America’s New Promise to Southeast Asia

After President Obama entered office, the U.S.’s policy towards Southeast Asia immediately showed signs of change. At the beginning of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the East Asia region for the first time, scheduling Indonesia into her itinerary and taking the opportunity to clearly express interest in Southeast Asia. In the last two days, Hillary, fulfilling the promise she made earlier, attended the ASEAN Regional Forum in Thailand as scheduled, thus marking a stark contrast between her and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who had never attended the ASEAN Regional Forum.

It can be said that Hillary’s high-profile appearance in Thailand itself showed the change in the Obama administration’s policy towards ASEAN. Her comments made in recent days with regards to this have even expressed Washington’s political orientation more clearly. When Hillary arrived in Bangkok the day before yesterday, she declared that “the United States is back” and stressed that the U.S. would have an all-around interaction and develop friendly mutual ties with Southeast Asian nations. These comments come across fresh and new and once again reflect the Obama administration’s diplomatic strategy of trying its best to improve the U.S.’s international image on a global scale.

During the Bush administration, the U.S. was busy fighting terrorism and had no time to take care of its ties with Southeast Asia. Also, the focus of foreign policy-makers in Washington was not on this region. Thus, this caused ASEAN to lack weight in the U.S.’s global vision and also caused the U.S.’s diplomatic strategy in this region to be unclear. In the past few years, the reason for the U.S.’s weakened influence in the Southeast Asian region has been directly related to the Bush administration’s lack of attention in its diplomacy in this region.

In comparison, major Asia Pacific nations such as China, Japan, India and Australia have always valued their relationships with Southeast Asia. In the area of trade and commercial relations, for example, though the U.S. is in the lead in terms of its investment in Southeast Asia, it is behind China in its bilateral trade volume with ASEAN. China had proactively established a free trade zone with ASEAN from as early as 2004 and countries like Japan followed suit. Washington, however, did not seem to have a concrete concept in this area.

　

In terms of political relations, China entered the “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia” as a non-member of ASEAN in 2003, ahead of all the other major nations in the Asia Pacific region. China did that to prove that it had the sincerity and determination to develop a peaceful relationship and partnership with Southeast Asian nations. After this, Japan and the other nations signed the treaty one after another and, as a result, such an important code of conduct within ASEAN has become voluntarily accepted and followed by more and more non-member nations.

The U.S. was at first conflicted about such a treaty. On the one hand, Washington’s refusal to sign the treaty meant that it could only watch other major nations grow closer to ASEAN. On the other hand, as a superpower, the U.S. was not psychologically willing to submit to a code code of conduct made by other nations or blocs. Bush’s refusal to sign the treaty was based on the second consideration. He did not want his diplomatic policies and conducts to be constrained by any external factors.

The Obama administration apparently carried out a full evaluation of this issue and have a renewed understanding of the issues of interests behind this. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia” in Phuket yesterday, it was the result of the U.S.’s re-evaluation and renewed understanding. This is the landmark incident that has marked a major change in the U.S.’s policy towards Southeast Asia in the few months since the Obama administration has come into power.

The “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia” was signed by leaders of member nations in Bali, Indonesia in 1976 and allowed non-member nations to enter the treaty in 1987. The second rule in the treaty states that contracted states must respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of other contracted states and to not use force to resolve conflicts among one another.

Like other nations, the U.S.’s willingness to become a contracted state on its own accord is not only a symbolic political stance, but even more so a binding political promise. As the foremost military superpower with an important strategic and practical interest in this region, the U.S.’s move signifies its willingness to interact with ASEAN on equal grounds. This is apparently another one of the Obama administration’s efforts to rectify the U.S.’s international image, which helps to eliminate various doubts people have about the country’s strategic intent. It would only serve to benefit the U.S.’s own interests, which includes broader and deeper involvement in Southeast Asia’s affairs.

The U.S. and the Asia Pacific region have a traditionally close relationship. As times change, however, there will have to be continual renewals in the ways and contents of the interaction between the two sides. We welcome the Obama administration to view and handle the relation the U.S. has with this region with a brand new mindset and abide by its promise to handle the differences between ASEAN and the individual member nations, while abiding by the common code of conduct.

At the same time, we also hope that all major nations, in respecting Southeast Asia’s appeal for its interest, will work together to make the Southeast Asian region a world stage where all nations can develop mutual cooperation and create win-win situations with one another.