China, Connectivity and the Future of Influence in the Indo-Pacific: Daniele Carminati

As geopolitical competition between the United States and China intensifies across the Indo-Pacific, questions surrounding soft power, connectivity, economic statecraft and regional influence have become very important. In the following discussion with the TSI, Dr. Daniele Carminati, Lecturer, International Relations and Global Affairs, Mahidol University International College, Thailand, offers insights into China’s evolving diplomatic strategy, connectivity issues, Southeast Asia’s strategic balancing act and the future of influence in a changing global order.

China’s Evolving Narrative

Over the last decade, China has sought to refine the way it presents itself to the world. Reflecting on this shift, Daniele notes:

China appears to be carefully and selectively loosening the strict state-centered approach allowing some voices beyond the official ones to build the narrative, to tell China’s story well, as Xi Jinping recommended. Although if some voices are not aligned or detrimental to the party’s interests, they will certainly be discouraged if not silenced outright.

Southeast Asia’s Balancing Act

Southeast Asian countries continue to navigate relationships with multiple major powers while seeking to preserve their autonomy. On this dynamic, Daniele observes:

Prominent publications like ISEAS State of Southeast Asia have showed that from an economic perspective, there is almost no choice, China will (if it is not already) leading, but Japan and other actors, including the US, are not going to disappear, but they will likely become less prominent. Until recently, most observers recognized that China had the economic upper hand while Washington had the military one, but even in this domain Beijing it is stepping up its efforts, as evidenced by a variety of military and security exercises. Even in this case China is playing the long game, with confidence in a positive trajectory of tacit and somehow unavoidable (re)alignment of the region around China.

Belt and Road Initiative beyond Economics

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is often discussed in economic terms, but its broader influence has attracted significant attention. Assessing its impact, Daniele explains:

Across the developing world, although exceptions exist, the BRI is being welcomed with caution and “Debt Trap” accusations have been widely debunked by a variety of sources. Although these accusations keep resurfacing, they just feed the echo chamber of the circles who are staunch China-detractors. With that said, the initiative is far from being a unanimous success due to its massive scale and long-term ambitions, but it has been delivering more than many of these detractors would want to admit, and as for many of Beijing initiatives, they are not in a rush, it is a slow process that can be reassessed and recalibrated upon need.

Connectivity as a Geopolitical Tool

Infrastructure, transportation, and energy networks increasingly serve as instruments of influence. Discussing the strategic significance of connectivity projects, the Daniele states:

Most of the flagship connectivity and energy-related projects are (or seems to be because of sheer coverage) advanced by China, while other players appear to be struggling to catch up. Even Japan used to be a prominent one, though Prime Minister Takaichi may try to revert this trend. The EU, the US and others are still present, with FDI and similar investments, but not many related to connectivity, and the Trump government is testing the relations with the region. Some companies may still try to go on their own, with or without government support, but it is undeniable that the situation is not as conductive or welcoming as it used to be.

Comparing Chinese and Japanese Models of Influence

China and Japan have pursued different paths toward regional influence, offering contrasting approaches to soft power and engagement. Daniele reflects:

Japan has been long labelled as a reactive power, and many in the region lamented the lack of pro-activity. But as mentioned above, several observers are confident that the current Prime Minister of Japan could instil some confidence domestically and potentially even across the region, as China is cautiously welcomed but diversification is still seen as key. Japan has been and still is widely recognized as the most trusted actor by Southeast Asians. Any proactive approach short of belligerence would be warmly welcomed.

Opportunities and Challenges for the Indo-Pacific

Looking ahead to the coming decade, the Indo-Pacific faces both significant opportunities and considerable uncertainties. According to Daniele:

This may be too big of a question, especially if Trump’s ‘America First’ and the surrounding unpredictability somehow persists beyond him. That said, the region seems to be coming to terms more than others (like the EU) that the US will not ‘return’ to the role it used to have and ASEAN countries have to plan ahead for this major and unexpected shift, united better, but internal issues linger.

Future of Economic Statecraft and Public Diplomacy

As nations compete for influence, the relationship between economic engagement and soft power continues to evolve. Daniele argues:

I do believe that we are experiencing a post-liberal wave of soft power defined by pragmatism (which involves economic gains and possibly some political ones too) as opposed to the previous liberal soft power period defined by ideologies and values. As I argued in my article for the Global Policy last year that “post-liberal manifestations of soft power are less about ideology and more about meeting the Global South’s desire for benefits from geopolitical changes and amplifying their voice,” further noting that “this current post-liberal phase may be transitional, but it can also be an adjustment period towards an even stronger democratic era, one in which liberal values are back in.”

South Korea is a prominent actor in these terms, and others are following like Thailand and Malaysia. More countries will try to compete for attraction and influence while elevating themselves instead of criticizing and belittling others (which is how major powers behaved so far).

Can Connectivity Create Lasting Influence?

The long-term geopolitical implications of infrastructure investment remain a key question. On this issue, Daniele explains:

If China is an example, connectivity will build long-term structures across most of the developing world, and Southeast Asia would be prioritized due to its proximity and strategic value. If these structures are welcomed and appreciated, it will result in co-optive interdependence, a kind of internalized soft power as it has been for the dollar and the English language and US influence overall. But the risk of being weaponized is also present; that is something each country will have to take into consideration. In short, these connectivity channels can but do not need to be weaponized, and it would mainly depend on bilateral relations. In my opinion, President Trump appears to believe that “the short-term coercive gains derived from weaponized interdependence outweigh the long-term gains that could be achieved through co-optive interdependence,” and therefore, “China’s recent reputational gains are attributed more to Washington’s coercive moves than to Beijing’s charm offensives.”

Globalization, Regionalization and Future of Soft Power

Finally, the debate over de-globalization raises important questions about the future of attraction and influence in international affairs. Offering a broader perspective, Daniele concludes:

De-globalization is debated, some envision a regionalization, some others re-globalization, or even a sort of globalization minus one, the US, but this latter sounds a bit farfetched for the time being. In any case, China might become the champion of a new wave of globalization, and I believe that the US and whoever rejects globalization, in spite of its many issues, will regret it.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Statecraft Institute.