SE Asia's future ties with West (2)

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.