Navigating the US–China Rivalry: <scp>ASEAN</scp> 's Position on Critical Mineral Resources

This paper analyzes the differing policy responses of Southeast Asian countries – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines – to the US–China competition over critical mineral resources. It also examines how these countries prioritize various national interests, including economic development, resource security, and policy autonomy. The study finds that Malaysia primarily adopts a light hedging approach, balancing economic cooperation with both the United States and China to maintain the stability and development of the rare earth supply chain. Simultaneously, it leverages external resources to drive industrial modernization, demonstrating high flexibility and policy independence. In contrast, the Philippines, as an upstream supplier of nickel resources, employs a heavier hedging strategy. While deeply embedded in China's supply chain, it gradually attracts investments from the United States and its allies to reduce dependence on a single market. The differences in these strategies reflect how resource‐based Southeast Asian countries adjust their policies to balance economic development and security needs amid geopolitical rivalries based on their resource endowments and supply chain positions. Malaysia's approach emphasizes balance and economic benefits, while the Philippines' strategy highlights dual objectives of resource security and industrial upgrading. Indonesia has also maintained a light hedging strategy in response to US–China strategic competition, prioritizing the development of a critical mineral industry centered on nickel. This approach aims to promote foreign trade and industrial growth in a rational and strategic manner, thereby maximizing economic gains. Vietnam, by contrast, occupies an intermediate position among the three countries, adopting a moderate hedging strategy that leverages its advantage in rare earth and other mineral resources to strengthen cooperation with major powers. However, due to ongoing tensions between China and Vietnam, their cooperation on critical minerals remains uncertain and warrants further observation. With Trump's re‐election and the increasingly intense trade war between China and the United States, critical mineral resources are bound to become a core and crucial point of competition between the two countries in the coming period. Whether it is Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines, adopting relatively independent mineral policies not only helps safeguard their own economic security but also offers valuable lessons and inspiration for other resource‐rich small states in Southeast Asia.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pacific Focus
Published
2025-11-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/pafo.70006
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Extraction and Separation Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.71
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Navigating the US–China Rivalry: ASEAN 's Position on Critical Mineral Resources

Xinlei Zhao
1 citations
Pacific Focus
Extraction and Separation Processes
0.71
article

Navigating the US–China Rivalry: ASEAN 's Position on Critical Mineral Resources

Xinlei Zhao
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This paper analyzes the differing policy responses of Southeast Asian countries – such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines – to the US–China competition over critical mineral resources. It also examines how these countries prioritize various national interests, including economic development, resource security, and policy autonomy. The study finds that Malaysia primarily adopts a light hedging approach, balancing economic cooperation with both the United States and China to maintain the stability and development of the rare earth supply chain. Simultaneously, it leverages external resources to drive industrial modernization, demonstrating high flexibility and policy independence. In contrast, the Philippines, as an upstream supplier of nickel resources, employs a heavier hedging strategy. While deeply embedded in China's supply chain, it gradually attracts investments from the United States and its allies to reduce dependence on a single market. The differences in these strategies reflect how resource‐based Southeast Asian countries adjust their policies to balance economic development and security needs amid geopolitical rivalries based on their resource endowments and supply chain positions. Malaysia's approach emphasizes balance and economic benefits, while the Philippines' strategy highlights dual objectives of resource security and industrial upgrading. Indonesia has also maintained a light hedging strategy in response to US–China strategic competition, prioritizing the development of a critical mineral industry centered on nickel. This approach aims to promote foreign trade and industrial growth in a rational and strategic manner, thereby maximizing economic gains. Vietnam, by contrast, occupies an intermediate position among the three countries, adopting a moderate hedging strategy that leverages its advantage in rare earth and other mineral resources to strengthen cooperation with major powers. However, due to ongoing tensions between China and Vietnam, their cooperation on critical minerals remains uncertain and warrants further observation. With Trump's re‐election and the increasingly intense trade war between China and the United States, critical mineral resources are bound to become a core and crucial point of competition between the two countries in the coming period. Whether it is Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, or the Philippines, adopting relatively independent mineral policies not only helps safeguard their own economic security but also offers valuable lessons and inspiration for other resource‐rich small states in Southeast Asia.

Pacific FocusVol. 40(3)
Sun Yat-sen University (CN), School of International Relations (IR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Extraction and Separation Processes
0.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.