Globalisation Retreat Versus Economic Reality in International Politics
Polyvalent economic ties forged during decades of globalisation continue to shape geopolitical alignments across East and Southeast Asia, according to a recent analysis published by East Asia Forum. Official rhetoric frequently portrays a wholesale retreat from globalisation, where geopolitical alignment dictates economic relationships rather than market integration defining diplomacy. However, researchers Shahar Hamieri, Lee Jones, Seth Schindler and Jessica DiCarlo argue that small and middle powers maintain engagements with multiple external partners out of sheer economic necessity rather than mere diplomatic hedging.
This dynamic stems from the post-Cold War era when private firms built cross-border trade and investment flows largely without state coordination. When great-power competition between the United States and China intensified during the 2010s, developing economies found their alignment choices already conditioned by deep commercial links to both superpowers. Consequently, major powers pushing containment strategies face significant hurdles because Western allies and developing nations alike remain anchored in globalised development networks.
Polyalignment Dynamics in Southeast Asia
Southeast Asia serves as a primary testing ground for polyalignment due to the high concentration of small open economies relying on diverse sources of foreign investment and trade. Vietnam and Indonesia illustrate how nations maintain deep ties with multiple external partners without any intention of severing them. Hanoi implements a whole-of-state approach that aligns its foreign policy directly with national industrialisation goals. Meanwhile, Indonesia pursues downstreaming in the minerals sector alongside Chinese partners, which has empowered domestic elites to influence Jakarta toward a more accommodative stance on Beijing, as documented in East Asia Forum.
This economic interdependence contrasts with the strategies of Australia and Japan. Both countries maintain deep commercial ties with China while simultaneously strengthening military alliances with the United States and participating cautiously in regional integration frameworks. For these nations, economic exchange functions as a foundational element of comprehensive security rather than a vulnerability to be dismantled.
Critical Minerals and Regional Resource Nationalism
Critical minerals and rare earths occupy a central role in contemporary economic security agendas as decarbonisation accelerates and great-power competition intensifies. A companion issue of the East Asia Forum Quarterly published by ANU Press examines the geopolitics of Asia’s resource trade, highlighting tensions between interdependence and rising resource nationalism. Governments across the region race to secure supply chains for green technologies and advanced manufacturing, balancing vulnerabilities against the enduring complementarity between regional producers and consumers.
Frequently Asked Questions About Polyalignment
What distinguishes polyalignment from traditional diplomatic hedging?
Polyalignment is not merely a foreign policy posture or a strategic choice, but an entrenched reality arising from the transformation of states and economies under decades of globalisation. Unlike traditional hedging, it reflects deep structural economic interdependencies forged by private firms that small and middle powers cannot easily dismantle without harming their own development goals.
How do Vietnam and Indonesia differ in managing their external economic relationships?
Vietnam utilizes a whole-of-state approach where government policy directly aligns foreign relations with national industrialization targets. In contrast, Indonesia’s downstreaming policies in the minerals sector have empowered specific domestic elites who use their political influence to guide Jakarta toward an accommodative approach with Chinese partners.
Why do traditional security concerns fail to break economic ties in East Asia?
For generations, leaders across East and Southeast Asia have treated economic development as a core component of national security. Diverse economic ties provide ballast to bilateral relationships, functioning as a practical foundation for security strategies rather than a constraint upon them.
Worth a look