This weekend's ASEAN summit produced a few notable accomplishments, such as moving up the timetable for the reduction of tariffs on intra-regional trade. The crisis in Aceh was also on the agenda, continuing the gradual erosion of the tiresome doctrine of political non-intervention.
By far the biggest headline-grabber, however, was the special invitation of the leaders of Japan, China, and South Korea to join with ASEAN in a joint declaration of the desire to form an "East Asian community." The summit cheerleaders eagerly went on about how economic integration would overcome historical distrust, and how regional unity would make Asia a "big player" on the world stage, alongside Europe and North America.
A pipe dream, if ever there was one.
It is true that the European case demonstrates what integration can accomplish. As highly skilled ASEAN diplomats reminded us, the nations of Europe historically were, if anything, even more prone to conflict than those of East Asia.
But the analogy cannot be stretched to cover East Asia. This region lacks several of the basic prerequisites that made the European project viable; without these, it is hard to see how any East Asian version could be crafted.
First, at the end of World War II, Europeans had fought until they literally could fight no more, creating a deep-seated aversion to any future conflict. Second, before even the immediate effects of the war had worn off, Western European minds were focused by the massive external threat from the Soviet Union. Third, the United States took control of all security matters through NATO, freeing the agenda for the integrationists to focus on economic and social matters. Fourth, European integration has been based on a common civilization, Latin Christendom; the resistance to include even Orthodox Christian countries, much less Muslim ones, is striking.
In the Greater East Asia on offer this weekend, none of these characteristics exist. First, the two chief historical enemies and rivals for regional leadership, Japan and China, were certainly terribly devastated in WWII; however, rather than appearing bent on making peace, Japan has displayed a cagey avoidance of war guilt while China has been gripped by a rising aggressive nationalism -- disturbingly, rather more like Europe after WWI.
When the geopolitical environment is considered, the forecast for integration becomes bleak. The East Asian region faces no external threat to override local hostilities; nor is there any security architecture to take the place of NATO. The US performs some of the same role through its alliances with Japan and certain other countries, but the primary potential foe is China. In fact, ASEAN itself was conceived as an anti-communist bloc; today, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the admission of Vietnam, the security glue holding the organization together is the Chinese threat. Indeed, at the very meeting when this grandiose scheme was being announced, China was refusing to sign even the most watered-down code of conduct in the South China Sea.
Finally, there is a gaping hole in the grand unification plan -- Taiwan. Geographically, Taiwan is located square in the middle of the proposed "community," straddling the communication lines between Northeast and Southeast Asia. Economically, Taiwan is a major player, ranking at least third in foreign investment to ASEAN. Even culturally, Taiwan is the most suitable bridge between the North and the South.
Of course, politically, ASEAN leaders decided to exclude Taiwan for fear of offending China. Which just goes to prove that such a "Sinophobic Union" can hardly be considered ready for regional cooperation.
Over the past 30 years, ASEAN has made genuine progress towards reducing tensions in Southeast Asia. Its architects should focus on that job, and leave the fantasies to others.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with