ASEAN Centrality amid United State and China Rivalry for Expand Sphere of Influence to Southeast Asia
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The research objective was to study and analyze the impact of the competition between the United States and China on ASEAN Centrality. This is a qualitative research format. Data were collected by documentary analysis and in-depth interviews.
The results revealed that: ASEAN Centrality strategy has been affected by the expansion of influence in Southeast Asia by the United States and China, as well as the conflict in the South China Sea, which has created limitations and challenges to ASEAN unity, because it shows the different opinions between members include solving such problems cannot be initiated and implemented using ASEAN as the center. The important case study in 2012, when ASEAN was unable to issue a joint statement of ASEAN foreign ministers at the 45 th meeting in Cambodia. It also shows the limitations of the institutions that ASEAN initiated, played a leading role, and acted as a facilitator and the points of connection with external countries, especially with the great powers. The competition between the United States and China is shaped by each side's key policies, namely the United States' Indo-Pacific policy and China's Belt and Road Policy has affected the ASEAN centrality because of the Quad and the Belt and Road strategy becoming the center, playing a leading role, facilitating and is a hub on behalf of ASEAN institutions. This is due to the norms that ASEAN has accepted together since the Cold War, called the "ASEAN Way," such as adhering to the principles of consensus, consultation, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. As a result, this results in inefficiency in dealing with various issues. Moreover, it also affects the unity of ASEAN members that decrease. By considering the case study in the South China Sea disputes that China's Belt and Road policy has caused a lack of unity among ASEAN member countries; while the Indo-Pacific strategy It created an institution called the Quad, resulting in some ASEAN member states joining the institution under the name Quad Plus to protect their interests.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
เพื่อให้เป็นไปตามกฎหมายลิขสิทธิ์ ผู้นิพนธ์ทุกท่านต้องลงลายมือชื่อในแบบฟอร์มใบมอบลิขสิทธิ์บทความ ให้แก่วารสารฯ พร้อมกับบทความต้นฉบับที่ได้แก้ไขครั้งสุดท้าย นอกจากนี้ ผู้นิพนธ์ทุกท่านต้องยืนยันว่าบทความ ต้นฉบับที่ส่งมาตีพิมพ์นั้น ได้ส่งมาตีพิมพ์เฉพาะในวารสาร วิชาการธรรม ทรรศน์ เพียงแห่งเดียวเท่านั้น หากมีการใช้ ภาพหรือตารางของผู้นิพนธ์อื่นที่ปรากฏในสิ่งตีพิมพ์อื่นมาแล้ว ผู้นิพนธ์ต้องขออนุญาตเจ้าของลิขสิทธิ์ก่อน พร้อมทั้ง แสดงหนังสือที่ได้รับการยินยอมต่อบรรณาธิการ ก่อนที่บทความจะได้รับการตีพิมพ์References
Ba, A. D. (2009). (Re) Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Region, Regionalism, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2022). The ASEAN way and the changing security environment: navigating challenges to informality and centrality. International Politics, 1-21.
Cheng-Chwee, K. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore's response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 30(2), 159-185.
De Castro, R. C. (2018). 21st Century US Policy on an Emergent China: From Strategic Constrainment to Strategic Competition in the Indo-Pacific Region. International Journal of China Studies, 9(3), 259-283.
Haacke, J. (2013). ASEAN's diplomatic and security culture: origins, development and prospects. London: Routledge.
He, K. (2007). Institutionalizing security: Institutional realism and multilateral institutions in Southeast Asia. (Doctoral dissertation). United States: Arizona State University.
Pitsuwan, S. (2009). Building an ASEAN Economic Community in the heart of East Asia. keynote speech delivered at the East Asia Beyond the Global Economic Crisis international symposium. Tokyo, December. Retrieved from https://www.ide.go.jp/library/Japanese/Event/Sympo/pdf/2009/surin_en.pdf
Rudd, K. (2020). The coming post-COVID anarchy. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-05-06/coming-post-covid-anarchy
Saha, P. (2018). The Quad in the Indo-Pacific: Why ASEAN Remains Cautious. ORF Issue Brief, 229, 1-12.
Tan, S. S., & Kemburi, K. (2014). Introduction to the Special Issue-China-US Relations and Regional Order in the Era of Rebalancing: Asia-Pacific Perspectives. Issues and Studies, 50(3), 1-17.
Tay, S., & Tan, C. (2015). ASEAN centrality in the regional architecture. Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.siiaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2015-05-Policy-Brief-ASEAN-Centrality-in-the-Regional-Architecture.pdf
Wen, Z., & Runlinb, Z. (2023). Expressions and Challenges of ASEAN's "Centrality" in the Context of China-US Strategic Competition. The Frontiers of Society Science and Technology, 5(11), 94-99.
Yao, Y. (2021). The new cold war: America’s new approach to Sino-American relations. China International Strategy Review, 3(1), 20-33.
Yoshimatsu, H. (2023). ASEAN and great power rivalry in regionalism: From East Asia to the Indo-Pacific. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 42(1), 25-44.
Zha, W. (2023). Southeast Asia amid Sino-US Competition: Power Shift and Regional Order Transition. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 16(2), 241-261.