Three cheers for E. Asian Summit: A bullish view of Asian regionalism

Three cheers for E. Asian Summit: A bullish view of Asian regionalism

Michael Vatikiotis, Singapore

Amid all the hype and humbug about last week's East Asian
Summit, the significance of the event for Southeast Asia has been
missed. Observers scrambled to point out how dysfunctional such a
gathering turned out to be because of the quarrel over war
memories that pits China and South Korea against Japan, but they
overlooked two major milestones for Southeast Asia, the region at
the center of it all.

Of primary importance was the fact that Southeast Asia, itself
imperfectly incorporated under the ASEAN umbrella, successfully
projected its political centrality in a wider region fast
becoming a function of the economic weight of China and India.

Secondly, by sharply criticizing Myanmar's human rights record
the regional grouping that everyone likes to criticize for being
weak on principal, set an example for the wider region that China
of course, but most especially India have yet to live up to.
Reinforcing this trend, ASEAN leaders agreed in Kuala Lumpur to
move towards framing a rules-based ASEAN charter that will
enshrine basic human rights.

These are important achievements for a collection of ten
disparate and unequal states. Imagine ASEAN's Latin American or
South Asian counterparts coordinating political engagement with
its superpower neighbors.

In fact, whilst ASEAN was able to persuade China to accept a
more inclusive membership, India could not stop China from
influencing the recent summit of South Asian Association of
Regional Cooperation nations over the membership of Afghanistan.

The issue of Southeast Asia's political centrality is of
critical importance to the region's security in the 21st century.
Wedged between emerging India and China, Southeast Asia fears
becoming a strategic buffer zone, pulled in one direction or the
other by the shifting winds of geopolitical influence. To
establish for itself a steering role in a nascent East Asian
community is perhaps the best way to avoid being totally
squeezed.

Look how the United Kingdom has managed to maintain its
relevance to the European Union, despite remaining aloof from
monetary union. Too many observers look for substance in
groupings like this, when effective diplomacy and having a say is
often the key objective.

That's why Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi could
rightly claim the inaugural East Asian Summit a success. In fact,
from a Southeast Asia perspective it was more successful than
anticipated. China did not dominate the forum -- Beijing failed
to prevent the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand.

ASEAN established its steering role in a formal way -- the
ASEAN secretariat has been tasked with formulating cooperative
programs. And in a small way, ASEAN did manage to play a role in
pushing the stiff-lipped Confucian powers, China, Japan and South
Korea, who are quarreling over their bitter war memories into a
room together. No one else is trying to head off this potentially
dangerous rift.

In fact, China's preoccupation with historical correctness and
face diminished its potential leadership role in Kuala Lumpur and
exposed a weakness in its putative regional leadership that has
more than faint historical echoes. China's forward role in wider
Asia, even at the height of dynastic power, was always hedged by
a prim and haughty posture that for instance made it illegal for
Chinese citizens to emigrate.

China's diplomatic sway over its Asian hinterland was more
often than not indirectly maintained, which explained why
European powers so easily displaced China from the 16th century.
If modern China can't overcome hurtful feelings towards Japan
over a war that ended sixty years ago, how will it steer a modern
Asian bloc?

Southeast Asia by contrast, although lacking military or
political clout, has come a long way in the modern world of
multilateral engagement and agreement. Its governments have won
prominent seats at international forums like the Geneva-based WTO
and UN Human Rights Commission.

There is a track record of global peacemaking, although even
contemporary ASEAN diplomats forget the role their predecessors
played in forging an international peace agreement on Cambodia
more than a decade ago. Neither India nor China can yet notch up
achievements like this on the global stage. Doesn't this make
Southeast Asia a worthy regional player, quite apart from its
collective marketplace of 550 million people?

So there was no grand master plan unveiled for the EAS in
Kuala Lumpur. The EAS remains a "black box", to use the
terminology coined by irritated U.S. officials. But does anyone
argue the G8 should be shut down for being a conclave of larger
global powers at the exclusion of others, or for not having a
tangible action plan?

Talk shops and forums play important roles as an interface for
global leaders in a world where frequent contact helps build
relationships and avoid misunderstanding and conflict. Leaders
can meet, if they like, once a year at the United Nations.

But in reality, a regional forum like EAS, or even more than
one, offers opportunities for leaders from the same geographical
neighborhood to discuss issues of common interest and concern. So
what if the whole world isn't invited.

The writer is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.