By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.
CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE
CHOOSE YOUR LANGUAGE
互联网新闻信息许可证10120180008
Disinformation report hotline: 010-85061466
A night view of Singapore, December 11, 2024. /CFP
Recent discussions about geopolitical changes in the Indo-Pacific region often center on the rise of China. This "China shock," as some might call it, is undoubtedly significant. China's growing economic and political influence has led to new dynamics in the region, affecting trade, security and international relations.
However, Danny Quah, professor in economics at National University of Singapore, suggests we need to consider another crucial factor: shifts in how the United States engages with the world. He calls this the "U.S. shock."
Quah argues that while the rise of China is a major development, changes in U.S. foreign policy and its approach to international cooperation also play a significant role in shaping the current geopolitical landscape.
Traditionally, the U.S. has often championed a rules-based international system, promoting multilateralism and cooperation among nations. This approach emphasized shared principles and institutions designed to foster peace and prosperity.
However, in recent years, there have been noticeable changes in U.S. foreign policy. These changes include greater emphasis on unilateral actions, prioritizing national security in economic decisions and expressing concerns about other countries benefiting unfairly from existing international arrangements.
Quah, in his analysis, suggests that these two shocks are not equivalent. Instead, he highlights that from the perspective of other countries in the Indo-Pacific, both developments create new challenges and require careful consideration. These countries now face a more complex environment where they must navigate evolving relationships with both China and the U.S.
Quah said his point is not about taking sides or assigning blame. Rather, he encourages people to recognize the existence and influence of both factors. By acknowledging this "two-shock" dynamic, countries can better understand the current geopolitical landscape and make more informed decisions about their own strategies and relationships.