Hard interests, soft illusions: Southeast Asia and American power

Abstract

Hard Interests, Soft Illusions: Southeast Asia and American Power. By Natasha Hamilton-Hart. Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 2012. Hardcover: 243pp. Much ink has been spilled in recent months regarding American pivot to Asia. While there have been debates about whether policy is anything new and whether assurances made by a declining power are credible, this re-engagement has been broadly welcomed by regional elites. US presence is routinely described as and stabilizing, and Washington is widely seen as a relatively benign hegemon. Why is United States viewed in such a positive light? In Hard Interests, Soft Illusions, Natasha Hamilton-Hart tackles a question that is rarely asked, exploring and beliefs that underpin Southeast Asia's alignment with Washington. She rejects argument that state action is driven largely by systemic pressures such as distribution of power or balance of threats. Rather, echoing work of Subaltern Realists, Hamilton-Hart claims that, in Southeast Asia, there are good reasons to think the motives that drive this alignment are located at domestic level (p. 20). At heart of book are hard interests of power holders and soft illusions or beliefs of foreign policy-makers and practitioners. Beliefs about positive role of United States are not illusory, but neither can they be easily equated with interests. As has been well documented, in many parts of gap between elite views of Washington and popular opinion is striking. book starts with a discussion of material of those who gained power as a consequence of US actions in Southeast Asia since World War Two. In a section entitled The political economy of alignment, Hamilton-Hart argues, the winners who emerged from political struggles between 1940s and 1960s enjoyed American support because they pursued policies that were broadly in line with American preferences for capitalist development in region (p. 85). author claims that exercise of American power in Southeast Asia served two ends for regional elites: first, it helped them defeat potential rivals and opponents; second, it allowed them to pay off supporters and in some cases to appropriate material gains individually (p. 18). But if argument is grounded in political economy, bigger claim is about independent power of beliefs. author argues that there is a particular alignment of material interest and ideological vision that has underpinned acceptance of American hegemony and is condition for continued support for US engagement and balancing in today. ideational basis of alignment is explored in two chapters that draw on a rich survey of historical literature and seventy-four interviews with Southeast Asian policy-makers and practitioners. For America's friends and partners in region, most common justification for viewing it as a benign, stabilizing force is its historical record (p. 88). Chapter Four examines way that national histories have been written and interpreted to draw particular (largely positive) lessons about United States and its role in region. Three themes emerge: first, in non-Communist states, spectre of Communism in past domestic conflicts is frequently invoked; second, external threats are described in a way that presents United States as a protector; and finally scant attention is paid to human casualties of past conflicts (p. …