Hard Interests, Soft Illusions: Southeast Asia and American Power.

• Author: Capie, David
• Position: Book review

Hard Interests, Soft Illusions: Southeast Asia and American Power. By Natasha Hamilton-Hart. Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 2012. Hardcover: 243pp.

Much ink has been spilled in recent months regarding the American "pivot" to Asia. While there have been debates about whether the policy is anything new and whether the assurances made by a declining power are credible, this re-engagement has been broadly welcomed by regional elites. The US presence is routinely described as "positive" and "stabilizing", and Washington is widely seen as a relatively "benign" hegemon.

Why is the United States viewed in such a positive light? In Hard Interests, Soft Illusions, Natasha Hamilton-Hart tackles a question that is rarely asked, exploring the interests and beliefs that underpin Southeast Asia's alignment with Washington. She rejects the argument that state action is driven largely by systemic pressures such as the distribution of power or balance of threats. Rather, echoing the work of Subaltern Realists, Hamilton-Hart claims that, in Southeast Asia, there are good reasons to think "the motives that drive this alignment are located at the domestic level" (p. 20).

At the heart of the book are the "hard interests" of power holders and the "soft illusions" or beliefs of foreign policy-makers and practitioners. Beliefs about the positive role of the United States are not illusory, but neither can they be easily equated with "national interests". As has been well documented, in many parts of the region the gap between elite views of Washington and popular opinion is striking.

The book starts with a discussion of the material interests of those who gained power as a consequence of US actions in Southeast Asia since World War Two. In a section entitled "The political economy of alignment", Hamilton-Hart argues, "the winners who emerged from political struggles between the 1940s and the 1960s enjoyed American support because they pursued policies that were broadly in line with American preferences for capitalist development in the region" (p. 85). The author claims that the exercise of American power in Southeast Asia served two ends for regional elites: first, it helped them defeat potential rivals and opponents; second, it allowed them to "pay off supporters and in some cases to appropriate material gains individually" (p. 18).

But if the argument is grounded in political economy, the bigger claim is about the independent power of...