Dick Cheney recently told the US National Press Club that he did not believe and had ever seen any evidence that could confirm Saddam Hussein's involvement in the September 11 attacks.

This blunt admission apparently stunned the audience, but what was more shocking was his obstinate justification of the war on Iraq, arguing that "a clear understanding of policies that worked is essential".

Anyone with a grain of intelligence would see no possible links between Saddam and al Qaeda given that their political ideologies were worlds apart.

In addition, there was no conclusive evidence that indicated the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the Bush administration conceded after the war. Still, billions of dollars were wasted and countless Iraqi and American lives lost on an invasion that did nothing but created havoc, yet the warmongers - such as Cheney - remain defiant to this very day.

They clearly owe the world an apology.

Under the Bush-Cheney leadership, the United States was engaged in military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, while taking a confrontational stance towards others such as North Korea, Iran and Myanmar.

Overall, Washington achieved virtually no positive results from these policies, prompting a US journalist to comment that "the more these people love our pop culture and Hollywood, the more they hate our political leaders".

One country that benefited from the US' policy of containment is China, as the regional giant seized the opportunity to forge close political, military and economic ties with Myanmar.

China benefiting

The two countries are now interdependent, more so than any other relations in Southeast Asia. Beijing's twin objectives in the region are to secure a stable environment for economic growth, and to create good neighbourliness among all the Asean countries.

Myanmar is hence vitally important to the success of China's westward expansion.

Many tend to look at Southeast Asia in its totality and overlook the internal differences. In high school, I was taught that the region was largely divided into two: mainland and maritime, with their own unique histories and political relations with external powers such as China and India.

This understanding is highly useful for one to make sense of the current developments in Southeast Asia.

For nearly two millennia, mainland Southeast Asia of Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, formed China's sphere of influence, as successive Chinese dynasties saw them as their protectorates.

There is a long history of trade, conflict, subjugation and collaboration between them. Vietnam, for instance, sought to usurp the role of China proper whenever the Middle Kingdom descended into dynastic war.

Chinese influence only began to wane with the advent of western colonialism and the decline of the Qing Dynasty.

That the new China is quietly seeking to regain its position over its "backyard" is beyond doubt.

On the other hand, Indonesia has long been the de facto leader in maritime Southeast Asia, and China's historical role there was rather limited.

Najib half right

While it is true that Admiral Chengho toured the region and cultivated cordial ties with the various sultanates, the Ming emperors seemed contented and even conceited with showing off their prestige and rising above local politics.

In his recent visit to Beijing, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak acknowledged China for having been a benign power throughout the history of Southeast Asia.

He is only half right, for China's political domination over Vietnam is a historical fact. I would even argue if not for the French invasion, Vietnam might well have become - through conquest or brinkmanship - an inalienable part of China today, just like Tibet, Xinjiang and the southwestern provinces.

Also, why would Najib have chosen to leave out Beijing's staunch support for the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia that went horribly wrong in the 1970s? Closer to home, the Communist Party of Malaya would not have sustained its insurgency without material support from China.

Chin Peng, in his memoirs, detailed how he and his colleagues had been persuaded to resume armed struggle by Chinese leaders in 1961.

(Hence the prime minister was rather disingenuous in this, especially when the Umno zealots had been waging war of words against Chin Peng at home while Najib was praising the Chinese communist leaders to the skies in Beijing.)

The pragmatic Chinese leadership knows full well it must avoid all the inconvenient truths in China's relations with Southeast Asia.

In fact, Beijing's policy shift in the mid 1990s from criticising the US role in the region to fostering mutually beneficial ties, even tolerating American presence so long as it did not threaten Chinese interests, has paid off.

Joint development, regional stability and good neighbourliness are now the key guiding principles in dealing with Asean.

Obama on track

After near a decade of disastrous strategies by the Bush administration, President Obama is now firmly on the path to win back trust, support and influence in Southeast Asia.

The new leadership has set out a foreign policy that is aimed at proactively strengthening international legitimacy and soft power, in a direct contrast to the posture of the US over the last few years.

In a clear break from Bush's policy, Obama sent Stephen Blake, the Director of the Office for Mainland Southeast Asia to Rangoon as a friendly gesture.

Despite the criminal charges against Aung San Suu Kyi ahead of the planned elections next year, Washington has so far been unusually restrained in criticising the military junta.

But to what extent the new administration will tolerate the continued human rights violation in Myanmar is everyone's guess given that too long a silence will only cast doubt on Obama's credentials as an advocate for democratic change.

US-China detente

China, while welcoming US détente, is cautiously optimistic, hoping that the new approach will not harm its interests since so much has been invested in Myanmar.

Meanwhile, Indonesia, being the "first among equals" in the region, is tilting towards the US and other powers in view of the rising influence of China.

Jakarta is no doubt a friendly partner to Beijing, but it also wants to ensure its own position as an anchor in the region.

That in 2007, Indonesia bought military supplies from Russia, with more to come, is telling.

Geopolitical competition has long been a reality in Southeast Asia since time immemorial. But what is certain now is that quite a number of the regional countries do not want to put all the eggs in one basket, be it China or the US.

If not handled carefully, the new direction taken by Obama could potentially bring about conflict with China.

After all, being caught between two big powers is something that Asean as a whole has been working profusely to avoid since the 1990s.