense ties with Singapore are particularh' dose, \\'ith the t\\'O sides ha\'i ng
conducted increasingly cOlllplex annual j'oint na\'al SinCl) 1L)Y;.
India also conducts joint exercises \\rith 1.111d Ihailand, \\"ith a
322 ratcgil 2011 -12
focus on the Andanlan Sea and approaches to the Strait of and
hosts a nlajor nayal l\Iilan, in the Andanlan Sea. In February 2011,
\\'arships fronl Indonesia, Myannlar, Singapore, and Thailand
participated in the exercise, \vhile Brunei, the Philippines, and Vietnanl sent
nayal obseryers. In tenns of anns sales, India sells \veapons, equipnlent, and
spare parts to and \Tietnanl.
"v0 IIprol 1"(1 ti011
:'\0 Asian state possesses nuclear \veapons.
111
As nlentioned
earlier, in 199:; ASEA:-\ nlelHbers adopted the Southeast Asia Nuclear
\\Teapon-free Zone (SEAN\\,FZ) Treaty, \vhich enjoins signatories not to
deyc!op, or control nuclear \veapons and prohibits thelll fronl
stationing, transporting, using, or testing nuclear \"'eapons in Southeast
Asia. ASt-.Al\' states haye since encouraged the nuclear powers to accede to
this treaty. But \vhen China offered to do so first, ASEAN denlurred, hoping
to bring the other nuclear states on board at the saIne tilHe.
11
Although
ASLA:'\ the international nonproliferation reginle, its Inenlbers
do not ah\'ays present a united front. In May 1998, for exanlple, \vhen
India conducted a series of nuclear tests, only Malaysia, the Philippines,
and '1 hailand condenlned India, \vhereas Vietnanl Illerely called for
nuclear disarnlanlent \\Tithout singling India out.
l
-2 Senior ASEAN officials
declined to nlake a statelnen1. \;\'hen the issue was raised at the annual
ARt- Ineeting, the deleted all references to India in the final
statenlent. Silllilarly, only four ASEAN nlenlbers have supported the U.S.
led Proliferation Security Initiative (Singapore, Brunei, Canlbodia, and the
Philippines), \\,hile the relnaining six nleInbers either actively opposed it
(Indonesian and or declined to support its principles (Laos,
\lyannlar, rIhailand, and \TietnaIn).
th,lt :\orth I" PW\ Ilill1g 11lllk<1r technology to '\ly ,111 111M h,l\ l' not been \ erihcd.
111l' ,h.,llklllh.. Ilkr,ltllrl.' l'!TOlh'Oll"I:' rq
1
0rh th,lt Chin,l W<l" thl' cOlllltry to "ign the protocol
tl) till' \1,\:\\\'11 It'l',ll:. \n ottl(i,d -,ull1ll1,ny or i\SLA:\\ rcLltion" \\ith Chin,l on
\0\ l'll1hlT .2
l
), .2() ll), "utl''', "( _hillel il,l" ,d"(l ih illtt'ntion to <1(Ct.'dc to the Protocol to the
'\1.\:\\\'1/1," \t'l' "\",1 RcLltion<' \JoH'lllbcr 2Y, 20}O, ilttp:l/\\-W\\".,bC<llbl'L'.
org Lilt Ill.
(1.\".< '\,lldLl,' 1hl' .\LlllIl,l \",1 .\kt'lll1g" clnd Indicl," In"titutc of lkfclKe ,llld Strategic
\11<1]:"1" (11)"'.\1, :\()\l'lllhl'r <1nd "Indi<1
:\lll k,w [Jo!ttll<1L I )q'!Olll,ltl( ,llld LconollliL Illlplication<' Illdi,l Indi<1 Foeu", T\L1Y
I1tql: \\ \\ I1Ll: 111.
Southeast Asian Perceptions of tl
China
Southeast Asian perceptions of the P
were heavily int1uenced by Cold War alignl
Korean conflict, and PRC support for Corr
insurgencies in Southeast Asia. The
as a threat and withheld diplolnatic recogr
contrast, the nonaligned states extended d
Perceptions of China began to alter
wound do\vn and the United States COl
from nlainland Southeast Asia. Malaysia
\vith China in May 1974, as did the PhilJ
Nonetheless, China's past support for rE
resid ue of suspicion that lingered for OV(
until 1990 that Indonesia restored diplom
the door for Singapore and Brunei to folIc
rrnere is no one Southeast Asian perce
vary fronl country to country and are shapE
particular issues of concern to each state. ]
of the pro-denl0cracy nlovenlent in Tianar
the "China threat" in the region's democ
states. By the early 1990s, those states"
Sea had beconle alarnled by the manner
nlaritinle c1ainls. TIley \videly vie\ved the
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone in
China's oil exploration activities brought it
both countries to scralnble to occupy isla
issuing a declaration of concern urging un
peacefully. TIle anxieties of Southeast Asia
assertiveness were aroused again in 1995 "
which had been clainled by the Philippir
declaration calling for restraint and the p
By 1995, virtually all nlembers of AS
threat to the region. So prevalent \vas thi
policynlakers began to re-evaluate how
concerns. TIle end result \vas China's "I
first presented to a nleeting of the ARF j
signaled Beijing's intention to pursue a pc
\vith ASEAN and its nlenlbers, including (
.......
l
Jaches to the Strait of Malacca, and
the Andanlan Sea. In February 2011,
tv1yanlnar, Singapore, and Thailand
.ei, the Philippines, and Vietnanl sent
India sells \veapons, equipnlent, and
es nuclear \\Teapons.]() As nlentioned
iopted the Southeast Asia Nuclear
tty, \\Thich enjoins signatories not to
oar \veapons and prohibits thenl frol11
nuclear \veapons in Southeast
aged the nuclear po\vers to accede to
fo so first, ASEAN deI11urred, hoping
board at the sanle tinle.
11
Although
Jnproliferation reginle, its lllelTI bel'S
1. In lvlay 1998, for exanlple, \vhen
ests, only lv1alaysia, the Philippines,
hereas Vietnanl nlerely called for
T India Senior ASEAN officials
,
the issue \"as raised at the annual
:ed all references to India in the final
" menlbers have supported the U.S.
lngapore, Brunei, Call1bodia, and the
members either actively opposed it
led to support its principles (Laos,
:chnology to \ lY'-ll1111 ,lr h,l\'e not been \Tritled.
,t Chind the country to sign the protocol
r of relations with Chin<l prepared on
:esseJ. ib intention to ,lccedt' to the Protocol to the
:\oYel11her 2l), 2010, http://W\\w. .
S dnd lndi,l," of Defence ,1l1d Strategic
and "Indi,l
lndi,l Strategy, India Focus, :\lay 199H,
Southeast Asian Perceptions of the Rise of China and India
China
Southeast Asian perceptions of the PRe:, Asia's first (:on1n1unisl slate,
\vere heavily influenced by Cold War alignnlents, inter\'ention in the
Korean conflict, and PRC support for Conlnlunist \'ietnan1 and
insurgencies in Southeast Asia. 'TIle region's pro- \'ie\\'ed China
as a threat and withheld diplonlatic recognition for a quarter ora century. In
contrast, the nonaligned states extended diplonlatic recognition to e:hina.
Perceptions of China began to alter in the 1Y70s as the \Tietnan1 \\'ar
wound down and the United States con1pleted n1ilitary disengagl'n11'nt
fronl nlainland Southeast Asia. IVlalaysia establ d iplon1atic relat ions
\vith China in May 1974, as did the Philippines and lhailand a year later.
Nonetheless, China's past support for regional Con1nlunist parties lett a
residue of suspicion that lingered for O\Ter a decade and a half. It \\"as not
until 1990 that Indonesia restored diplonlatic ties \\'ith China, thus opening
the door for Singapore and Brunei to follo\\' suit.
There is no one Southeast Asian perception rather, perceptions
vary frol11 country to country and are shaped by differing Llctors, including the
particular issues of concern to each state. In 19H9, C=hina's brutal
of the pro-denlocracy nlovenlent in Tianannlen Square raised about
the ((China threat" in the region's denl0cratic and deIllocratically inclined
states. By the early 1990s, those states \vith a littoral on the South C:hina
Sea had beconle alarnled by the l11anne1' in \vhich \\'as
nlaritinle clair11s. lhey \videly viewed the PRC's adoption of the La\\' on the
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone in 1992 as a clain1 to the entire sea.
China's oil exploration activities brought it into conflict \\"ith \rietnanl and led
both countries to scranlble to occupy island features. ASEA:'\ b:'
issuing a declaration of concern urging unnan1ed part to resoh'e the n1atter
peacefully. 111e anxieties of Southeast Asia's littoral states concerning
assertiveness were aroused again in 1995 \vhen China occupied Reef,
which had been clainled by the Philippines. issued another public
declaration calling for restraint and the peaceful settlen1ent of disputes.
By 1995, virtually all nlenlbers of ASEAN perceived China as a
threat to the region. So prevalent \vas this \rie\\' that ehinest' st rategists and
policynlakers began to re-evaluate ho\'v best to Southeast Asian
concerns. The end result \vas China's ((ne\v security concept," \\'h ich
first presented to a nleeting of the ARF in 1997. 1hl' nl'\\' cOllcept
signaled Beijing's intention to pursue a policy ofcooperatiYe
with ASEAN and its 111enlbers, including a nlajor enlphasis 011 nontraditional
324 StrdtcgiL 2011-12
threats.
l
In after several years of negotiations, the PRC
and ASf"A\f agreed to a [)('c1aration on Conduct of Parties in the South
China Sea reducing concerns about territorial an1bitions.
a further den10nstration of reassurance, China becan1e the first external
pO\\Tr to accede to the protocol endorsing the TAC in 2002.
In the decade and a half after concerns shifted fron1 the China
threat to the il11plications of the econon1ic rise for the region.
l
+
Southeast Asian states initially feared that Chinese grc)\vth vvould be at
their expense and take the forn1 of trade and investn1ent diversion. These
fears intensified as China began negotiations for entry into the \A/orId
I'rade \\'hich it eyentually joined in 2001. A lnajor turning
point occurred during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, ho\vever, \vhen
Beijing's policies contrasted \vith those of the International
,\ !onetary fund (backed by the United States), which in1posed conditions
on its loans. C]1ina not only refrained froIl1 devaluing its currency but
also contributed to regional bailout packages. As a Southeast Asian
...,tates caine to vie\\" the ecol10111ic rise n10re as an opportunity than
a challenge. In C:hina caine to be perceived as an indispensable
l'conolnic partner and the 111ain engine of regional grc)\vth.
I phc11ol11enal eco11on1ic however, provided the foundation
for Chi na to n1oder11 ize al1d transforn1 its 111iIitary forces. Although
Beijing's ne\\" cooplTatiye approach to Southeast Asian security had been
\\"e1l received in thc SOI11e states began to suspect that one of
for ad\"ancing its ne\\' security concept was to underIl1ine the
alliance that had been the n1ainstay of regional security for
o\"cr four approach failed to gain traction and proved
counterproducti\"e, it Southeast Asian states, particularly
to fron1 \Vashington that the United States
\\"ould rel11ain engaged in regional aftlirs.
In littoral on the South China Sea becan1e increaSingly
concerncd about the gro\\,th of C:hinese naval especially after satellite
in1agery contlrI11cd that (:hina had constructed a n1ajor base on Hainan
i4.t1er renc\\'ed assertiveness in the South Sea
furthcr heightened regiol1al concerns about Beij intentions. In 1
not only against SUbl11issions by Nlalaysia and Vietnanl to
( ,1I h k \ j ]),1\ IT (h111c\" "l'\\ "ldll"l t \ ( (1Illl'pt' ,1l1d . III . \."11 II/h'i/il' '\l'(l/fit\': JlO/iL ,\'
( Iltllll'II,\l \. l"J I )c\\ III \ \', I ll\ l'll i "Ing,lf'll/l'. 11ht ItlltL' oj "'llUt hl',l"t ,\ .... I,l!l .... , 2()(U), K')' 1
I \"h 11 (I(lh \(lutl1L,.),t \"Lll1 \\hpl'ltl\l'" \)11 tl1L' ('hll1c\ ( h,llkl1gl<' /o/ll'l/til \)1 Str"t(\!,f( Stlldies
11(h, I clnd -:; I \ugu"t ()It(ll'l' 2()()-1.
(,llhk \. 111-1\,'r H.l'll'11t lh'\,']ol'111L'I1h ill the (:hll1,1 Sl',l: (;roulld.... j()J- C:,lLltiOLh
( )rllll1l "111? " lZlll,lr,\t lL\1l1 \l])( l,l! (It 111 krl1,lt iOI1,ll St Ll,lil .... \), \:,ll1y,mg klh llO!OgIl,d
l 111\l'I"It\ IZ\I\ \\()lkll1g 1\'I"r. 11(1. 22(), [)l'll'l11lwr 1 L 2(J!U.
the LTN C0I11n1ission on the Limits of t
tabled a 111ap of the South China Sea ill
map in1plied that China \vas clain1ing
incidents follo\ved in Nlarch and May
acted aggressively to\vard Philippine an
respectively, in contested \vaters.
In sun1, Southeast Asian states ha
as the n1ain threat to regional securit)
support for COIl11nunist insur
1990s as the ll1ain driver of regional
to a 111iddle position of vie\ving Chin,
111ilitary rise with apprehension. China
China Sea has detracted froln the p(
econon1ic rise and caused
perceptions about the benign nature oj
actions are seen not only as directly thr
but as likely undern1ining r
United States. they challenge
centrality in regional security affairs.
India
As described India's precol
were largely based on trade and com
Buddhist religious and gen
India largely squandered this legacy \v
relations \vith the region to slow do\vn
World vVar II .[(1 Prior to the Inl
in South Asia with a backwa
Southeast Asian affairs. There \vere
gro\vth of Indian naval particl
in Maldives in 1988.
1