Regional cooperation in East Asia

By Eiichi Furukawa

TOKYO (JP): At an international symposium held in Tokyo on May 17, the Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos called for creation of an organization for political cooperation in Asia.

He said that it was for the purpose of reflecting more accurately the intensity of economic and security interdependence in Asia at large.

At the same conference, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad declared that the time had come for the East Asian leaders to launch an action for true peace and friendship, implying the creation of a regional forum for political and security consultations.

Mahathir further said that this idea does not imply disregard of friends and partners outside region or abandoning the achievements already contributing to peace in the region. These achievements were only to be further strengthened.

It probably meant that by creating a new forum, the relations of the East Asian countries with the U.S. and other non-regional countries would not change, nor the importance of such regional bodies as the ASEAN, the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and other bilateral and multilateral defense agreements, which cover East Asia, would change.

Then, why did the two leaders put forward identical ideas at the same conference? In the first place, the East Asia Economic Caucus has finally come to take off this year through the meeting of the leaders of the East Asian countries to be held in Indonesia in December.

Secondly, a group conscience of the East Asian countries was consolidated at the Asia-Europe summit meeting which was held in Bangkok in March this year, when the East Asian group participated on an equal footing with the EU group.

Thirdly, the basic concept of maintaining international security has been changed after the end of the Cold War. The concept of balance of power which was considered most important for international security is now being replaced by the concept of accommodation.

Looking at the present situation in East Asia, there are three states of affair in existence. First, in the Southeast Asian region, there is an unprecedented peace. There is, therefore, almost no use for the conventional strategy of balance of power.

Second, China's relations with the neighboring and other regional countries have now taken a generally right direction. The need for use of force and balance of power have become much limited, and the main agenda today should be promotion of the policy of accommodation.

The situation in North Korea, which is a hangover from the Cold War days, is the only case in which use of force and balance of power are still required. However, the need for balance of power has now been much reduced due to changes in the international environment.

North Korea no longer receives support from either the Soviet Union/Russia or China. Instead, these two countries have established diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea (ROK). On the other hand, the military capability and overall national power of ROK have been greatly strengthened.

The security and defense system of one country should be constructed on the international as well as the national level. On the international level there are bilateral, subregional, medium-size regional, and large-regional mechanisms. In Europe there is a three-layered system.

First, there is an EU-WEU defense cooperation system comprised of members from the West European countries. Further, there is the NATO Alliance whose membership adds the U.S. and Canada. Finally there is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which further includes Russia, the Baltic states, and the Central and East European countries.

On the other hand, in East Asia, there is the ASEAN as a subregional group, and the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) as a large regional group.

A large regional group has its merits in covering security issues of a large area, because a security issue of one sub- region is more or less the concern of other sub-regions.

A large regional group invites the participation of a subregional group. It is also more suitable for a balance of power policy because it can make use of strong military power of major non-regional countries.

Since the need for use of force and balance of power in East Asia is rapidly diminishing, there is a necessity for defining the role of a large regional group. Such a group is still important for assisting regional countries in upgrading their military proficiency.

It is also useful for promoting accommodation between countries of one regional group and those of another. However, in accommodating members of the same regional group, its use is still limited.

Finally, since the great number of members, a large grouping is inevitably big. Thus, the efficiency in consultations and other activities will be reduced.

A smaller size groups becomes necessary for the following reasons:

In many cases, smaller groups can work more efficiently because of their size. Also, since all members come from a same region, they can better understand each other and can talk on a more intimate level.

Furthermore, members will be more serious in solving disputes since none of them can resort to the assistance or intervention of an outside major power.

These are in fact the reasons why in Europe there are three layered security and defense systems at present. By the same token, there is a need for an East Asia grouping for political and security cooperation apart from the ASEAN and the ARF.

Prime Minister Mahathir also said that an East Asia group is an extension and expansion of the idea and function of the ASEAN which have been so successful in maintaining peace and stability among the Southeast Asian countries in the past 29 years. Why has it been so successful?

After the end of the World War II, a new concept of security structure emerged in the world. Before that, in Europe, France and Germany waged three wars in 126 years.

The Prussia-Franco war in 1870-71, World War I in 1914-18 and World War II in 1939-45.

In three wars, France was always the victim of German occupation. However, after the end of World War II, it was France which offered an olive branch to Germany with which the European integration began.

The Franco-German cooperation was inaugurated in 1963 by the Elize treaty, and the European brigade was formed by two the countries in 1990.

Such development of relations between the two countries completely denies the conventional concept of balance of power, which existed in Europe before World War II and particularly in the 19th century. As far as Western Europe is concerned, there is no role today for the so-called balancers such as Britain, in the 19th, or America in the first half of the 20th century.

In Southeast Asia, after President Sukarno's confrontational policy collapsed in 1965, and Vietnam expanded in the same year, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded in 1967. One of the key principles of the ASEAN has been that member countries do not confront each other, and solve any dispute among them by quiet diplomacy or by putting the matter on the shelf.

The second principle has been not to rely on intervention from non-regional big powers. In 1971, the ASEAN foreign ministers issued a declaration on a zone of freedom, peace and neutrality (ZOPFAN).

These principles worked very well in the past 29 years. No dispute among member countries developed in a degree to which normal relations between the member countries were jeopardized, except some cases for a brief period of time.

The above principles may be called a concept of accommodation. During the Cold War, due to state of confrontation based on ideological differences between the communist camp and the free world, the concept of balance of power prevailed throughout the world, including East Asia.

On Aug. 11, last year, the representatives of China and the Philippines agreed to an eight point code of conduct concerning the Spratly Islands. Thereby tensions between the two countries, caused by Chinese construction of metal buildings on the Mischief rock, were defused.

This modus vivendi was possible because the two countries negotiated without the intervention of outside powers. The U.S. government informed the government of the Philippines that it would not apply the U.S - Philippines mutual defense treaty to the Spratly Islands issue.

The U.S. said that this treaty was signed before the Philippines declared territorial sovereignty over a large portion of the Spratly Islands. Hence, both China and the Philippines should negotiate calmly, leaving aside the state prestige and national emotion. The ASEAN played an important role in influencing the Chinese position in this process.

The policy of balance of power is still applied more often than it is really necessary. It has strong psychological effects, because people do not change their habit of thinking easily. However, there are some signs of change.

A large number of commentators argue that the East Asian countries want and support continuation of the U.S. military presence in Asia or East Asia.

However, after withdrawal from the Clark air base and Subic bay naval base in the Philippines in November 1992, the U.S. government proposed a number of agreements for setting up and propositioning stock facilities.

These are for the purpose of providing logistic support to the activities of the U.S. forces. There were no countries, except a few, which agreed to the U.S. proposals.

While the Philippines agreed to negotiate on ACSA, the negotiations have been stalled for more than two years. Only Japan signed the agreement during President Clinton's visit to Japan in April.

Singapore has been most appreciative of the U.S. proposal by accepting the 150 U.S. forces for cases of emergency. Indonesia and Malaysia protested against Singapore's agreement to allow the U.S. forces to be stationed in the country, and Singapore accordingly reduced the size of the U.S. forces.

The U.S. side insists that the U.S. naval ships obtain an accesses to Indonesian and Malaysian shipyards (Surabaya and Luputo respectively) for repair and maintenance services. However, the two countries argued that allowing such an access should be for commercial purposes and with no political or military implications.

Now, the Governor and people of Okinawa, Japan strongly wish that a unit of the U.S. marine corps in Okinawa be relocated. There is, however, no governor, mayor, or local people in Japan who are willing to accept the relocation of the marine corps unit.

It was found that no country in East Area was willing to accept it either. It is said that even the Australians, were it not for the Labor Government, would not have wished for presence of the U.S. military unit. Only the governor of Hawaii publicly announced that Hawaii wished to invite the marine corps unit of Okinawa to his island state.

The leaders and commentators of some Southeast Asian countries say that they want the American military presence in Asia. But they do not want it in their own countries. They want the U.S. forces to be stationed in some other countries in the region, the Hawaii or the west coast of the U.S., so that they can come to help as a last resort in a time of emergency.

The writer is Director of Japan Center for International Strategies.

Window: The policy of balance of power is still applied more often than it is really necessary. It has strong psychological effects, because people do not change their habit of thinking easily.