The historically significant East Asian Summit (EAS) has finally been held in Kuala Lumpur. Sixteen heads of state attended the summit. In addition to stating the goal of forming an East Asian Community, the joint declaration issued after the summit contained another interesting item: the EAS will be directed by ASEAN, and the annual EAS summit will be held simultaneously with, and in the same location as, the ASEAN summit.
This conclusion was quite unexpected and it immediately detracts from the importance of the EAS, because it basically means that the 10 member states of "ASEAN plus three" -- China, Japan and South Korea -- has simply been expanded by the addition of India, Australia and New Zealand.
When the news that there would be an EAS spread throughout the region a year ago, it resulted in some commotion and it was said that it would be a grand occasion for East Asia. All the relevant countries said they would participate, and research institutions and academics wrote articles predicting the character and direction of the summit. All the major economic powers competed to make their stance known. China, for example, relied on the prestige bestowed upon it by its economic development to lend enthusiastic support to the summit and said that it would host the second summit.
Even Japan, which had in the past always refused to participate in this kind of regional economic organization, was persuaded to participate. The Japanese made careful preparations and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said before the summit that Japan is planning to use the EAS to establish an assistance framework for regional development. On Dec. 9, he said in an interview with Bernama, the Malasian national news agency, that the framework would be realized through research in three main areas, namely: regional opening; respecting the common values of democracy, human rights and the WTO's global regulations; and promoting practical cooperation in socio-economic affairs and non-traditional security areas. Japan will not be afraid of paying the price of abandoning the US to participate in the EAS.
Australia had originally not planned on signing the EAS' Treaty on Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), but they did not want to miss the opportunity offered by the first EAS, and were eager to participate. ASEAN then set conditions for Australian participation, saying that only by signing the TAC would Australia be allowed to participate. The Australians had no choice but to comply.
Once the major economic powers had met ASEAN's conditions and gained admittance to the EAS, they happily traveled to Kuala Lumpur, thinking that they would in future be able to throw their weight about and play the role of an East Asian leader. Nor did these economic powers forget to jockey for position in an attempt to gain a preeminent position.
Unexpectedly, the East Asian states, always planning and scheming, declared that EAS will be led by ASEAN, and that future summits will be held in ASEAN states. This was a sly gamble and ASEAN defeated the major economic powers that had been so eager to try their luck. The future direction and progress of the EAS will now be determined by ASEAN, something that surely vexes China, Japan and Australia.
The chairman's statement after the EAS stressed that the summit was an open and outward-looking organization. After the summit, some ASEAN leaders also stressed that the EAS is not an anti-US group, nor is it a racist organization, as shown by the admittance of Australia and New Zealand. If these statements were true, then there would be no reason to exclude the US or other nations such as Taiwan, North Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan, East Timor, Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea from the outset. In other words, from the beginning, the summit has made careful deliberations when it comes to the issue of membership. The main reason for admitting India, Australia and New Zealand was to counterbalance China, South Korea and Japan.
Judging from the structure of ASEAN-related meetings, the EAS is nothing more than ASEAN plus six more states. There is a serious overlap with ASEAN plus three and to differentiate the two, Singapore Prime Minister Li Hsien Loong (李顯龍) explained that the two will be separated by issues. In other words, ASEAN plus three will discuss the development of information technology and human resources, while ASEAN plus six will discuss anti-terrorism, naval security and international crime.
This explanation is tantamount to revealing ASEAN's difficult situation as a powerful regional organization that is nevertheless restricted in terms of the issues it can discuss. ASEAN's self-centered handling of the EAS has actually landed the organization in unexpected trouble.
It could be said that these developments are belittling the EAS. If ASEAN had from the outset intended to really open up the EAS, it should have let it become a true East Asian organization, with nations from throughout the region enjoying equal membership and rotating hosting rights. That is the only way of giving the organization historic significance and value.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of political history at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS