The ninth ASEAN summit was held in Indonesia on Oct. 7 and Oct. 8. Asia-Pacific countries pay attention to each summit's political and economic agenda, but the occasion also provides a venue for diplomatic wrangling. ASEAN is more than just a forum for talks, and every Asia-Pacific power tries to manipulate the organization for its own ends. The alliance may not be able to dominate the reorganization of the economic and political order in the region, but it no doubt presents an opportunity for leaders to meet.
Despite the anti-terrorism significance attached to the summit, Southeast Asian countries had high expectations for the event, hoping to build a highly-integrated ASEAN community and create a "New ASEAN."
ASEAN seems to be ready for new leadership, with Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad due to retire at the end of this month. ASEAN is unlikely to lead the region, yet it certainly plays a key role in the Asia-Pacific region. No country aiming at becoming a regional hegemony could afford to lose this ally or neglect its intentions. ASEAN at this year's summit fully exploited its position; it made itself the focal point of Asia-Pacific diplomatic maneuverings and director of the region's political and economic development.
With such influence, ASEAN does not really care about obtaining a leading role in the region.
Basically, ASEAN adopts a two-tier diplomatic strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. On the one hand, it treats strong external powers on the same friendly terms. On the other hand, it strengthens internal integration to raise its status and bargaining power in the region.
In terms of external relations, ASEAN leaders held a meeting with the leaders of China, Japan, South Korea and India. It is the first time that a summit was held between the Southeast Asian body and India. Both China and India joined ASEAN's 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, becoming the first two non-ASEAN countries to sign the deal.
Obviously, ASEAN attempted to draw India to its side in an effort to balance the burgeoning might of China, which is no longer containable by Japan and South Korea. Only with India's support can ASEAN feel secure. Not only China's long-time enemy, India also provides opportunities for Southeast Asian enterprises.
The first ASEAN Business and Investment Summit was held during the summit to dissuade investors from transferring their capital from Southeast Asia to China and India, where labor costs are relatively low. This move marks a milestone for ASEAN businesses. ASEAN members also pushed for economic integration to cope with competition from large economies like China and India. It also promoted the idea of establishing an economic community to enhance its competitiveness.
More importantly, ASEAN emphasized that it would not become a bloc creating trade barriers. It promised to maintain close contact and build business links with dialogue partners as well as other countries with a positive and open attitude.
ASEAN can be expected to smartly apply its diplomatic tactics to the formulation of its economic strategies, striking a balance between openness and protectionism under the free-trade framework. Challenges awaiting the new ASEAN leadership are not just regional changes in politics and the economy but also global development and deployment. Speeding up ASEAN's integration in economy, security and social development will be the key to its prosperity.
Taiwan could be marginalized in the face of a new ASEAN. A highly integrated Southeast Asia may not be good for Taiwan's regional development, as it may encourage Taiwanese businessmen to invest westward and southward in pursuit of markets and better margins.
However, since ASEAN attempts to deploy globally, attract foreign investment and integrate anti-terrorism and security efforts, it will put more emphasis on regional openness and its strength in global deployment. Therefore, Taiwan still stands a good chance if it can link with ASEAN and establish a reliable, reciprocal partnership during its regional and global deployment.
Soong Jenn-jaw is a professor at the Institute of Political Economy of National Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS