|
|
|
|
Web-only Exclusives November 30, 2000 From Our Correspondent: Hirohito and the War A conversation with biographer Herbert Bix From Our Correspondent: A Rough Road Ahead Bad news for the Philippines - and some others From Our Correspondent: Making Enemies Indonesia needs friends. So why is it picking fights? |
DECEMBER 10, 1999 VOL. 25 NO. 49
Common Interests
The time is ripe for an East Asian economic grouping
ALSO IN ASIAWEEK
| |
|
Indeed, recent events have given fresh impetus to such ideas. A major catalyst was the infamous Asian financial crisis. Now that its worst effects are passing, the region's embattled leaders are able to get their heads above the roiling waters long enough to start thinking again about longer-term solutions. Although the Crisis affected countries differently, it nonetheless underscored East Asia's commonality of interests. Also exposed was the fact that the region lacked a forum under whose aegis all its nations could meet to discuss, formulate and coordinate effective approaches to common problems. The time is now ripe to lay the foundations of such a grouping.
Another spur toward closer ties between ASEAN and its northern neighbors was the recent Sino-U.S. accord over the terms of Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization. And China's entry will shortly be followed by that of Taiwan. Ever since Deng Xiaoping began his landmark reforms two decades ago, China has been moving toward free markets. But its joining of the world trade body means that its economy will come to resemble even more closely those of the other East Asian countries. That will both break down barriers between China and its neighbors, and increase competition among them. While acknowledging the potential challenge, Premier Zhu Rongji said WTO membership for China would "offer basically a positive impact" on Southeast Asia. It will also intensify the need for a truly region-wide economic dialogue.
Nor is Mahathir the only Asian leader openly plugging an East Asian grouping. He has been joined by South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, who commands great respect across the region. In an interview with the Bangkok Post, Kim strongly pushed a forum that would group China, Japan and South Korea with ASEAN. "In the 1980s and early 1990s South Koreans thought of Asia with a certain distance," he said. "In the late 1990s we came to realize how wrong this was in times of mutual interest and concerns." Kim also suggested bringing North Korea into the East Asian dialogue.
Mahathir's EAEC proposal had been sidetracked in part by opposition from the United States. Washington favored a more broadly based body such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, first proposed by Australia. But in recent years, the gloss has come off APEC. Those who originally argued that it was too diffuse to be useful may have been right. Certainly, it proved of little help to Asia during the Crisis.
Since then, the Americans seem to have relaxed their attitude toward a regional grouping from which they would be formally excluded. That is evident from their acquiescence to the idea, mooted in Manila, of creating a standby emergency fund to forestall another region-wide financial upheaval. When the Crisis erupted in 1997, the U.S. had effectively torpedoed a similar proposal by Japan. Besides, Washington can bat for its own interests by participating as a dialogue partner, much as it has been doing in the ASEAN Regional Forum on security.
Kim is right in arguing that a more cohesive East Asian grouping could hammer out common approaches to, say, the WTO. It would also be able to speak for the region in discussions with other major economic blocs, such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why should Asia, alone among the three "poles" of the global economy, not have its own grouping? The addition of China, Japan and Korea to ASEAN would allow the region to make its presence truly felt in world councils. Much further down the road, common Asian market and currency may emerge.
The grouping will not emerge overnight. East Asia's diversity ensures that any consensus will be slow. Indeed, the mooted forum doesn't even have a name yet (beyond the clunker "ASEAN Plus Three"). The new grouping should play down politics, which tends to divide countries, and accentuate economics. A prime example is the contentious Spratlys issue. In Manila, China's reservations stalled an ASEAN initiative to formulate a "code of conduct" for the disputed islands. (The Chinese, however, agreed to freeze any further moves to create a presence on the Spratlys and to discuss the matter in multilateral forums.) It will take time before all parties are comfortable with conversations about politics and security.
ASEAN itself began life as a purely economic organization. But that did not prevent it from taking up political questions, as the need arose - and as members developed mutual trust. A case in point was Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia. Yet, given the huge differences among member nations at the outset, ASEAN would not have got off the ground if it had billed itself as a political organization. Any new forum encompassing all East Asia would do well to heed that experience.
 |
Asiaweek Newsmap: Get the week's leading news stories, by region, from Newsmap
