C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"authors": [
"C. Raja Mohan"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [
"China’s Foreign Relations",
"China and the Developing World"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Southeast Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Economy"
]
}Source: Getty
The Dragon in the Room
India's relations with Southeast Asia are booming, but Beijing's increased presence in the region looms large in New Delhi's thinking.
Source: Indian Express

All these catch-phrases are meant to convey India’s diplomatic support to the current security concerns of ASEAN members, especially their worries about the growing military capabilities of China and Beijing’s increasing political assertiveness in its territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
But is Delhi really prepared to go beyond the diplomatic and meet the growing ASEAN expectations for a stronger Indian contribution to the regional balance of power? No one at the summit is likely to mention the “C” word, but there is no denying the dragon in the room. It is not that either India or ASEAN want to define their partnership in terms of China. But both are aware that most of the emerging security challenges in Southeast Asia are about the geopolitical consequences for China’s rise.
But, let’s return for a moment to the celebrations of India’s ties with Southeast Asia. A century ago, the discovery of historic civilizational links with Southeast Asia was a booster shot for Indian nationalism and helped it reclaim its natural place in Asia. A little over two decades ago, when India was down and out — its economic model in a shambles and its international isolation stark — it was Southeast Asia that extended valuable solidarity.
ASEAN provided the most acceptable international benchmarks for India’s own economic liberalization. It was also ASEAN that helped Delhi cope with the new imperatives of regionalism in Asia. It was with ASEAN member states that India negotiated some of its early free trade agreements at a bilateral level. Nearly three years ago, India implemented its first free trade agreement in goods with ASEAN as a whole.
This week India and ASEAN will finalize a new agreement that liberalizes trade in services and investments. India has already agreed last month to join the ambitious negotiations for a free trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, with ASEAN and its other economic partners — China, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
India’s ASEAN partnership has been emblematic of the country’s own economic transformation — internal and external — since it began the reforms at the turn of the 1990s. ASEAN is also becoming the test-bed for India’s potential role as a provider of security to other nations and as a swing state in the Asian balance of power.
After more than three decades of peace and tranquility, Southeast Asia now confronts a period of great turbulence, marked by mounting tensions among the major powers and the deepening regional conflicts. China’s deepening territorial conflict with Japan and its new rivalry with the United States have injected fluidity into Asia’s great power relations.
Beijing’s relations with some of its Southeast Asian neighbors, especially Vietnam and the Philippines, have headed south amid competing territorial claims in the South China Sea. The coherence of ASEAN itself is under question as member states take divergent approaches to dealing with a rising China. The hope that the region can devise a collective security framework has been dashed amid these new developments.
Individually and collectively, then, ASEAN members are looking to restore the balance of power in the region. Some of them are turning to the U.S. to strengthen their security and others are deeply wary about the dangers of being caught up in a new Cold War between Beijing and Washington. All of them are importing advanced weapons systems and paving the way for an arms race in Southeast Asia.
In seeking a larger role from India in regional security, ASEAN has no illusion that India is the white knight that will ride to the rescue of the region threatened by China. Southeast Asia’s expectations from India in the defense arena are limited and three-fold.
One, an end to India’s current passive participation in the multilateral security mechanisms, such as ASEAN Regional Forum and the annual defense-ministerial meetings of ASEAN and its partner nations. Second, ASEAN wants Delhi to inject some life into the many bilateral defense agreements it has signed with its member states. Although India provides some military training and other support to many Southeast Asian countries, there is much more it can do enhance the material capacities of ASEAN defense establishments. Finally, ASEAN would like to see a more purposeful Indian defense policy in Southeast Asia, which can stabilize the regional security environment in collaboration with other major powers.
India has indeed sounded the trumpet of defense diplomacy as part of its engagement with ASEAN over the last two decades. The notes of India’s trumpet, however, must become a lot more certain. If Delhi does not help promote a stable balance of power in Southeast Asia now, India’s own security challenges in the future could get a lot more daunting.
This article first appeared in the Indian Express on December 20, 2012.
About the Author
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.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime PartnershipArticle
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
Carnegie 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 Endowment for International Peace
- “It’s Not Like Turning a Switch On and Off”Commentary
Why the Iran ceasefire isn’t a quick fix to the Strait of Hormuz energy crisis.
Helima Croft, Aaron David Miller
- China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of EverythingCommentary
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Damien Ma
- Unstrategic Ambiguity: Trump’s Erratic Approach Leaves Europe GuessingArticle
The behaviors, public statements, and policies of Donald Trump’s administration have perverted America’s strategic posture toward Europe.
Dan Baer, Erik Brown
- On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing ItCommentary
Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.
Rym Momtaz
- Kindred Nations, Uneasy Neighbors: Polish-Ukrainian Relations in the Crucible of Russia’s WarArticle
The full-scale invasion cemented Ukraine’s determination to sever its ties with Russia; reimagining the Poland-Ukraine partnership can accelerate Kyiv’s westward alignment and improve the security of both countries.
Eric Green