The enduring values of modern Asia

Bunn Nagara, The Star, Asia News Network, Selangor, Malaysia

This part of the world does not lack political events or diplomatic functions of international stature, but their results are quite another matter. The policy action and intended effects of these efforts need improvement, perhaps with some NGO oversight

Monday marked the 50th anniversary of the historic Bandung Conference, which led to the birth of the Non-Aligned Movement among other things.

The occasion would be marked by a three-day Asia-Africa Summit in Bandung, Indonesia, beginning on Friday. Then from July, Malaysia assumes the Chair of ASEAN for a new one-year term, after which it would host the First East Asia Summit in December.

Malaysia is already concurrently the Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Conference. Whether these groups and activities offer a surfeit or suffer a deficit of policy ideas is for others to judge, which many would inevitably do.

Image and performance are shaped by issues on the ground and official responses to them. And there is no shortage of these either.

North-East Asia continues to see differences between Japan and its neighbors China and South Korea, over a range of issues from laying claim to the disputed Dokdo islands to Tokyo's attitude towards its wartime conduct in these countries.

Capping these differences is the Japanese government's approval of yet another revisionist school history textbook. As with other previous attempts, this is seen as whitewashing its hostility during the Pacific war at a time when Japan seems set to revise its postwar Constitution to send its troops abroad again.

In South-East Asia, rival claims to outlying islands continue to fester between sets of neighboring countries. The latest friction has arisen between Indonesia and Malaysia over two Ambalat blocks in the Sulawesi Sea, coloring security perceptions between them.

This has given Australia an opportunity to make some impact in asserting its presence. There were calls in Canberra to utilize the recent visit by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to talk more on security with Malaysia, although this concerns Australia's interests in North-East Asia rather than anything so parochial as a few rocky islets closer to home.

Similarly, there are now calls in Canberra to engage Indonesia more on security as well, again with Australia looking much farther north. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is keen to cooperate with Australia, but not to the extent of compromising Indonesia's stake in ASEAN or East Asia.

Since the end of the Cold War more than a decade ago, Australia has quietly but increasingly seen itself as a major military player in East Asia. As a South Pacific nation it is neither in nor of East Asia, so any such role would involve a power projection that could incur rival sentiments or an arms race in the region.

Whatever the ultimate result of such unilateral ambitions, risking the regional peace, stability and prosperity of East Asia in the process is a price Asians are not prepared to pay. Australia is already part of the Five-Power Defense Arrangement with Malaysia, Singapore, Britain and New Zealand, which works well enough to negate anything more adventurous.

Also at issue is the perception and reality of Australia as a tool of U.S. hegemony in a unipolar world. When Asian commentators called Canberra "a deputy sheriff of the U.S.," President Bush himself corrected that and said it was indeed "a sheriff," not just a deputy.

Canberra subsequently confirmed that role by endorsing Washington's policy of "pre-emptive strikes" against other countries, going beyond legitimate self-defense against imminent threats permitted under international law.

Given this mindset, it is not surprising that a country like Australia looks awkward within the ASEAN community and the wider East Asia. As a result it has difficulty being itself while trying to be a part of the East Asia Summit by blending in among member countries.

The opposition Labour Party sees the obstacle to summit participation largely as Canberra's refusal to accede to ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, which all delegates have endorsed, but there is more to the problem. What is the point of dispatching a delegation to the summit when it feels alien to Asian processes and conclusions, and the feeling is mutual?

Meanwhile, in North-East Asia, Tokyo took a softer approach two days ago by proposing a joint review of history with its neighbors. Beijing and Seoul should respond enthusiastically because the offer may not last, since Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's domestic popularity is declining, making implacable nationalist positions more tempting.

In South-East Asia, Malaysia and Indonesia have agreed to resolve their differences peacefully through the proper channels. This is standard procedure in ASEAN, as well as with the Bandung Conference half a century ago.

Whether outstanding differences are in North-East Asia or South-East Asia, they need peaceable settlement with better social contact across borders. This is an abiding condition enshrined in the ASEAN and Bandung processes, not an outdated relic as Canberra calls it.

The alternative Asia-Africa Forum 2005, a gathering of civil society groups, concluded three days ago emphasizing the need for the summit to keep faith with these tenets. Delegates should now be in no doubt about the task before them.