Jaw-jaw is far better than war-war

SINGAPORE: The world today is divided into three broad regions, the former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said recently. The first consists of revolutionary states still in the process of being formed. The second is the established world of America and Europe, where conflicts are largely economic, not military. And third is Asia, where neighbors see one another as opponents and threats, "much as European nations did in the 19th century".

Dr Kissinger's characterization of Asia is especially chilling for, if true, it suggests that Asia may have to traverse the same bloody trajectory Europe did before it arrived at its present stage. Just as the Europe of the 19th century was but a prologue to the cataclysm of the World War I, the present structure of Asia may well be a prologue to devastating intra-Asian conflicts some time in this century. As unlikely as this scenario seems, a cursory look at the map will suffice to indicate it cannot be discounted.

Three large and powerful nations straddle the Asian continent: China, India and Japan. The last is already an economic superpower, and has the capacity to become, if it wishes, a major military power.

The other two are already regional powers, and their capacity to project their forces well beyond their borders may well be augmented in the coming decades, especially if their economies develop as expected. One of the three, Japan, conquered almost all of East Asia, including most of China, just six decades ago; and the other two, China and India, went to war just four decades ago.

If not for the United States, whose presence in the Western Pacific acts as a general emollient, relations between China and Japan, never warm in the best of circumstances, can easily degenerate into outright hostility.

As for China and India, their concentration on their own domestic problems and the difficulties of economic development have helped to keep their differences with each other within bounds, but border disagreements and the Indo-Pakistani conflict continue to bedevil their relationship.

It is in this context that last week's visit to New Delhi of China's second-ranking leader, Li Peng, is significant. A single such visit will not be enough to establish a strategic partnership between the two, or even resolve their many long- standing disputes, but it is a step in the right direction.

Trade between the two can be increased; tourism can be nurtured; and they can co-operate to build roads and railways to link northern India and southern China. Such cooperation can not only be economically beneficial, it can also create a better environment for the resolution of the border disputes between the two.

Though it is unlikely that India will accept any time soon China's de facto occupation of Ladakh, a region neighboring Kashmir, or that China will forgo its own claim to some 90,000 sq km of the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, negotiations can still proceed on other less contentious border issues.

If, for instance, the two countries can agree to a clearly- drawn border along the so-called "middle sector" along the Himalayas, they can then reduce their troop deployments in that area, and move on to resolve more complicated security issues.

Top of the list would be an understanding of each other's nuclear strategies, a matter of the utmost urgency now, especially if India does continue with its nuclear program.

Since it is better to jaw-jaw than war-war, as Winston Churchill put it once, all Asians should be grateful that Chinese and Indian leaders are at least talking regularly to each other now, instead of talking past each other.

-- The Straits Times/Asia News Network