The picture is clearer -- and more worrisome

By Kavi Chongkittavorn

BANGKOK: All of a sudden, the major powers have abandoned long-standing strategic ambiguities and opted for clarity. This trend will raise tensions in the region and encourage an arms race.

China was first to declare its willingness to use force, if Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, decides to push for independence. Since the 1996 cross-strait crisis, the fear of China using force within the region has increased day by day. Over the past weeks, Beijing has continued to use strong words and threatened to use force against Taiwan. It vowed to take back Taiwan at any cost.

U.S. President George W Bush then followed suit by saying the United States will do "what it takes" to protect Taiwan. He did not rule out the use of force, stating that it is an option if China invades Taiwan. As such, Bush has broken the sacred ambiguity of America's Taiwan policy. Washington decision-makers also want to warn China of what the United States would be willing to do if the island is invaded by Chinese troops.

Bush's pledge came amid an intensification in U.S.-China tensions following the mid-air collision between a Chinese jetfighter and U.S. spy plane. Last week, the United States also decided to sell Taiwan advanced weapons systems -- the largest package since 1992 -- including 12 anti-submarine warplanes, four destroyers and possibly eight submarines.

Then came Japan. The new Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made it clear last week in a nationalistic speech that Japan would be bold and assertive. He said that he would revise Article 9 of the current constitution so that Japan's self- defense forces would be called an army. A day later, he sought to allay fears in Asia about Japan's future security postures.

He said that U.S.-Japan security ties are the cornerstone of their bilateral relationship and he favored a more proactive role for his country in international conflicts. If that is the case, Japan will need to change its attitude about the terrible history of World War II.

Koizumi has said that Japan should learn the lessons of its imperialist past and ensure that it never wages war again. Such assurances have been heard before but Asian countries, especially China, South Korea and some Southeast Asian countries, are still unforgiving about Japan's past atrocities.

Japan must follow Germany's example in apologizing in a straightforward manner without any qualifications. Past statements amounted to half-hearted regrets. Germany, in contrast, can hold its head up high and has been able to expand its security role in Europe. It has contributed a great deal to the international peacekeepers in Kosovo.

Without coming to terms with its horrible history, Japan will remain stuck. Further fallout, in fact, would impede various schemes that are aimed at broadening Japan's regional and international role, such as security cooperation with Southeast Asia and membership in the UN Security Council.

It is possible that Japan's tough talk is part of an ongoing psychological war against China. If China continues to beef up its armed forces, Japan will not stay idle as it has to protect itself. That is the clear message from Tokyo.

China-Japan relations have been strained again after Tokyo granted a visa to former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui. They also reflect the ongoing tense U.S.-China ties. Beijing continues to view Tokyo as an auxiliary to the U.S. scheme of things.

Given the current situation, it would be wise for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to play the balance of power game by engaging the European Union in security and defense matters. It can dilute the concentration of power politics among these few players, who are likely to treat the grouping as a pawn in their strategic competition.

The European Union, which now has a common foreign and defense policy, has already expressed the wish to see such cooperation with ASEAN. The EU role in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) must be further boosted.

At the same time, the grouping has to be more unified in its security outlook. Since the first ARF meeting at Bangkok in 1994, ASEAN members have voiced their own security concerns without sharing common perceptions. One exception was the statement on South China Sea in March 1995. Only on issues not directly linked to the grouping's strategic interest, such as the Middle East and Bosnia, has it been able to forge a common position.

ASEAN can no longer hide behind its strategic ambiguities as it did in the past. Each ASEAN country used to go its own way because this method served its national interest well. Now, as the grouping has become more integrated economically,it needs to bring members' security perceptions closer together.

The upcoming ARF meeting in Hanoi will serve as a litmus test on how ASEAN can handle the heightened tensions between the United States and China. For one thing, ASEAN cannot afford to have separate views that might further fragment its already thin security position.

ASEAN's strategic leverage will increase through common security perceptions. Some ASEAN members, such as Thailand, Philippines and Singapore, share common approaches more than others. This could be a good place to start repositioning ASEAN.

Furthermore, ASEAN can face a new dilemma as each member trends to respond to rising tension as it sees fit, without coordination. During the economic crisis, the region's arms spending slowed down but it is picking up again in line with the improving regional economy. ASEAN needs to hold additional dialogs on security and form common positions as much as possible.

-- The Nation/Asia News Network