Regional cooperation in East Asia<\/p>\n
By Eiichi Furukawa<\/p>\n
TOKYO (JP): At an international symposium held in Tokyo on May
\n17, the Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos called for creation
\nof an organization for political cooperation in Asia.<\/p>\n
He said that it was for the purpose of reflecting more
\naccurately the intensity of economic and security interdependence
\nin Asia at large.<\/p>\n
At the same conference, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
\nMohamad declared that the time had come for the East Asian
\nleaders to launch an action for true peace and friendship,
\nimplying the creation of a regional forum for political and
\nsecurity consultations.<\/p>\n
Mahathir further said that this idea does not imply disregard
\nof friends and partners outside region or abandoning the
\nachievements already contributing to peace in the region. These
\nachievements were only to be further strengthened.<\/p>\n
It probably meant that by creating a new forum, the relations
\nof the East Asian countries with the U.S. and other non-regional
\ncountries would not change, nor the importance of such regional
\nbodies as the ASEAN, the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference, the
\nASEAN Regional Forum, and other bilateral and multilateral
\ndefense agreements, which cover East Asia, would change.<\/p>\n
Then, why did the two leaders put forward identical ideas at
\nthe same conference? In the first place, the East Asia Economic
\nCaucus has finally come to take off this year through the meeting
\nof the leaders of the East Asian countries to be held in
\nIndonesia in December.<\/p>\n
Secondly, a group conscience of the East Asian countries was
\nconsolidated at the Asia-Europe summit meeting which was held in
\nBangkok in March this year, when the East Asian group
\nparticipated on an equal footing with the EU group.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, the basic concept of maintaining international
\nsecurity has been changed after the end of the Cold War. The
\nconcept of balance of power which was considered most important
\nfor international security is now being replaced by the concept
\nof accommodation.<\/p>\n
Looking at the present situation in East Asia, there are three
\nstates of affair in existence. First, in the Southeast Asian
\nregion, there is an unprecedented peace. There is, therefore,
\nalmost no use for the conventional strategy of balance of power.<\/p>\n
Second, China's relations with the neighboring and other
\nregional countries have now taken a generally right direction.
\nThe need for use of force and balance of power have become much
\nlimited, and the main agenda today should be promotion of the
\npolicy of accommodation.<\/p>\n
The situation in North Korea, which is a hangover from the
\nCold War days, is the only case in which use of force and balance
\nof power are still required. However, the need for balance of
\npower has now been much reduced due to changes in the
\ninternational environment.<\/p>\n
North Korea no longer receives support from either the Soviet
\nUnion\/Russia or China. Instead, these two countries have
\nestablished diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea
\n(ROK). On the other hand, the military capability and overall
\nnational power of ROK have been greatly strengthened.<\/p>\n
The security and defense system of one country should be
\nconstructed on the international as well as the national level.
\nOn the international level there are bilateral, subregional,
\nmedium-size regional, and large-regional mechanisms. In Europe
\nthere is a three-layered system.<\/p>\n
First, there is an EU-WEU defense cooperation system comprised
\nof members from the West European countries. Further, there is
\nthe NATO Alliance whose membership adds the U.S. and Canada.
\nFinally there is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
\nEurope which further includes Russia, the Baltic states, and the
\nCentral and East European countries.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, in East Asia, there is the ASEAN as a
\nsubregional group, and the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) as a large
\nregional group.<\/p>\n
A large regional group has its merits in covering security
\nissues of a large area, because a security issue of one sub-
\nregion is more or less the concern of other sub-regions.<\/p>\n
A large regional group invites the participation of a
\nsubregional group. It is also more suitable for a balance of
\npower policy because it can make use of strong military power of
\nmajor non-regional countries.<\/p>\n
Since the need for use of force and balance of power in East
\nAsia is rapidly diminishing, there is a necessity for defining
\nthe role of a large regional group. Such a group is still
\nimportant for assisting regional countries in upgrading their
\nmilitary proficiency.<\/p>\n
It is also useful for promoting accommodation between
\ncountries of one regional group and those of another. However, in
\naccommodating members of the same regional group, its use is
\nstill limited.<\/p>\n
Finally, since the great number of members, a large grouping
\nis inevitably big. Thus, the efficiency in consultations and
\nother activities will be reduced.<\/p>\n
A smaller size groups becomes necessary for the following
\nreasons:<\/p>\n
In many cases, smaller groups can work more efficiently
\nbecause of their size. Also, since all members come from a same
\nregion, they can better understand each other and can talk on a
\nmore intimate level.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, members will be more serious in solving disputes
\nsince none of them can resort to the assistance or intervention
\nof an outside major power.<\/p>\n
These are in fact the reasons why in Europe there are three
\nlayered security and defense systems at present. By the same
\ntoken, there is a need for an East Asia grouping for political
\nand security cooperation apart from the ASEAN and the ARF.<\/p>\n
Prime Minister Mahathir also said that an East Asia group is
\nan extension and expansion of the idea and function of the ASEAN
\nwhich have been so successful in maintaining peace and stability
\namong the Southeast Asian countries in the past 29 years. Why has
\nit been so successful?<\/p>\n
After the end of the World War II, a new concept of security
\nstructure emerged in the world. Before that, in Europe, France
\nand Germany waged three wars in 126 years.<\/p>\n
The Prussia-Franco war in 1870-71, World War I in 1914-18 and
\nWorld War II in 1939-45.<\/p>\n
In three wars, France was always the victim of German
\noccupation. However, after the end of World War II, it was France
\nwhich offered an olive branch to Germany with which the European
\nintegration began.<\/p>\n
The Franco-German cooperation was inaugurated in 1963 by the
\nElize treaty, and the European brigade was formed by two the
\ncountries in 1990.<\/p>\n
Such development of relations between the two countries
\ncompletely denies the conventional concept of balance of power,
\nwhich existed in Europe before World War II and particularly in
\nthe 19th century. As far as Western Europe is concerned, there is
\nno role today for the so-called balancers such as Britain, in the
\n19th, or America in the first half of the 20th century.<\/p>\n
In Southeast Asia, after President Sukarno's confrontational
\npolicy collapsed in 1965, and Vietnam expanded in the same year,
\nthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded in
\n1967. One of the key principles of the ASEAN has been that member
\ncountries do not confront each other, and solve any dispute among
\nthem by quiet diplomacy or by putting the matter on the shelf.<\/p>\n
The second principle has been not to rely on intervention from
\nnon-regional big powers. In 1971, the ASEAN foreign ministers
\nissued a declaration on a zone of freedom, peace and neutrality
\n(ZOPFAN).<\/p>\n
These principles worked very well in the past 29 years. No
\ndispute among member countries developed in a degree to which
\nnormal relations between the member countries were jeopardized,
\nexcept some cases for a brief period of time.<\/p>\n
The above principles may be called a concept of accommodation.
\nDuring the Cold War, due to state of confrontation based on
\nideological differences between the communist camp and the free
\nworld, the concept of balance of power prevailed throughout the
\nworld, including East Asia.<\/p>\n
On Aug. 11, last year, the representatives of China and the
\nPhilippines agreed to an eight point code of conduct concerning
\nthe Spratly Islands. Thereby tensions between the two countries,
\ncaused by Chinese construction of metal buildings on the Mischief
\nrock, were defused.<\/p>\n
This modus vivendi was possible because the two countries
\nnegotiated without the intervention of outside powers. The U.S.
\ngovernment informed the government of the Philippines that it
\nwould not apply the U.S - Philippines mutual defense treaty to
\nthe Spratly Islands issue.<\/p>\n
The U.S. said that this treaty was signed before the
\nPhilippines declared territorial sovereignty over a large portion
\nof the Spratly Islands. Hence, both China and the Philippines
\nshould negotiate calmly, leaving aside the state prestige and
\nnational emotion. The ASEAN played an important role in
\ninfluencing the Chinese position in this process.<\/p>\n
The policy of balance of power is still applied more often
\nthan it is really necessary. It has strong psychological effects,
\nbecause people do not change their habit of thinking easily.
\nHowever, there are some signs of change.<\/p>\n
A large number of commentators argue that the East Asian
\ncountries want and support continuation of the U.S. military
\npresence in Asia or East Asia.<\/p>\n
However, after withdrawal from the Clark air base and Subic
\nbay naval base in the Philippines in November 1992, the U.S.
\ngovernment proposed a number of agreements for setting up and
\npropositioning stock facilities.<\/p>\n
These are for the purpose of providing logistic support to the
\nactivities of the U.S. forces. There were no countries, except a
\nfew, which agreed to the U.S. proposals.<\/p>\n
While the Philippines agreed to negotiate on ACSA, the
\nnegotiations have been stalled for more than two years. Only
\nJapan signed the agreement during President Clinton's visit to
\nJapan in April.<\/p>\n
Singapore has been most appreciative of the U.S. proposal by
\naccepting the 150 U.S. forces for cases of emergency. Indonesia
\nand Malaysia protested against Singapore's agreement to allow the
\nU.S. forces to be stationed in the country, and Singapore
\naccordingly reduced the size of the U.S. forces.<\/p>\n
The U.S. side insists that the U.S. naval ships obtain an
\naccesses to Indonesian and Malaysian shipyards (Surabaya and
\nLuputo respectively) for repair and maintenance services.
\nHowever, the two countries argued that allowing such an access
\nshould be for commercial purposes and with no political or
\nmilitary implications.<\/p>\n
Now, the Governor and people of Okinawa, Japan strongly wish
\nthat a unit of the U.S. marine corps in Okinawa be relocated.
\nThere is, however, no governor, mayor, or local people in Japan
\nwho are willing to accept the relocation of the marine corps
\nunit.<\/p>\n
It was found that no country in East Area was willing to
\naccept it either. It is said that even the Australians, were it
\nnot for the Labor Government, would not have wished for presence
\nof the U.S. military unit. Only the governor of Hawaii publicly
\nannounced that Hawaii wished to invite the marine corps unit of
\nOkinawa to his island state.<\/p>\n
The leaders and commentators of some Southeast Asian countries
\nsay that they want the American military presence in Asia. But
\nthey do not want it in their own countries. They want the U.S.
\nforces to be stationed in some other countries in the region, the
\nHawaii or the west coast of the U.S., so that they can come to
\nhelp as a last resort in a time of emergency.<\/p>\n
The writer is Director of Japan Center for International
\nStrategies.<\/p>\n
Window: The policy of balance of power is still applied more often
\nthan it is really necessary. It has strong psychological effects,
\nbecause people do not change their habit of thinking easily.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/regional-cooperation-in-east-asia-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}