While China is concerned about the United States' containment policy, the South East Asian strategic environment is too complex for the US to resort to conventional containment strategies, according to Eleni Ekmektsioglou in an article on the website of Japan's The Diplomat magazine on June 20, 2011.

Firstly, China is one of big regional players in economic terms, says Ekmektsioglou, a Handa Fellow at the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "For the majority of ASEAN member states, China is one of the top five trade partners. For China, meanwhile, the ASEAN bloc is its fourth-biggest trade partner."

In contrast, the priority for the US is "being the guarantor of regional stability", as it has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of the region, Ekmektsioglou opines. With one-third of the world's seaborne commerce travelling through the region, "US concerns over potential disruption to so-called Sea Lanes of Communications shouldn't be misinterpreted as containment".

More importantly, the Southeast Asian countries hold highly ambivalent attitudes towards the US presence in the region, which is the biggest barrier to US efforts to contain China, notes Ekmektsioglou. She cited the case of the South China Sea dispute, saying that US involvement was opposed not only by China, but by a number of Southeast Asian countries. "It seems that despite the risks of negotiating directly with a powerful China, the alternative of inviting the US to talks wasn't seen as preferable."

Actually, the last thing ASEAN countries would like is to be plunged into "a Cold War-style situation under which they have to choose between two world powers", says Ekmektsioglou. Currently, there's still noticeable ambivalence towards a larger US' role in the region, "due mainly to a cocktail of cost/benefit calculations mixed with lingering historical issues and concerns".

As the politics of the region are simply too complicated and China is too entrenched economically, Ekmektsioglou doubts it will be likely for the US to invest the intellectual energy and resources into pursuing such a strategy.