Regional partnership and prosperity need engagement, not animosity

Editor's note: Kevin Nauen, a special commentator for CGTN, is the dean of Social Sciences and International Relations at Pannasastra University of Cambodia. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Chinese President Xi Jinping embarked on his first overseas visits this year to Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia from April 14 to 18. The visits have been regarded as meaningful for the "development of China's relations with the three countries and ASEAN as a whole."

Since its formation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has had a beneficial impact in the Asia-Pacific region. The ASEAN Way guiding Southeast Asia's diplomatic architecture, embodies an approach focused on consensus, broad participation and ongoing dialogue. This orientation acts as a kind of "strategic lubricant," helping prevent conflicts between member states and attenuating major power competition.

The commitment to neutrality and dialogue allows potential rivals to engage and reduce tensions by focusing on practical outcomes advancing shared prosperity. In many respects, the ASEAN Way accords with the aims and aspirations of "building a human community with a shared future."

Lately, however, this stabilizing influence is facing growing challenges due to attempts by certain powers to resist change and contain competition through reliance on force and destabilization. Some external actors seem inclined to push Southeast Asia away from cooperative pathways towards becoming a geopolitical "battlefield."

This puts pressure on ASEAN members to choose sides, by stoking the tensions around sensitive regional issues like the South China Sea. Such narratives often present a stark choice between different visions for regional order, pressuring states into positions that are incongruent with ASEAN's traditional preference for neutrality and inclusivity.

This drive for alignment creates real problems for regional stability, clashing directly with ASEAN's long-held principles and challenging its consensus-based collectivity. When outside actors push individual members towards alignment, it risks sowing division within the bloc, making it harder for ASEAN to act cohesively and maintain its role as a trusted facilitator.

Such pressure also contradicts the foundational principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations enshrined in ASEAN's charter and upheld in its history. Being pushed to pick geopolitical sides is a form of interference in a country's right to set its own foreign policy course. Such pressures disrupt regional harmony by undermining mutual respect and equality among nations.

Furthermore, the exploitation of issues by external actors for strategic gains inevitably heightens tensions and undermines the regional commitment to peaceful settlement of disagreements. This commitment is formally recognized in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), a pact signed by all key regional actors as well as major powers.

The TAC champions mutual respect, non-interference, resolving differences peacefully and avoiding the threat or use of force. Strategies from outside that center on military displays and building security alliances risk militarizing these sensitive issues. Contrary to the spirit of the TAC, this approach sidelines the bilateral and multilateral diplomatic channels that ASEAN states prioritize.

Ultimately, this push towards alignment and potential militarization stands in contrast to the shared values and practices that have allowed Southeast Asia decades of relative calm and fostered mutually beneficial, win-win relationships. ASEAN itself emerged partly to steer clear of cold-war bloc politics. Its emphasis on dialogue and consensus nurtured an environment where diverse nations could cooperate for shared advantage, underpinning the region's impressive economic growth.

Forcing a zero-sum choice risks unraveling this cooperative spirit by leading countries down a path of heightened suspicion, arms buildups and diverting precious resources from development to defense.

In contrast to bloc confrontation, striving towards a community with a shared future is an approach that increasingly finds a receptive audience among many Southeast Asian nations. This approach emphasizes shared economic growth, building infrastructure links, mutual respect and a stated policy of non-interference. It resonates with core ASEAN values by prioritizing development and national sovereignty.

This is demonstrated in the cooperative relationship between China and ASEAN states such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia. China has been Vietnam's top trading partner since 2004 and is vital to its manufacturing sector. This economic closeness has developed alongside Vietnam's impressive economic expansion and poverty reduction.

Trade and investment involving China have helped fuel job creation and raise incomes. Industrial parks and infrastructure projects aimed at better connectivity are concrete examples. Continued access to economic networks will underpin further improvements in living standards. The focus on practical cooperation is coupled with the commitment to manage disputes via dialogue and safeguard the economic benefits that interdependence brings.

China is also Malaysia's largest trading partner and has received considerable Chinese investment, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, such as the East Coast Rail Link. The Malaysia-China Kuantan Industrial Park is another joint effort providing for mutual gains. This engagement has occurred as Malaysia's economy has grown steadily, raising incomes and reducing poverty. China's development-focused approach fits well with Malaysia's own goals and preference for pragmatic diplomacy over rigid alignments.

Cambodia has embraced the opportunities offered by close ties with China perhaps more fully than any other ASEAN member. This partnership has resulted in enormous Chinese investment, transforming Cambodia's infrastructure and significantly contributing to economic growth over the last two decades. Visible examples include the Sihanoukville Special Economic Zone and advances in infrastructure such as highways, bridges, airports and hydropower projects.

For Cambodia, China provides substantial capital that supports growth and development, without the political conditions that some other states attach. This demonstrates the potential for interdependence with proven respect for national sovereignty.

External efforts to polarize the region, demanding alignment and risking greater militarization, threaten the prospects for future achievements. Such moves challenge ASEAN's cohesion and oppose the valued principles of non-interference and peaceful dispute resolution.

Contrary to such efforts, an emphasis on shared development, infrastructure and stated non-interference holds noticeable appeal. The experiences of Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia suggest this approach finds favor because it addresses tangible development needs and is, in practice as well as in principle, more attuned to traditional ASEAN preferences for autonomy and peaceful cooperation. Given the choice between peaceful progress and instability resulting from exacerbating tensions, ASEAN states will likely choose the former.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)