A gathering of Asian and US diplomats, economists and academics in Honolulu, Hawaii, came to the surprising conclusion that no Asian nation is willing or able to assume leadership in Asia despite the economic and political progress of recent decades.
The Asian delegates and US “Asia hands” agreed that China is not ready, Japan is not willing and that India is just emerging onto the world stage, while the US is preoccupied with Afghanistan, the Middle East and the economy. Moreover, Asian international organizations such as ASEAN have so far shown themselves to be mostly talk shops.
Most of those in the conference asserted that peace and prosperity in Asia would be best served by a balance of power, especially between China and the US. No one suggested that Beijing and Washington forge a condominium over Asia but all agreed that armed conflict would be disastrous.
This consensus was surprising because a widening view among Asian leaders asserts that power is shifting from West to East.
Kishore Mahbubani, a prominent Singaporean diplomat and scholar, has explored this thesis in a book entitled The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Power to the East.
The Asian and US delegates in Honolulu met in a senior policy seminar at the East-West Center, a research and education organization funded largely by the US Congress. Under the conference rules, speakers and those who took part in the discussion cannot be identified, supposedly to encourage candor.
“China is not oriented toward foreign policy but is obsessed with domestic issues, somewhat like the United States,” an Asian delegate said.
China’s first major venture into international relations — leading the six-party talks among China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, the US and North Korea to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons — has gone nowhere in six years.
Internal dissent in China was underscored by uprisings in Tibet last year and in Xinjiang earlier this year. The worldwide economic crisis has hit China hard and driven the government, always anxious about its hold on power, to adopt a 10-point stimulus program. Abroad, territorial disputes have caused fear of China, especially in Southeast Asia.
Japan, still wrapped in the passive cocoon into which it retreated after the devastating defeat of World War II, is constrained by its divisive politics. In the last three years, Tokyo has seen three prime ministers, four foreign ministers and six defense ministers. The long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is predicted to lose to the untested Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) in the election set for Aug. 30.
“The DPJ is a hodge-podge of old-line Socialists and deserters from the LDP and thus split,” an Asian delegate said. “Its leaders lack experience in government and have failed to cultivate the bureaucrats who really run things in Japan. It will have a rough time governing.”
As a potential leader, India was barely mentioned.
“India is in the equation for the first time,” said an American, lamenting the lack of attention to India.
A US military officer said that relations between Indian and US military forces had expanded.
“India,” he said, “is getting out and about.”
Some Asian and US delegates said that the US was declining in power, with US forces spread thin around the world and the economy troubled at home. Others disagreed.
“Are we seeing the twilight of the US in Asia?” an American asked.
His answer: “No, we are not withdrawing.”
Several speakers contended that the administration of former US president George W. Bush had neglected Asia while the administration of US President Barack Obama was seeking to reverse that perception.
“America has been like Rip Van Winkle, sleeping under a tree,” an American delegate said. “Now he’s awake but we have to see what he actually does.”
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer in Hawaii.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing