Chotvijit Pornrutai (Joy)

EN225: General English Programme

Critical Analysis
The Southeast Asia region is a stage of rivalry between China and the United States to
stand in the hegemonic position. Each country has been influenced by these two hegemonies
in different ways. Jonathan Stormseth; an experienced policymaker and a development
practitioner, and Hunter Marston; Ph.D. candidate and a senior research assistant, from
Brookings Institution presented a report on "Democracy at a crossroads in Southeast Asia:
Great power rivalry meets domestic governance" in 2019. The authors addressed that the
competition between China and the United States over the Southeast Asia region has
influenced the governance regime of the countries. Although this report is excellent in terms
of academic exploration, it should not be standardized for International relations and policy
analysis. The report could be criticized by three criteria, including of report's structure,
neutrality, and supportive evidence.
While The escalating of rivalry was analyzed as a strategy to keep regional security
and order, the foreign policy of China and the United States were obviously competing with
each other. China initiated policy directly to Southeast Asia and increased its involvement in
countries' domestic level. The Southeast Asian countries were offered alternatives for their
domestic developments; particularly on the economic perspective that the leaders may seek
for growth without the restriction of their political power. The incentives seemed to
strengthen Authoritarian trends in the region and delay the normative practice of democracy;
however, it was unlikely to make those countries imitating China regimes particularly. While
the United States identified China as a strategic competitor and raised awareness in the region
to be aware of China's economic incentives, it also introduced a Free and Open Indo-Pacific
(FOIP) strategy to confront China.
Cambodia and Myanmar were selected to represent the situation. Both China and the
United States have contributed to their domestic activities. On the other hand, Cambodia and
Myanmar showed a different attitude towards these competitors. Cambodia is a small country
ruled by the autocratic regime under the administration of Hun Sen. It has a lasting amicable
relationship with China since the cold war period. Even though the United States also
provided aids in the same way as China did, it has never overcome China in this country.
Another rivalry stage is in Myanmar. The military used to rule the country for decades; it has
been during the transition process to the democratic regime. Myanmar is seeking economic
development, at the same, it wants to minimize financial assistant and diplomatic protection
from China. While the United States provided significant support to Myanmar for its
democratic transition, China is the largest investor who provided infrastructure development
for the sake of economic benefit.
In general, the report has an excellent academic structure; however, bias and
inefficient supportive evidence were weaknesses. Therefore, the report would be criticized by
the aforementioned three bases; report's structure, neutrality, and supportive evidence.
First of all, the authors provided the executive summary from the beginning, which
benefits to all readers. The summary framed readers' ideas before reading the full report. The
structure of the body part is the highlight. As the authors explained, the discussion was built
into three steps; explaining the geopolitical context; then examining how the rivalry effected
to the regional countries; then analyzing the relationship between the hegemonic power's
drives and domestic governance. In fact, the report is rich in academic information, this
systematic writing pattern allowed the reader to follow their points easily. Furthermore, the
author conducted the discussion by raising the relevant policy and situation of one country,
then abruptly rebutted by another country's policy. For instance, when discussing the national
election in Cambodia and China committed to provide financial aid, the authors added up the
United States's action immediately. This pattern visualized the competitive environment
between China and the United States clearly.
Secondly, the authors are reliable by considering their experiences but their neutrality
is questionable. However, the readers could find bias from the discussion, particularly
towards China, from the well-structured body and the uses of vocabulary. For example, the
authors claimed the policy of the United States positively by saying "FOIP has begun to
exhibit some aspirational qualities in the value realm". The vocabulary "aspirational" with the
positive intention of the United States could convince the readers that the hegemon truly
supported the democratic regime in the region. In the later sentences, the authors quoted the
statement of the United States' Director of Policy Planning; which contained a strong word to
accuse China as a rule of law offender. This tone conducting seemed to discredit China
intentionally. Nevertheless, the authors are from western countries, it could be assumed that
they are pro-democratic regime. Therefore, it remains in doubt whether the authors are
neutral to the issue or not. This bias could convince the readers. It is possible to lead to the
same negative attitude towards China's policy if they do not have a further study for insight
information.
 Thirdly, the empirical evidence is weak to proof the rivalry's consequences. The
authors addressed that the initiated policies of the rivalry parties affected the domestic
governance of the regional countries. However, the presented evidence was not enough to
prove such an assumption by considering two factors, efficiency of showcases and
sufficiency of the evidence. The first factor, the authors selected Cambodia and Myanmar as
their object of analysis. In fact, these two countries have a strong base of a non-democratic
regime long before the launching of initiated policy. The showcase selection was prone to be
one-sided evidence. Although the report also mentioned the democratic countries, such as
Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, it did not emphasize on those countries. Rather than
focusing only on the non-democratic country, the author should further present the other side
of the democratic countries. The benefit of two-sided research would prevent readers from
generalizing the same incident to other regional countries.
The report was well organized but the supportive evidence was not sufficient.
Although the authors matched the policy to support their points, some of them lack concrete
evidence to explain those consequences. For instance, the discussion was trying to prove that
China involved in the domestic affairs of the Southeast Asia countries by encouraging
activities to create "Chinese Party-state preferences". The author introduced the activities that
they involved in educational operations, media operations, and political operations; on the
other hand, they did not prove their consequences. If the author would like to prove them
beyond a reasonable doubt, it needs empirical evidence on how the activities manipulate the
participants and contribute to the targeted country significantly.
In summary, the report structure was well organized. It allowed the readers to follow
the discussion efficiently. The rivalry between the two hegemons was clearly demonstrated
from the cases and rebutted arguments. However, the readers should be careful of bias from
the uses of vocabularies, the conducting of discussion, and the attitude of the western authors.
Nevertheless, the readers should consider its sufficiency and efficiency of the evidence
whether they are reasonable to believe. Therefore, this report is excellent. However, it should
not be a yardstick for the policy analysis. According to the aforementioned weaknesses of the
report, the students and general readers are recommended to study more on the Southeast
Asian countries' domestic regimes and their democratic regime development, in order to
understand the nature of the region before the coming of the initiated policy from China and
the United States.