• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Asia",
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Southeast Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Raja Mandala: The Expansion of Sinosphere

Asian nations must find ways to adapt to the structural changes in the Asian balance of power, the essence of which is the rise of China and the perceived decline of the United States.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Oct 25, 2016

Source: Indian Express

It is not often that nations undertake big foreign policy shifts. US President Richard Nixon’s outreach to China in 1971 after a quarter century of American effort to isolate the People’s Republic is one celebrated instance. In 1972, the then president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, threw out Russian military advisers from his country and soon after became a leading partner for America in the Middle East.

President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has now done something similar. Last week he announced the “separation” of his country from the United States. Speaking during an official visit to China, Duterte pronounced that “it is time to say good bye to America”, Manila’s military ally for nearly seven decades. He said that America had “lost now”. “Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost,” he said.

Duterte underlined his personal Chinese racial lineage, recalled historic ties between China and the Philippines and pleaded for a commercial alliance between the two nations. “I have realigned myself in your ideological flow,” he said. Duterte also promised to reach out to Russia. “There are three of us against the world — China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way,” Duterte added. That he chose to do it in front of very appreciative interlocutors in Beijing makes Duterte’s pivot to China that much more significant. It is surprising, coming as it does after a period of escalating maritime tensions with Beijing in the South China Sea. Duterte’s attempt to placate Beijing is also shocking since an international tribunal in July ruled entirely in favour of Manila.

Why does Duterte kowtow to a China that is threatening the territorial integrity of the Philippines and abandon its alliance with its most likely protector, the United States? Thereby hangs a tale — of power shifts and their consequences. Many have pointed to the political populism of Duterte, an abusive personal style and a running argument with the United States over his ruthless war against drugs as the proximate cause for the outburst in Beijing. Others insist that Duterte can’t sustain his anti-Americanism given the deep interconnections between the Philippines and the United States. They point to Duterte’s attempt to “clarify” some of his statements in China after his return from Beijing. Some hope that during his visit to Japan this week, the president of the Philippines will make some much needed amends.

All these factors, important as they are, do not mask the larger trend in Asia — the region’s adaptation to the structural changes in the Asian balance of power, the essence of which is the rise of China and the perceived decline of the United States. Strategic communities in Asia and America have long debated the nature of this power shift. But few have been prepared for its expression in such a definitive manner by the Philippines president. In the US, as well as in Asia, there has been persistent underestimation of China’s political will and material capacity to press for a rejigging of the regional order. Beijing, especially under President Xi Jinping, has made no secret of its claim to primacy in Asia and for what it sees as its rightful role in the management of the global order.

Consider, for example, its successful pressure on most Asian countries to not criticise Beijing’s refusal to accept the international verdict in the South China Sea. It has successfully divided the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN — the foremost regional organisation in Asia. China’s boldest move, however, has been its active probing of the cleavages in America’s regional alliances. Growing economic integration with its Asian neighbours, including those quite close to the United States, has given considerable leverage to Beijing. Few in the region are willing to forgo the presumed economic benefits of a partnership with China and question its political assertiveness.

Beijing has also stepped up its effort to revive that old resonating slogan of “Asia for Asians”. While few in Asian chancelleries might be willing to bite, China’s campaign does tap into the enduring anti-American resentments in Asia. The idea of “Asia for Asians” has also helped China to develop alternatives to the traditional US-led regional institutions in Asia. China also reminds its neighbours of an important geographic reality — that Uncle Sam is far away and can’t really protect them against Beijing. America might still be the biggest military power in the world, but China’s growing armed strength has begun to constrain the US’ forward presence in Asia.

Even as China tempts America’s Asian allies with the benefits of neutralism, it is teasing the United States with the prospects for a G-2. Instead of trying to limit Chinese power in the region, Beijing is asking Washington to accept a Sino-centric order in Asia. Those who don’t wish to fold into the Sinosphere will need much strength and determination to survive Beijing’s extraordinary power play. Meanwhile, India could learn a trick or two from China on how to divide your opponents, pacify the periphery, do deals with rival powers, turn adversaries into neutrals, and neutrals into friends and friends into allies.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
Foreign PolicyAsiaNorth AmericaUnited StatesSoutheast Asia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

  • Article
    What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

    India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

      Konark Bhandari

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.