China and the West Compete to Build Infrastructure in Southeast Asia

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter and sub-editor covering science and geopolitics.

---

In Southeast Asia, questions of power are increasingly answered not in summit halls but along railways, port terminals, and construction corridors. The region needs infrastructure - fast, reliable, and large-scale. And two global actors, China and the West, are vying to provide it on their own terms.

Image Source: (Yoshiko Kawano)

Infrastructure as a Tool of Influence

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has become one of the largest global investment efforts in decades. From Laos to Cambodia, Chinese capital is building roads, canals, and energy hubs - offering fast credit, integrated logistics, and visible results. The China–Laos railway and the Jakarta–Bandung high-speed line in Indonesia are just the most visible examples.

The West, by contrast, is still finding its footing. Through G7-backed infrastructure partnerships, green energy funds, and digital connectivity projects, it has attempted to counterbalance Beijing’s influence. Yet, its offerings often appear more like policy gestures than practical alternatives. Delays, rigid procedures, and lack of long-term financing remain major obstacles.

As China builds railways and ports faster than the West can draft communiqués, Southeast Asia becomes the stage for a quiet, concrete-bound geopolitical showdown. Infrastructure is no longer economics - it’s power projection.

When the tracks are laid before the trust is earned, don’t call it development - call it influence on rails. China understood this long ago and has acted accordingly: precisely, assertively, with a strategic appetite that no longer bothers with subtlety.

Xi Jinping’s December visit to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia was no goodwill tour. It was a show of force: deals on logistics, energy, digital networks, and secure transit. In Malaysia, Beijing signed memoranda to enhance cooperation on 5G deployment, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. In Cambodia, discussions centered around the controversial expansion of the Ream Naval Base - a facility with clear strategic weight in the Gulf of Thailand.

This wasn’t simply about trade. It was Beijing’s bid to embed itself into the decision-making circuitry of Southeast Asia - not just through economic interdependence, but through digital and defense integration. This wasn’t just another chapter in the Belt and Road saga. It was a deliberate move to tilt the regional balance - not with slogans, but with steel and fiber-optic cable.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. appears curiously sluggish. Yes, it has AUKUS and the Quad. Yes, it still speaks the language of “democratic values,” trying to repackage geopolitics in the wrapping of soft power. But what does it offer, in practice? Concepts, papers, communiqués. China, by contrast, delivers rails, cables, and ports.

Washington seems almost afraid to admit it is falling behind. China operates on the ground, in specific places, with clear beneficiaries. The $6 billion China-Laos railway - a sleek, high-speed link from Vientiane to Kunming - isn’t just a transport project. It’s a geopolitical artery, binding Laos to China’s economic bloodstream and reducing its reliance on Thai or Western trade routes.

More telling is that this pattern is repeating itself. In Indonesia, the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail - Southeast Asia’s first bullet train - stands as another symbol of China’s speed and scale, completed with minimal Western input. In the Philippines, Beijing is bidding for infrastructure contracts with flexible financing mechanisms the West rarely offers. These are not isolated cases but strategic steps in a regional endgame.

Infrastructure in the 21st century is not just economics - it’s influence.

Control over logistics means control over dependency. Whoever builds the roads writes the rules. That’s the logic behind Beijing’s moves. It doesn’t offer partnership - it offers infrastructural dependency under the elegant banner of “mutual benefit.”

The U.S. is lagging not only in investment but in narrative. Its vision of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” is a beautiful myth, unsupported by tangible reality. Southeast Asian markets want stability, yes - but they also want trucks, not just envoys. Where there’s no offer, there’s no trust.

This narrative gap is growing. The U.S. continues to emphasize abstract values, but in a region grappling with supply chain bottlenecks, rising energy needs, and post-pandemic recovery, values don’t pour concrete. Beijing knows this. Its investments are visible, measurable - and crucially, fast. Washington’s counteroffers are often slow-moving, mired in oversight procedures, and sometimes laced with conditionalities that local governments view as patronizing.

In the end, the choices made by regional countries don’t look ideological - they look utilitarian. What brings more jobs to Malaysia? Who ensures smooth trade flows for Cambodia? Who can Vietnam trade with safely without compromising sovereignty?

Vietnam, for instance, is navigating a careful balance - accepting Chinese investment in energy and transport while deepening security ties with the U.S. and Japan to hedge against overdependence on Beijing. This kind of hedging is increasingly common. Thailand, too, has kept a foot in both camps - welcoming Chinese capital while maintaining military cooperation with the U.S. The strategy isn’t to pick sides; it’s to maximize options.

Perhaps Pax Americana isn’t over. But more and more, it resembles a vintage suitcase - elegant, nostalgically familiar, but cumbersome and impractical.

The trade routes of the 21st century are not built around principles - they’re built around container ports and digital corridors. Those who understand this are already in the game. The rest are left to watch the train leave the station - and it’s not heading for Washington.