Southeast Asia insists it shouldn’t be selecting sides. The data suggests that this selection is becoming an increasing number of common. New data from the survey State of Southeast Asia Report 2026 show a region where China is consolidating its position as a serious strategic partner, while the United States is slipping right into a narrower and more precarious second place. The shift is incremental. The direction is unmistakable.
China currently scores 9.1 out of 11.0 in perceived strategic importance, while the United States scores 8.6. This widening gap indicates that Beijing’s influence is not any longer limited to proximity. It took root.
Book of Influence
China’s advantage is predicated on the cold reality of balance sheet. It stays the dominant economic force within the region, indicated by 55.9% of respondents as probably the most influential economic force. Trade, investment and infrastructure connect Southeast Asian capitals with Beijing, providing physical and financial sustainability that Washington has struggled to match. Growth strategies within the region are sometimes derivative of China’s industrial trajectory.
However, this influence shouldn’t be synonymous with feeling. The data highlights ongoing, deepening concern: 55.4% of respondents are concerned about China’s growing economic influence. Concerns about political influence and strategic coercion remain high. Southeast Asia is economically linked to China but feels deep discomfort with the resulting dependence.
The United States retains a reserve of trust that China lacks, especially on security. However, trust is a secondary currency in comparison with on a regular basis economic presence. US influence is increasingly perceived as sporadic and, more damagingly, unpredictable – 51.9% of respondents consider US leadership under President Trump to be their predominant geopolitical concern.
A house divided
There is definitely a statistical impasse within the region. If forced to make a choice from two superpowers, a slim majority of 52.0% would select China and 48.0% would select the United States.
This narrow margin shouldn’t be an indication of stability. It is a mask of deep internal fragmentation. Mainland countries often gravitate toward Beijing based on geographic and economic integration. Maritime states wary of China’s maritime activities within the South China Sea; where 51.7% are concerned about EEZ encroachment, still see Washington as a crucial counterweight. ASEAN cannot move decisively in any direction without risking structural disruption of its own cohesion.
The fragility of autonomy
Isolation stays the popular strategy for the block. About 55.2% of respondents see strengthening ASEAN’s own resilience and unity because the predominant technique to defend against superpower competition. This is a defensive posture. It reflects a desire to avoid crossfire relatively than an ambition to shape world order.
Strategic autonomy is under unprecedented pressure. Competition over technology and maritime security is intensifying, and Southeast Asia is correct on the intersection of those pressures. The traditional “hedging” strategy is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain as each Washington and Beijing demand clearer signals of adjustment.
Consistency beyond measure
Influence within the region is being redefined. It is not any longer measured solely by military presence. It is defined by policy consistency and perceived reliability. In this respect, China is gaining ground.
The United States stays a key player, but its relative position is eroding. The challenge for Washington is not any longer to regain its dominance after the Cold War. It is anticipated to stay indispensable in an environment where China is now the default economic partner.
The difference between a rating of 9.1 and eight.6 could appear insignificant. The difference of their trajectories is nothing in need of that. Southeast Asia is non-refundable. It adapts to the fact that China is the middle of the regional solar system. ASEAN’s ability to stay non-aligned will depend less by itself diplomacy and more on the instability of the 2 powers it seeks to avoid.
Source: State of Southeast Asia Survey Report 2026 – Center for ASEAN Studies at
ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute
