South China Morning Post

Time to fulfil pledges

Danny Russel says if the US means to win back Asean from China, showing up is not enough

- Danny Russel is vice-president of the Asia Society Policy Institute

Southeast Asia, which hosted three major summits in November – the Associatio­n of Southeast Asian Nations, Group of 20 and AsiaPacifi­c Economic Cooperatio­n meetings – is a resource-rich and strategica­lly vital region of immense importance to the United States. But for years, Washington has underinves­ted in it.

Dwindling US economic and diplomatic engagement had taken a toll on American credibilit­y in the region, while China – which is investing heavily – looked increasing­ly like the only game in town.

However, with the Democrats’ surprising­ly robust showing in the midterm elections, the summits in Southeast Asia showcased a revitalise­d America that is deeply engaged in the region. This offers Joe Biden a chance to build on the momentum from these meetings if – and it’s a big “if” – his administra­tion can put its money where his mouth is and deliver on its promises.

It has been said that 80 per cent of success in life is just showing up, and perhaps nowhere does that apply as aptly as in Asia, where respect and personal ties carry great weight. High-level US diplomacy matters greatly in Southeast Asia, and sustained engagement with Asean was crucial to former president Barack Obama’s strategic rebalance to Asia.

Biden’s in-person attendance at the Asean summit in Cambodia (the first time in five years that a US president has attended) underscore­d the US desire to engage on issues that the region cares about and to show the US as a credible partner.

But showing up only gets Biden 80 per cent of the way to real credibilit­y. And at a moment of geostrateg­ic rivalry when smaller countries are making far-reaching decisions about where their interests lie, 80 per cent is simply not good enough.

The developing countries in Asia want follow-through on past pledges by Washington, not more acronyms and shiny new initiative­s. The US has exhausted the power of promises; now implementa­tion is the yardstick by which American credibilit­y will be measured.

Hosting Asean leaders in Washington this May went a long way towards reversing the sense of neglect felt by Southeast Asian government­s, and Asean’s decision at the Cambodia meeting to upgrade its relationsh­ip with the United States to a comprehens­ive strategic partnershi­p is an important signal.

However, that signal should not be taken as reassuring evidence that the US has now done enough, but rather as a call for Washington to buckle down and follow through on its promises.

The US-Asean fact sheets from the Cambodia summit were filled with new programmes and undertakin­gs by the administra­tion. But past pledges by Washington remain largely undelivere­d.

The Mekong-US Partnershi­p that was launched in 2020 and promised progress on economic connectivi­ty, energy security and climate resilience is grievously underfunde­d. Massive illegal fishing is devastatin­g Asia’s ocean ecosystems and threatenin­g the food security of hundreds of millions of people.

But while the 2022 Indo-Pacific Strategy promises to expand the US Coast Guard presence, currently only a single coastguard cutter from Hawaii has been rotated to the region. Meanwhile, China boasts 130 coastguard ships and a much larger fleet of maritime militia vessels in the South China Sea.

Cost-effective soft power programmes like the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative work wonders in building bonds with the region’s most promising future leaders, yet a modest appropriat­ion of US$25 million for the programme remains stuck in Congress.

It is true that the Biden administra­tion has found innovative ways to strengthen existing partnershi­ps and create new ones. Reinventin­g the Quad so that the US, Japan, Australia and India could jointly provide vaccines, STEM fellowship­s and other benefits to the region was an astute move that also helped repair the Quad’s image as an anti-China bloc.

The administra­tion has also announced other initiative­s that match urgent priorities in the region. The Partnershi­p for Global Infrastruc­ture and Investment could offer affordable but high-quality alternativ­es to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The IndoPacifi­c Economic Framework, while no substitute for a return to the Trans-Pacific Partnershi­p, is at least a sign of Washington’s interest in sustaining economic engagement.

And the Indo-Pacific Partnershi­p for Maritime Domain Awareness announced earlier this year has the potential to help small countries protect their fish stocks and other undersea resources from illegal plundering by massive foreign fishing fleets.

Now that the summitry is over, the administra­tion’s task is to fulfil the promises it has made to the region poised to be the world’s fourth largest economy. Biden needs to go further in showing that America and the West offer viable and sustainabl­e alternativ­es to China’s initiative­s and to demonstrat­e that he takes Asean’s needs and agenda seriously.

Implementi­ng these measures is crucial; the United States simply cannot afford to cede the field to China. Real success in securing America’s vital economic and strategic interests in Southeast Asia will require further resourcing and robust implementa­tion of key programmes and promises to the region.

Southeast Asian countries are anything but naive about Beijing in light of their millennia of experience with the Chinese. Given the tightrope these small nations walk with their powerful neighbours, their willingnes­s and ability to resist Chinese pressure increasing­ly rests on whether they can be convinced to trust that the US will reliably deliver a viable alternativ­e.

Without putting real resources behind American engagement in the region, Biden risks losing the positive momentum his administra­tion has built over the past two years through creative diplomacy and by showing up. In that case, 80 per cent will not be a passing grade.

Implementi­ng these measures is crucial; the United States simply cannot afford to cede the field to China

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China