The enduring values of modern Asia

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.