Why the US could lose more ground in Southeast Asia
At a recent US-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing, experts argued that in strengthening its position in Southeast Asia, Washington should focus on
'swing sectors' such as artificial intelligence, critical minerals and telecommunications rather than geopolitical 'swing states'. They also suggested that the US should leverage its comparative advantages in the service sector and hi-tech industries, such as advanced chip manufacturing and aerospace, to counter China's regional influence.
Advertisement
But this analysis overlooks the fundamental reasons why the US has struggled to compete with China in Southeast Asia despite strategic initiatives like the Obama administration's pivot to Asia and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy sustained across administrations.
The mainstay of these strategies has been to revitalise bilateral security alliances, engage with regional countries and their multilateral institutions to address global challenges like climate change and the pandemic, or promote liberal principles like freedom of navigation, human rights and democracy.
As a result, US engagement in the region has been more demonstrable to long-term security allies like the Philippines or economically developed states such as Singapore, but limited with regard to less developed non-allies like Cambodia.
Even as the United States remains the largest investor in Southeast Asia, the bulk of this investment has flowed to Singapore. And while American tech giants such as Microsoft, Google and Oracle are establishing data centres and cloud services in Malaysia and Thailand, US investment in core infrastructure such as transport and telecommunications has been limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
an hour ago
- RTHK
'Progress made' in Japan-US tariff talks
'Progress made' in Japan-US tariff talks Ryosei Akazawa says some progress has been made in tariff talks ahead of the G7 summit later this month. File photo: Reuters Japan has made some progress in a fifth round of trade talks with US officials aimed at ending tariffs that are hurting Japan's economy, according to Tokyo's chief tariff negotiator. "Tariffs have already been imposed on autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum, and some of them have doubled to 50 percent along with 10 percent general tariff. These are causing daily losses to Japan's economy," Ryosei Akazawa, said in Washington on Friday after talks with officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Akazawa declined to say what progress they had made. The latest round of talks may be the last in-person meeting between senior Japanese and US officials before the Group of Seven (G7) leaders summit that starts on June 15, where US President Donald Trump is expected to meet Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. Japan also faces a 24 percent tariff rate starting in July unless it can negotiate a deal with Washington. "We want an agreement as soon as possible. The G7 summit is on our radar, and if our leaders meet, we want to show what progress has been made," Akazawa said. "Still we must balance urgency with a need to guard our national interests," he added. Last month Japan's trade negotiator said US defence equipment purchases, shipbuilding technology collaboration, a revision of automobile import standards and an increase in agricultural imports could be bargaining chips in tariff talks. In a bid to reach an agreement with the US, Japan is also proposing a mechanism to reduce the auto tariff rate based on how much countries contribute to the US auto industry, the Asahi newspaper reported on Friday. Akazawa said Japan's position has not changed and that the tariffs are not acceptable. (Reuters)
South China Morning Post
15 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Who will win the AI contest of the century?
The arrival of artificial intelligence, robotics and new technology has been heralded as a game changer. But how will it unfold, and who will be able to take advantage of AI to win the contest of the century: the United States, China or some other country? Advertisement Writing in Foreign Affairs in 2023, James Manyika, senior vice-president of technology and society at Google, and Nobel laureate economist Michael Spence argued that 'by the beginning of the next decade, the shift to AI could become a leading driver of global prosperity'. These gains would come from not just the rapid advances in AI in creating new content and applications in daily life, but also its rapid spread through the democratisation of innovation. But for it to happen, Manyika and Spence say, we need a new policy framework as well as a new mindset towards AI, and that 'AI technologies must be embraced as tools that can enhance, rather than undermine, human potential and ingenuity'. I think the AI revolution has arrived faster than expected. So far, it looks like the US and China are in a two-horse race, with the others still struggling to catch up for various reasons. My thesis is that no country can afford not to encourage AI adoption to enhance national productivity and avoid the digital knowledge divide. Those who do not will become marginalised. The contest of the century is thus between all countries. In this cutthroat race, with Big Tech seeking to dominate the 'pay-by-subscription' game, we may end up being mentally and financially colonised in different tech domains. Advertisement This is where the Global South can innovate its way through open-access systems that meet individual or local needs, without giving away valuable data by choosing to follow one algorithm platform or becoming locked into 'pay for upgrade' contracts.
Asia Times
20 hours ago
- Asia Times
Hopes for a Xi-Trump summit are naively misplaced
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping's surprise phone call—marking the first direct communication between the leaders in months—may signal a temporary thaw in an otherwise frosty and structurally adversarial relationship. While America's restoration of Chinese student visas and China's resumption of blocked critical mineral trade suggest detente, this contact, like others in the history of US-China summits, could quickly prove to be more performative than substantive. The danger lies not in dialogue but in the illusion that the leader-to-leader call, which Beijing insisted Trump requested, will meaningfully alter the deep geopolitical, ideological and economic divergences that define Sino-American relations today. News reports said Xi told Trump to roll back tariffs and other trade measures that are roiling the global economy while warning him about intensifying the dispute over Taiwan. Trump claimed on social media that the call delivered a 'positive conclusion', including on China's restrictions on critical mineral exports, and that lower-level discussions on trade would follow. He said, 'We're in very good shape with China and the trade deal.' Both leaders invited each other to visit their countries. However, reports noted that there was nothing in either side's official statements to indicate the critical mineral issue had been resolved. And China has reasonable cause to remain on guard despite Trump's post-call positivity. Let us count the many impediments to real and lasting reconciliation: The most acute danger stems from Trump's lack of strategic coherence. Unlike the Kissinger-Nixon doctrine of detente, which was structured, calculated and guided by a realpolitik vision of global balance, Trump's approach is reactive and transactional and thus prone to Chinese manipulation. Concessions, including the reopening of student exchanges on the US side and lifting critcal mineral restrictions on China's—appear to be issued in exchange for vague 'reciprocity' rather than any long-term strategic realignment. For Beijing, such inconsistency is easily exploitable. Xi understands that Trump is prone to tactical surprises and policy reversals, allowing China to notch one-by-one concessions while offering minimal structural reforms or broad policy changes in return. This understanding of Trump's tactics and views may also embolden China to keep testing US resolve and commitment in the Taiwan Strait, East Sea and South China Seas, knowing that by doing so it strengthens its negotiating leverage in wresting future US concessions. Much has been made of US-endorsed 'de-risking' from China without actually 'decoupling.' The resumption of trade in critical minerals—crucial to US defense and clean energy sectors—signals a potential pause in America's techno-economic containment of China, which if lasting, would contradict the bipartisan consensus in Washington that China poses a 'systemic challenge.' This could also send mixed messages to allies such as Japan, South Korea and key ASEAN economies, many of which are now being pressured to restrict technology transfers to China, particularly in regard to AI and quantum computing. If Trump reverses this posture, potentially at a Trump-Xi in-person summit, it would necessarily undercut the anti-China coalition the US has been trying to build since 2017 and signal a climbdown of epic proportions. An in-person summit with Xi would give both leaders global optics, something they arguably both need as their hardline stances cause political tremors at home and restlessness abroad. Yet symbolism without substance carries its own risks. The 2019 Mar-a-Lago summit and the 2018 G20 truce in Argentina were celebrated photo ops that ultimately yielded few strategic gains. Indeed, they were followed by tariff escalations, cyber accusations and deepened distrust. Xi, ever conscious of China's 'national rejuvenation' drive, may use a summit with Trump to signal that China is not isolated—even amid Western efforts to contain it – and that he brought the US to heel through his tough negotiating posture. Should he succeed in presenting Trump as a president willing to do business without political preconditions, it will bolster China's power on the world stage. This symbolism would serve Xi well amid research that shows China is straining under the weight of assisting various countries when its own economy remains fragile. There will be a temptation to portray a Trump-Xi summit as a return to the two sides' previous 'managed rivalry' model. Yet this notion is predicated on mutual trust, which no longer exists. A brief thaw may offer breathing space for both, but there is no sign yet of lasting strategic stability. During the previous Cold War, the US and Soviet Union were able to negotiate arms control and crisis management protocols. No such guardrails exist between the US and China today. The resumption of critical mineral trade and educational exchanges, while welcome, won't be enough to reverse mutual mistrust, especially when military encounters in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea could easily still spiral out of control. Increasingly politicized charges against Chinese nationals in the US are fueling that mistrust. Those include new accusations that China is involved in 'agro-terrorism' that aims to wipe out US barley, wheat and corn yields by up to 50%. A PhD researcher of Chinese origin at the University of Michigan has been arrested in this connection. A potential Trump-Xi summit – despite stage-managed positive vibes and smiles for the cameras, could be yet another empty ritual—a theatrical handshake over unresolved and deep contradictions. To be sure, both leaders have reasons to engage. Trump seeks headlines as his popularity slips ahead of 2026 midterm elections; Xi seeks legitimacy for his tough negotiating posture that risks millions of Chinese factory jobs. But neither is offering a strategic roadmap that can reassure domestic or global audiences. Without a shared understanding of what strategic competition entails, and without mechanisms for escalation control, the optics of detente will only mask a rivalry that still threatens to spiral deeper and deeper into conflict.
