The evolving global landscape is witnessing the decline of the liberal international order established by the United States post-World War II, which is often referred to as Pax Americana. This shift has sparked concerns about potential chaos and the rise of a new hegemonic power—specifically, China’s growing influence, which some theorists label as Pax Sinica. A framework for understanding these shifts can be found in hegemonic stability theory (HST), initially popularized by Charles P. Kindleberger. His work suggests that stability in international systems is often reliant on a dominant power that provides essential public goods, particularly security.
However, recent historical evaluations, particularly from Southeast Asian maritime history, challenge the notion that a single hegemon is essential for order. This historical perspective reveals that stability can arise from multipolar arrangements, where various regional powers coexist, interact, and collaboratively maintain order without needing a dominant military force.
Historically, the eastern Indian Ocean provides a case study of a robust economic and social system that thrived without hegemonic oversight. The region, which has been at the crossroads of trade between China and India for centuries, developed a decentralized order characterized by interconnected trade networks, local governance structures, and cultural exchanges. This system had no singular power dominating maritime trade routes but relied instead on the competitive interactions of various Southeast Asian mandala kingdoms.
From around the 1st to the 15th centuries CE, Southeast Asians, particularly those from Austronesian groups, were pivotal in developing maritime routes. Their sophisticated shipbuilding and navigation skills enabled them to effectively facilitate trade between the burgeoning economies of China and India, further entrenching Southeast Asia’s role in the global economy long before European powers arrived on the scene. Evidence indicates that these maritime activities were not just economically motivated but fortified an intricate tapestry of political, cultural, and social relationships across various polities.
The concept of mandala polities underscores the nature of governance in Southeast Asia during this period. The mandala system, characterized by decentralized authority, fostered competition among local rulers who sought to maintain autonomy while engaging with larger regional powers. Notably, maritime trade thrived in this decentralized context, contradicting the expectation that a singular hegemon ensures stability.
For instance, the historical narrative highlights that even during episodes of conflict, such as the Chola invasions of Sriwijaya, the overall economic activities along these maritime routes continued unabated. While individual kingdoms vied for dominance, their inability to control the entire maritime space allowed for ongoing trade and interaction among various nations.
Significantly, the study of Southeast Asia’s history reveals a pattern of overlapping authority rather than outright domination. Traditional HST argues that a hegemon must enforce maritime security for economic prosperity, yet the region’s decentralized nature allowed different powers to assume temporary control over trade routes without establishing a lasting hegemony. The balance of power, therefore, operated on the principles of shared interests rather than coercive dominance.
Today, as the world transitions from an American-led order, the principles derived from Southeast Asian interactions could inform contemporary global dynamics. The emerging Indo-Pacific region is witnessing similar trends: China and the US compete for influence, while regional powers such as India, Japan, and Southeast Asian states assert their agency. Instead of a descent into disorder associated with fluctuating hegemonies, this multipolar environment may result in a new form of stability based on cooperative frameworks—where local actors and regional institutions like ASEAN play crucial roles.
The emphasis on ideational pluralism—acknowledging the multiplicity of governance styles, economic systems, and cultural interactions—also resonates with present geopolitical realities. The previous reliance on a singular hegemonic structure as a stabilizing agent is being replaced by a recognition of the value of collective engagement among diverse political entities. This emerging atmosphere suggests that global stability does not necessarily stem from unipolar or even bipolar influences; instead, it may thrive through a collaborative, multiplex order.
In conclusion, looking at Southeast Asia’s history reveals that the path towards a stable international order may involve shared governance rather than singular dominance. As the US-led system wanes, historical insights can guide contemporary assessments. By embracing the lessons from regions like Southeast Asia, a future marked by cooperative interactions, respect for local agency, and cultural pluralism within global politics can emerge. The reimagining of international relations offers renewed hope for a stable and prosperous world order that draws upon a rich tapestry of historical experiences and insights.
Source link
