Regional cooperation in East Asia

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.