The Global South takes a very different qualitative approach to engineering relationships from its foreign policy words and deeds. Instead of a condescending and patronising monologue, dialogue is practised, and the spirit of reciprocity is practised. The Global South is comprised of a rather diverse membership and, in general, tends to be on the relative rise in terms of the power and influence that is derived from their economic and political development. There are greater and lesser powers in the Global South, but the arena is more directed at a win-win scenario rather than a zero-sum game. The Global South’s strong desire to be subjects in international relations, not mere objects of the Global North, is evident in their independent foreign policy stances to the coercive foreign policy rhetoric and actions of the Global North.
A major underlying factor pushing conflict is the transformation of the global geopolitical order as the unipolar Global North experiences a relative decline, and the multipolar Global South is on the relative rise. This has created the motivation and the context for the US-led Global North to seek to contest their hegemonic decline and to try and obstruct the rise of the Global South. There is also the added dimension of material benefits that result from the US unipolar system making up the rules of international relations, which others must follow and are immune to – the so-called Rules-Based.
At this stage, the geostrategic imperative of the Global North is the retention of US global hegemony. Increasingly, governments and people in the Global South wish to avoid becoming dependent objects in the current geopolitical clash. The Global North tends to focus on a hierarchical, transactional monologue in its messianic and zealous pursuit of an ideological ideal (so-called Liberal Democracy, which focuses on the ideology of liberalism at the expense of democracy). This is in stark contrast to the pragmatic and national interest approach of the Global South that employs relational dialogue and reciprocal outcomes. There is an increasing culture and practice of cooperation among the Global South as a means of escaping the domination of the Global North. The US-led Global North tends to embrace a culture of conflict (envisaged conceptually in Brzezinski’s 1997 treatise on the geostrategic imperatives of imperial maintenance) to enforce its will and dictates upon others.
More and more in the region are beginning to favour aligning with China over the US in any coming conflict between the two powers.
Southeast Asia is geographically situated in a strategically important and sensitive part of the globe that is related to the Global North, which is heavily dependent upon maritime power to facilitate its global trade and geopolitical influence. However, it is also important to the Global South for similar motivations and reasons, such as China’s Belt and Road initiative, which is seen as a geoeconomic challenge to US hegemony. The above-mentioned moment in international relations has the effect of creating a binary choice for lesser powers in the world. A preference for a continued unipolar order or to evolve the multipolar order, which is influenced by a myriad of objective and subjective factors within the realms of soft and hard power, coercion and attraction, and levels of dependence versus independence. This decision process is partly achieved through communications between different countries and peoples, with the aid of such communication technologies as public diplomacy. This concept can be best summarised as “public diplomacy is the practice of engaging with foreign audiences to strengthen ties, build trust, and promote cooperation.” However, at times, a more aggressive and subversive form of communication can be practised – guerrilla diplomacy – aimed at forcing policy change and/or regime change.
Public diplomacy is seen as a tool of statecraft that can potentially help regulate and manage foreign relations between states to amplify strengths and opportunities and offset/mitigate weaknesses and threats. This is important in a contested geopolitical region such as Southeast Asia, where members of the Global North and Global South are side by side. The region is extremely diverse in terms of economic development, political system, religion, ethnicity, hard and soft power capabilities and capacities. This requires a careful conceptual approach, such as geo-socialisation. The concept is the interaction and the effect of geography and politics/economics with culture and identity. Therefore, the basis of rational, pragmatic policy and interests are supported/assisted by emotional human components. This is seen in the different public diplomacy programmes run in and by Southeast Asia. This includes preventative diplomacy in the region, which is intended as a means of overcoming challenges to peace and security.
The US is seen as a declining hegemon whose hard and soft power capability and capacity are waning. Certainly, the US, under President Biden, has sought to increase its public diplomacy budget in Southeast Asia as a means of bolstering local confidence in the US. However, US hubris and exceptionalism remain. There have been numerous foreign and security policy blunders that have helped to weaken their power and influence in the region, such as the myopic focus on the Middle East in the Forever Wars, the humiliating retreat from Afghanistan, and enabling genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. This makes the Rules-Based Order’s rhetoric and slogans on human rights, democracy and the rule of law hollow. The only recent “success” of the US in the region is in the post-Duterte Philippines, enabling Marcos to take power and become a client state of the US, which potentially means its “Ukrainianisation” as an object against China. Given the economic decline, the US is unable to objectively compete with China.
Chinese public diplomacy in Southeast Asia has been relatively successful in generating a mostly positive image of the country and its image and intentions in the region. The intended relations are oriented more towards economics with a cultural component, which fits the geo-socialisation concept. This finding is being born out in academic research as well. China’s appeal is both rational (economic) and emotional (cultural), which is supported by consistent words and rhetoric emphasising a win-win scenario through a reciprocal and relational partnership.
The politics and opinion of Southeast Asia are transforming along with the global geopolitical system. More and more in the region are beginning to favour aligning with China over the US in any coming conflict between the two powers. Even in Singapore, part of the Global North, yet more pragmatic than ideological, are openly stating that Southeast Asian states will need to choose between the US and China. The two qualitatively different foreign policy approaches and the resulting relations are likely to give the Global South an edge. They are motivated by self-interest and self-preservation to avoid being an object of the Global North to serve the interests of the Global North. China is becoming a much more attractive alternative in terms of serving the region’s self-interest and security as a subject of international relations. China’s and US public diplomacy efforts in Southeast Asia reflect this as a reality.
