Drooid Logo
Back to story perspectives

Full Breakdown

Middle Powers Navigate the US-China Crossfire: From Coercion to Collective Resilience

5/13/2026, 11:30:04 PM

The Strategic Dilemma for EU and ASEAN Powers

EU and ASEAN powers must balance economic ties with China against U.S. volatility while preserving security.

Background: From Multipolar Hopes to Emerging Bipolarity

Optimism about a multipolar order (Tellis 2019; Elcano 2025) has shifted to analyses of effective bipolarity, with China and the United States as dominant poles (Nagy 2025; Mohan 2026a). Chinese white papers (2023) and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2023) exemplify competing narratives.

Key Actors and Their Positions

  • China: State Council white papers (2023) promote a “global community of shared future” and reject “hegemonism, power politics, and bloc confrontation.”
  • United States: Inflation Reduction Act (2023) offers subsidies that shift green-tech investment.
  • EU: Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) aims to counter economic pressure.
  • ASEAN: Emphasizes “ASEAN centrality” while managing maritime disputes.
  • Scholars: Yan Xuetong (moral realism), Cao Wei (hedging), Cui Wenxing (discourse power).

Data & Statistics: Coercion in Action

  • 2021: Lithuania’s “Taiwanese” office led to a secondary boycott that forced German auto-parts firms to drop Lithuanian components from global supply chains (Goodman & Reynolds 2022).
  • BRI projects tie Southeast Asian infrastructure financing to concessions on South China Sea claims (Hiep et al. 2022).
  • Vulnerable supply-chain sectors: rare-earth minerals, active pharmaceutical ingredients, legacy semiconductors.

Impact

Chinese economic leverage and U.S. policy volatility threaten middle-power sovereignty, limit strategic autonomy, and raise forced-alignment risks, potentially eroding democratic institutions and destabilizing regional security.

Official Statements & Responses

  • China’s State Council (2023) says its initiatives reject hegemonism, power politics, and bloc confrontation, and provide a benign, stabilizing contribution to global governance.
  • The European Commission (2025) says the ACI will be operationalized with ASEAN partners to ensure “collective response…never isolates a target.”
  • The United States, via the Inflation Reduction Act, notes that “subsidies are intended to secure supply-chain resilience for green technologies” (European Parliament 2023).

Criticism & Opposition

Analysts say China’s “secondary boycott” of Lithuania shows a willingness to weaponize supply chains, contradicting its benign partnership claim. European officials criticize the IRA for “drawing green-technology investment away from the continent,” exposing trans-Atlantic economic fragility.

Conflicting Reports & Gaps

Scholars differ on the system’s nature: some cite a “multipolar mirage” that offers hedging space (Tellis 2019), others describe an “enduring bipolarity” that limits middle-power agency (Nagy 2025). Evidence on the EU-ASEAN ACI’s long-term impact remains unavailable.

Verbatim Quotes

  • “hegemonism, power politics, and bloc confrontation,” — State Council white paper, 2023.
  • “moral realism,” — Yan Xuetong, 2023.
  • “small yard, high fence” — policy recommendation, 2026.

What’s Next

The EU will pilot the ACI with ASEAN by late 2026 and both regions are drafting subsidies for alternative rare-earth and pharmaceutical suppliers. Diplomatic talks will test whether “hardened engagement” can replace the “strategic autonomy” model.