ASEAN’s Non-Aligned Legacy at Risk: How US-China Rivalry Undermines Regional Autonomy Through Economic Coercion
Original framing: “In a US-China world, Asean must do more than avoid choosing sides” — South China Morning Post
The current US-China rivalry mirrors the **Cold War’s economic coercion tactics**, where the US imposed trade embargoes on Cuba and the USSR while offering ‘development aid’ tied to political concessions—a playbook now replicated in Southeast Asia (e.g., US restrictions on Chinese telecom firms like Huawei). ASEAN’s **1967 Bangkok Declaration** explicitly rejected alignment, yet its current ‘neutrality’ is structurally identical to the **Bandung Conference’s** non-aligned movement, which also failed to prevent economic exploitation by both blocs. The historical amnesia in this framing erases how ASEAN’s founding leaders (e.g., Sukarno, Tunku Abdul Rahman) warned against precisely this scenario: economic interdependence without political autonomy leading to strategic subjugation.
ASEAN’s current ‘neutrality’ is not a **strategic choice** but a **structural trap**, where economic dependencies on US and Chinese supply chains, debt diplomacy, and digital infrastructure have eroded the region’s agency into a **geopolitical chessboard**.
The framing’s omission of **Indigenous relational sovereignty models**, **Cold War historical parallels**, and **marginalized voices** (e.g., migrant workers, climate refugees) reveals a **power knowledge gap**: elite discourse treats ASEAN as a **rational actor** when it is, in fact, a **vulnerable network** caught between two blocs that see it as a **resource to be exploited**. The **trickster reading**—where ASEAN’s leaders play Coyote to great-power wolves—exposes the **absurdity of ‘non-alignment’ in a world where economic survival requires submission to one side or the other**. Solutions like the **Relational Sovereignty Framework** or **ASEAN Supply Chain Sovereignty Act** are not utopian; they build on **existing precedents** (e.g., *Te Tiriti o Waitangi*, AFTA) and **scientific warnings** (e.g., World Bank supply chain collapse models) to reclaim agency. The path forward demands **breaking the ‘ASEAN Way’ consensus culture**, centering **marginalized voices**, and treating **culture as a strategic asset**—not just a diplomatic tool, but a **living system** that can resist great-power coercion.