SE Asia's future ties with West (2)

This is the second of two articles based on a paper presented by Indonesian Ambassador to the European Union, Adrianus Mooy at the Fuji-Wolfensohn European Advisory Board Meeting in London on Nov. 18.

LONDON: Luckily all is not bad news when extrapolating the future from past experiences. There are also developments that have sown early seeds of hope and promise, though they will need careful nurturing and cultivation to bear fruit.

The first hopeful development I see is the advent of APEC -- the forum of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Without diminishing the contribution of other regional forums in international relations, notably the unprecedented political and economic experiment that is the European Union, APEC stands out as a promising development for the future for a number of reasons.

For one, it is -- in a sense -- a microcosm of the global village in that it holds together disparate nations with varying levels of economic development as well as different applications of democracy and terms of political stability. It is, in other words, not a homogeneous rich man's club, nor a poor man's club but one that brings together countries in various stages of development, linked together by a desire to pool strengths and create not only mutual, but global opportunities. APEC, therefore, is a model of a forum where countries with symmetrical as well as asymmetrical levels of development can come together for dialog and cooperation.

Secondly, APEC's approach of consultation and cooperation embodies one of the creative approaches to building "win-win situations".

It is a forum that I think exemplifies a friendly approach in solving not only common problems, but problems unique to its individual members which are relevant and important to the group as a whole. It sees the need for countries to cooperate in meeting the needs of the two-way relationship between economic prosperity and political stability.

Obviously this principle remains a continuing challenge for the forum. It includes, after all, developing countries such as those in Southeast Asia and developed economies, like the United States, which have not always seen eye to eye in the pursuit of economic and political development. But I have reason to believe that important openings have been made to close the gap between traditionally conflicting attitudes.

A few weeks ago, while attending the APEC informal leadership forum in Indonesia, President Clinton reasserted American economic engagement in Asia, not by repeating the call for a mechanical linkage of economic prosperity with political standards, but in terms of greater accommodations and a desire for understanding.

He said: "I don't think we have to choose between increasing trade and fostering human rights and open societies. Experience shows us over and over again that commerce can promote cooperation, and that more prosperity helps to open societies to the world."

I see such statements as positive not because they are an accommodation of developing countries' requests, but they allow greater room for maneuver in developing constructive relationships within the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, instead of confrontation and intimidation.

Thirdly, APEC is proclaiming a profoundly interesting concept of what it calls "open regionalism". By this it means that the trade liberalization it seeks is not intended to create a new trade bloc that will only further splinter the global village, but is designed to be inclusive of others. It is still in the early stages of piecing out the practical aspects of the concept, but it is an initiative that should be welcome for the lessons it may lend to the evolving global village.

The other positive development I see is the promising recognition in the European Union of the growing economic importance of Asia, not only to the global economy, but directly to its own as well as the recognition of the role of ASEAN as a cornerstone in its dialog with Asia. This recognition is best embodied in the recently submitted proposal of the European Commission for a European Union strategy for Asia. In it, the Commission looks at Asia, between now and the year 2000, as a trading region structurally divided into four stages of economic development that will gradually converge closer to Western economic advancement by the turn of the century.

Moreover, the paper belatedly recognizes not only Asia's economic potentials but also its political uniqueness and growing importance. As the EU's Asia strategy rightly points out, "There is a shared perception in Asia that growth leads to prosperity, which in turn generates stability and security".

More significantly, the European Commission accompanies this recognition with a call for Europe to adjust its attitudes when it comes to looking at Southeast Asia. It cautions that "the presumed dependence on Europe -- whether for their capital and know-how, or as a counter-balance to Japan and the United States -- is less valid today than even five years ago." Over and over again, the Commission paper beckons the European Union to adopt a "pro-active approach" to Asia that will combine an increase of physical presence in the region with increasing dialog and consultation.

Economically, a concrete manifestation of this opportunity is the challenge of building what I call, inter-industry complementarities. Let us take the textile industry, as an example. The textile and clothing sector has traditionally been seen as a labor-intensive industry. Since cheap and substantial labor has always been seen as Southeast Asia's chief comparative advantage, the specter of Western textile industries relocating their bases to developing countries in droves typified the perspective of Southeast Asian competitiveness as a direct economic threat to the West.

The premise of this argument is flawed in a basic way. While in the traditional economic thinking this may have been plausible, the principle of comparative advantage has now shifted from one that was static to one that has become more dynamic. The textile and clothing sector can no longer be seen as a mere single, entire industry. The revolution in technology has broken down the entire industry into components and technological processes, each of which demands specific labor requirements that can be allocated to different countries possessing distinct labor expertise.

The textile industry itself will require different specializations for various production processes, ranging from fiber production to spinning, weaving, knitting, finishing, dyeing, to name only a few. The adjunct clothing industry -- involving the manufacture of garments and clothing accessories -- will likewise require other labor specialities from the design stage (which includes styling and making prototypes) to the development stage (including pattern making) to manufacturing (such as cutting, sewing, pressing and finishing), and finally marketing and distribution.

Given all these myriad processes, not to mention the components that each would require, it is almost surprising that there are still those who do not seem to appreciate the opportunities for inter-industry relationships that the textile and clothing industries represent. It is time that we stop thinking grudgingly of cheap Asian textile labor when there are labor requirements sufficient for everyone. Instead what is needed is a more pro-active perspective where both Southeast Asia and the Western world can join hands to make the textile and clothing industry work.

Asian labor can be made to focus on textile production, sewing and finishing, for example, and the West need not worry because there will be enough labor requirements for such specialized skills as designing, cutting and marketing. In the end, what is important is that the final product spells a join product.

This idea of inter-industry complementarity is not something new, but patterns like these should be promoted more, especially since the revolution in technology brings about ample room for building such constructive inter-industry relationships. Textile is but one example of an industry where such relationships can be built. With slight modifications, this principle of complementarities can apply to other industries.

By way of conclusion, allow me to recap that the global village will remain bedeviled by the challenge of uneven development between and among its inhabitants. Between Southeast Asian and the Western world, there will remain differences in approach as well as in the pace of economic and political progress. These, however, are not our main challenge. The main issue is how cooperation between us can continue to exist at these different levels.

I believe that the way to the future is to understanding that although the nature of cooperation can change, our responsibility is to ensure that it continues so that everyone is still able to feel that they belong to one group, or if you must, of the global village of which we are all a part.

Often, our mistake is to think that when we talk of the possible "relationships" between Southeast Asia and the Western world, we have the choice of only one of two extreme ends of one spectrum. On one end there is the relationship between donors and recipients; between overwhelming haves and the doleful have-nots. Indeed this has characterized the traditional relationship between the West and Asia, although it was not meant to be an end-goal by itself.

On the opposite end, there are those who talk of the relationship having advanced to the ultimate of end-goals: the relationship between equals, economically as well as politically. To my mind, the leap from one to the other is far too great, and that what we need to diffuse tensions and ease the transition is a graduation of thinking that will allow intermediate relationships to develop between these two ends of the spectrum.

One cannot phase out Southeast Asia altogether from the external priorities of the West simply because it has advanced economically and achieved a certain degree of economic self- sufficiency. For although it has reached an impressive level of growth, it needs continued support and anchorage from the West to be able to sustain what it has achieved.

At the same time, it is well-recognized that there are least developed or slower developing countries who are in immediate need of technical and financial support from the West. I believe it is dangerous to solve the Western dilemma of limited resources by choosing one group of developing countries over another. This only festers hostility and feelings of abandonment as Southeast Asia grapples with the sudden sense of displacement.

What is needed to fill in the transition are intermediate relationships such as what I call "tripartite relationships" that can be a model both for North-South dialog as well as South-South dialog.

Largely because of its open, outward-oriented economies, Southeast Asia has managed to oversee its economic progress, build up technical expertise and know-how and has immense interest in seeing other developing countries attain what it has achieved. It is not yet, however, able to fulfill such assistance by itself, but is more than willing to supplement, where possible, the interventions of Western economies to the developing world. This is not sheer benevolence on the part of Southeast Asia -- it knows that the advancement of the developing world as a whole will also be to its benefit, and by the same token, Western support in this process will serve Western interests and its global responsibilities as well.

There are a number of ways such "tripartite relationships" can evolve.

Window A: APEC's approach of consultation and cooperation embodies one of the creative approaches to building "win-win situations".

Window B: Our mistake is to think that when we talk of the possible "relationships" between Southeast Asia and the Western world, we have the choice of only one of two extreme ends of one spectrum.