“Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919- 1941” by Anne Foster

 Your Last Name 1
“Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-
1941” by Anne Foster
A Review
In autumn of 1942, Britain and the United States were discussing each other’s roles in
Southeast Asia2
. These two countries decided to vest their interests mainly to combat the upsurge
of power in Japan. The colonial government in Britain began preparing how to combat rhetoric
in America, which began to emerge the same year, particularly in India. The book shows the
United States played a major role in most countries’ wellbeing efforts, and this explains why
Britain first consulted with the Philippines to get an understanding of what America could do
when in power5
. Regarding this, this review of the literature focuses on the United States’ role in
the rise and fall of communism in Japan and all of Asia.
Foster’s book is a short episode with a profound theme regarding the role the United
States played in encouraging European powers to support its war campaigns5
. However, India’s
attempt to show the United States acted, for the most part, as a traditional colonial power did not
take hold, which explains why India stopped competing for power. It is significant to note that
Foster’s perception asserts what roles European and American authorities played in thwarting
local communism, sharing information, and the cooperation in favor of Tan Malaka, an
Indonesian communist, consequently.
________________________________
1Foster, Anne. 2010. Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941. (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2010), 2.
2Foster, Anne. 2010. Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941. (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2010), 5.
Your Last Name 2
The author’s standpoint postulates that the United States welcomed all attempts to
suppress future communist activities leading to events such as the Vietnam War and Burma.
Regarding this, atavistic efforts on the part of individuals formerly in power to restore Burmese
monarchy emerged. Foster based her argument on various British, French, Dutch, and American
sources and sought to show America played a pivotal role regarding Colonial Southeast Asia.
Consequently, from 1919 to 1941, this mainly equated to imperialism in this region. It is
noteworthy to point out that Americans turned down offers concerning this region’s future
governance in favor of what was an ‘open door’ approach to commerce and finance initiatives in
the region3
.
However, the United States always reinstated its niche. This was done by giving
repression to countries that might interfere with its future maneuverability. For example, when
Japan and Europe failed to come to terms on attempting to expand, it resulted in repression.
Consequently, the United States did not intervene, despite the fact that it was the only country
powerful enough to suppress Japan’s attempts4
. Britain became majorly concerned with
discerning America’s priorities and targets, which did not achieve reassuring results, and this
was a problem. Another problem was granting Filipinos independence without resolving the
power issue, which meant the United States would not be responsible for that part of Asia5
.
____________________________________
3Foster, Anne. 2010. Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941. (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2010), 70.
4Foster, Anne. 2010. Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941. (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2010), 157.
5Foster, Anne. 2010. Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941. (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 2010), 164.
Your Last Name 3
Despite attempting to bring the complexities of the contradictory actions to the surface, as
well as the negative relationships developed by the United States, Foster argues this matter
should be further scrutinized. In her conclusion, Foster notes that American’s lack of influence
on the local people and their policies is of concern. For example, the presence of American’s
version of Colonial British offices in the region was seriously lacking6
. It is evident that the fact
that Britain failed to be consistent in how it managed to control the region explains why the
United States used many officers with diverse backgrounds. Continual friction and ongoing
misunderstandings between these two powers occurred daily. However, the presence of people
such as Joseph Stilwell always brought them face-to-face. Furthermore, just because questions
exist on how profound the book is does not negate Foster’s work. Instead, these questions
demonstrate how she systematically answered them, while shedding light on the role America
played for peace and regulation in Southeast Asia. In conclusion, Foster’s book is very
informa