China and Japan: share the most responsibilities for Asian leadership in the Asian Century

Comments on Peter Drysdale "Leadership in Asia under scrutiny", 29/06/2015

While the currently perceived and real lack of leadership in Asia, to a degree or in part, reflects the complexity and diversity of Asia and Asian countries, the most pivotal part underlying those, in my view, lies in the often difficult bilateral relations between China and Japan. They are the two largest economies in Asia, but they often do not see eye to eye with each other. Further, they are the largest developed and developing countries respectively in Asia.

When and if these two countries sort out their issues and problems so they can develop a relationship similar to that between Germany and France and Britain, many issues of Asia’s lack of leadership in the so called Asian century are likely to be resolved soon.

Both countries need to make compromises for their common good/benefits. That requires true and courageous personal leadership from the top leaders among the two countries. They need to explain the benefits to their respective people and carry them with them to forge a new bilateral relationship. And that is not an easy job by any means.

Japan may need to be really independent as opposed to be a US deputy in East Asia. China may need to embrace more of the good parts of the current global governance while at the same time to form a broad coalition to reform those areas that are no longer meet the current needs of developing and possibly many developed countries. In the process, major developing countries as a coalition, working together with most of the developed countries, can develop and design a new global governance structure.

Should a constructive and cooperative relationship be developed between China and Japan, many of the existing issues in Asia will be much easier to resolve.

History in shorter and longer terms

Comments on Jennifer Chen “Vietnam’s open port policy: strategy for keeping China at bay”, 1/03/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/03/01/vietnams-open-port-policy-strategy-for-keeping-china-at-bay/

Vietnam's strategy may or may not necessarily work.

Russia is in the picture as an important player in the background, though at the moment many people have not mentioned it.

Further, as the relative strategic strengths between the US and China shift, both will rethink their own strategies, or will have to do so in the mean time.

In such as big theatre with the US, China and Russia in play, any very short term strategies may not be consistent with longer term interests.

Although history has not always shown to be rational or planned in any rational manner, sometimes history has some inevitability.

There are many issues and areas that bilateral dealings have to be made.

PS: the best strategy for the future of Asia is to have an Asian organisation that can deal with Asian regional issues.

East Asian arrangements need clarity

Comments on Peter Drysdale “Japan in the spotlight in the lead-up to APEC”, 11/10/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/11/japan-in-the-spotlight-in-the-lead-up-to-apec/

It is understandable the idea to include India in either APEC or APC, for the reason that it is an Asian country.
It is a little bit puzzling why India should be included in any East Asian arrangements, though.
It does not sound right. Either the name should be changed to reflect its real content, or it should not be included.
Why are people doing some things as such, incoherent and self contradictory?

Asian Union versus APC concepts

Comments on Jia Qingguo “Realizing the Asia Pacific Community: geographic, institutional and leadership challenges”, 28/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/28/realizing-the-asia-pacific-community-geographic-institutional-and-leadership-challenges/

It seems that the first and far most important question to ask is whether it is an Asian regional community type organisation, or an Asia Pacific community. Different people, with different purposes, are calling for quite different things. The two are quite different and would serve equally quite different purposes, and likely have quite different membership and governance structure.

Asia is itself a very large mass in terms of both population and geographical land, as well as diversity. There seems a need to have an Asian Union type community that will look after and advance the affairs and fairs of all Asian nations. The membership should be open to all Asian nations on voluntary basis.

There are regional organisations for all other regions, EU for Europe, African Union in Afric, American Summit in all America, and a Pacific forum for Pacific nations. Interestingly and ironically, the only region that does not have an effective regional organisation is Asia, the largest continent.

It will be difficult to establish such a community, given the size of Asia and its diversity. But it is by no means impossible. Some existing Asian smaller regional organisations can be the core for such a development.

A further Asia Pacific cross regional organisation, such as what Rudd’s Asia Pacific Community proposal or concept, appears to have a nature of super-regional or cross-regional. There is a need for such an organisation, because the very different dynamics across the Pacific. This type of cross-regional organisation will be important in shaping the global affairs in the next 50 years. The membership of this type of organisation is highly likely to be selective as compared to inclusive.

Further, within this cross-regional organisation the sort of questions of existing alliances of different sorts, as raised by Jia, will have to be addressed. Otherwise non-alliance members would have natural concerns of equality and fairness, if such an organisation is to address regional security issues at all.

Cold war has ended long ago. Everyone needs to consider whether there is any need for any cold war era structures or products or legacies to exist anymore. For what purpose do they need to exist? This will be a serious question for people to consider and answer.

One needs to be clear about the differences in these two equally needed but quite different organisations.

Same effects, different causes - Asia, EU and the US

Comments on Wendy Dobson “The financial crisis and East Asia”, and Guy de Jonquieres’ comments, 26/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-financial-crisis-and-east-asia/

While what Guy de Jonquieres says may be true, there seems to be a big difference between the Asian case and other cases, that, there has no clear regional governance mechanism or structure formally in place.

In the EU or Eurozone cases, the main causes for lack of policy coordination or mutual assistance may be that the region lacked the financial capacity as a result of the financial and economic crisis, as opposed to other things.

While in the Asian case, they had the capacity to do something, but the lack of clear governance structure or consensual agreements was more likely to be the cause of inaction.

The geopolitical issues for regional influences, especially Japan’s attitude (see “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism” by Takashi Terada earlier on in the EastAsiaforum), have made Asia’s regional institutions building more complex.

Asia needs to overcome geopolitical rivalry within itself and builds truly cooperative regional bodies to advance its welfares.

Interesting Japan and its regionalism push

Comments on Takashi Terada “The rise of China: the impetus behind Japanese regionalism”, 26/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/26/the-rise-of-china-the-impetus-behind-japanese-regionalism/

This is an interesting article to describe Japan's motives behind its regionalism push.

It provides some supports to the argument that Japan has been unwilling to see other developing nations to improve their living standards and catch up with Japan and be equal with it.

I remember someone blamed that China was ungrateful to Japan's aid in comments to an article earlier on. If Japan was like this, how and why could China be grateful to it?

It is complex regionalism, international economics and politics. This article can serve as a potential reference.

We need true and sincere international cooperation, not the kind of one undermining another or others.

As a by-product, this article also potentially increases the difficulties of Rudd’s push to establish an Asia Pacific Community, because it could be perceived as another tool to contain China.

All nations need to be rational and mature.

Asia can and should free itself from the IMF

Second comment on Barry Eichengreen “Can Asia Free Itself from the IMF?” 30/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/30/can-asia-free-itself-from-the-imf/

I have two additional comments. The first one is about the voting mechanism and the other on policy monitoring.

Firstly, on voting mechanism. While the majority voting mechanism is better and more efficient than consensus, it still does not have a strong feel of a close community, if it is based purely on countries’ shares of their contributions.

A better voting mechanism would be able to balance two important things. First, it recognises countries’ contributions so to be accountable. Second, it can foster a closer community feel and recognise each member country as an important constituent.

In that light, an alternative voting mechanism to the purely share based majority voting is to have a combination of this voting with a simple country member voting, as I have proposed elsewhere. That is to say, for example, to have the contribution based voting for half of the total vote and the other half to be determined by the number of member countries.

If this alternative voting mechanism is adopted, any country irrespective whether it has contributed to the funds or irrespective to its size will have a vote for half of the total vote. This will make every country more respectable and thus will be more democratic. At the same time, the contribution of any country is also valued and its interest is reflected in the voting.

Secondly, on policy monitoring. Rather than handing this role to IMF bureaucrats that have little to do with this Asian institution, why not outsourcing it to an independent research or academic institution to do it? Such an institution could organise a group of eminent people from the region with the relevant expertise to undertake that monitoring task.

Hong Kong: best place for future Asian institutions

Comments on Barry Eichengreen “Can Asia Free Itself from the IMF?” 30/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/30/can-asia-free-itself-from-the-imf/

In terms of location for such an Asian financial institution, Hong Kong may be a good candidate.

Although Hong Kong is part of China, it and Macau all have a special status of special administrative regions in China. It requires “Hong Kong” Visa to visit and even mainland Chinese people are not free to visit without an appropriate travel document.

It was a British colony for a long time. It is a more neutral place than any other places in East Asia.

Hong Kong has also been a regional financial centre. So there are both physical and human infrastructures there. It is also located in the middle of East Asia geographically.

Why not make Hong Kong a permanent place for Asian institutions? Why not China and other countries negotiate to make Hong Kong such a neutral place for all Asians to benefit, with China retaining its sovereignty, but otherwise letting Hong Kong be a place as it is now for the future to come?

With huge land, it could be possible for China to make more land available for such a special region.

I think all stakeholders should consider Hong Kong as a perfect candidate.

Rudd's APC is a trans-regional concept

Comments on Carlyle A. Thayer “Kevin Rudd’s multi-layered Asia Pacific Community initiative”, 22/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/22/kevin-rudds-multi-layered-asia-pacific-community-initiative/”

By describing none of the existing regional institutions were capable of engaging ‘in the full spectrum of dialogue, cooperation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges to security’, and proposing for a new institution, Rudd has had a different idea than the development or evolution of any of the existing institutions. So it seems that there is a fundamental difference between the Rudd proposal and any of the existing regional institutions. In this sense, it is incorrect to avoid this important point. As a result, it is questionable that attempts to bridge the two different things after the Rudd proposal ran into difficulties will inject any new insights into the Rudd proposal.

Despite that, Rudd's proposal may still be viable in its own right in a broad context of a combination of regional and trans-regional arrangements. But it is likely to proceed at a slower pace than Rudd probably has had in mind.

There is a clear need for an Asian regional organisation that represents Asia as a distinct region, just as Europe, Africa and America and / or North America and Latin America. This is especially important given the dynamics of the Asian region, especially the East Asia region over the past decades and the next few decades. It economic weight is increasing rapidly. This regional arrangement is likely to evolve from some sort of the existing institutions or loose organisations or forums, such as EAF and gradually expand to a broad and more inclusive Asian organisation. In such a regional institution, countries from other regions than Asia are unlikely to be members.

Rudd's proposal does not necessarily conflict with this Asian regional institutional development, because it represents a trans-regional institution. This trans-regional institution is based on both the inherent links between the Asia and Pacific regions but more importantly the existing reality of current security arrangement, as well as the likely shift in both the economic, political as well as military powers within Asia and the Pacific regions.

So, it may be more helpful if important and unavoidable distinctions are made rather than being hidden. Perhaps Rudd himself should make it clear whether his proposal is for an Asian regional or a trans-regional institution. To mud the two does not help to advance his proposal.

Great Asian economic transformation and restoration

Comments on Kaliappa Kalirajan “Now for an Indian ‘miracle’”, 13/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/13/now-for-an-indian-miracle/

If we take a long historical view of human beings’ history and see the dynamic economic growth and transformation in Asia over the past decades in that light, starting with Japan, then followed by the four NIEs, the other East Asia tigers, China and India now, it is likely that over the next few decades we will see an Asian economic restoration. Asia is finally catching up with Europe and North America, following the latter’s remarkable economic advances since the industry revolution.

Let's hope that Asians will consolidate their economic progress over the past decades and continue to advance their economic fairs in the coming decades.

While in the past exports from Asia to other regions have played an important role in assisting Asia's transformation, the future is likely to see more reliance on intra-regional trade and domestic absorption, as the size of the Asian economies continue to grow. This is particularly so, given that the US will need to live within its means, that means to save more and consume less as a proportion of income.

Kalirajan's observation of the structural change in India's economy is especially interesting in light of this.

A closer economic integration of Asian economies especially those more advanced and those more dynamic ones, will provide further scope for growth and benefit not only Asian economies, but also economies in other regions. Intellectual thinking and policy frameworks within the region should more ahead and provide guidance to Asia’s economic transformation at such a scale. Institutional development might be beneficial to the process of transformation.

What can Japan expect from rebalancing?

Comments on Tobias Harris “Is Japan balancing?” 16/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/16/is-japan-balancing/

This is another point that why there is a need to have an Asian community that collectively looks after themselves and the region as a whole. No matter what Japan does, it is likely only to represent a futile and wasteful attempt to balance or to fill the waning influences of the US in North East Asia. That will cause wasteful military race in the region and beyond.

It has been more than 60 years after the end of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the collapse of the former USSR, the other only superpower aside the US during the cold war era. What is Japan rebalancing for? Will it effective to its so called objectives?

We need to move on from the cold war geopolitical thinking and strategies. We need a completely new approach. An Asia community or union style with collective and non-discriminative security arrangement for all members will save unnecessarily too much military spending for each of its members.

East Asia or Asia more broadly, should build on the recent momentum of its ascendance in world economic affairs to look for a more-long lasting and more-enduring regional development, stability and security. Through managing well its own regional affairs, Asia can contribute to a better world.

Asia is the third pillar in world economy and needs its own representatives

second Comments on Gary Hawke “The Asia Pacific Community: objectives, not institutions”, 15/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/15/the-asia-pacific-community-objectives-not-institutions/

I can just add some economic information to the debate. I just have a look at the CIA country information about its estimated purchasing power parity (PPP) data of a number of countries and got the following information (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/).

The PPPs for 2008 were $17.2 trillion for the North America (US, Canada and Mexico), $14.82 trillion for the heavy weights in EU (Germany, UK, Italy, France) and $14.43 trillion for North East Asia (Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan).

With other dynamic developing economies coming along in Asia, especially noticeable India, and the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, Asia is really becoming the third pillar, together with the US and EU, in the world economy.

What this means is that it would be better if it is possible to have some sort of Asian regional organisations to coordinate their common efforts and represent their interest in the world affairs. After all, Asia has about two thirds of world population, with two countries each having more than a billion population.

A peaceful, stable and more prosperous Asia will contribute to a better world.

No matter it is population, geographical size, or economic weights, Asia is an important continent. it needs its own voices and representatives in the world affairs.

We need a clean slate design for an Asia regional architecture

Comments on Hadi Soesastro “Architectural momentum in Asia and the Pacific”, 14/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/14/architectural-momentum-in-asia-and-the-pacific/

It appears there are a few different proposals for establishing some sort of a regional forum for Asia, East Asia, and/or Asia Pacific. It is a health development and reflects a strong desire from the regional nations, broader or narrower.

It also appears that there is a need to approach the design of such a or more regional forums from a clean slate, as opposed to be constrained by some existing forums, although it is possible that some of the existing regional forums could be transformed into new forums people are thinking about.

The constraints of existing forums on thinking or designing new regional architecture can be understood, since people tend to think from own experiences. After all, most peoples’ thinking is bounded rationality, framed by the environment in which they work or are familiar with.

The main problem with those constraints is that it is more difficult to consider all feasible options, so results in sub-optimal with long term consequences. We have APEC, ASEAN plus 3, East Asian Summit. We have different proposals, like Rudd’s APC, Korean’s Caucus, etc.

I personally like an Asian Union, an Asian organisation, because there is no such similar organisation in Asia as in other continents. Yes, there is an Asia Development Bank as an Asian regional bank, then why there is no other regional forum to coordinate more broad issues across the Asian region? It is very peculiar indeed.

I look forward to seeing a creative and the most optimal design and thinking for an Asia regional organisation. Other trans-regional forums have their usefulness, but they cannot fulfil the needs of all Asians, or the Asian nations. A clean slate approach to the design is urgently needed.

Rudd's APC proposal and US and Australia alliance: are they compatible?

Further comments on Peter Drysdale “Rudd in Singapore on the Asia Pacific Community idea”, 31/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/31/rudd-in-singapore-on-the-asia-pacific-community-idea/

Irrespective whether Ron Huisken's interpretation of the Rudd APC proposal is correct, that proposal seems fatally flawed. It is a naive and premature idea.

Just think about this: is China willing to deal with the US alone or is that willing to deal with the US and its two military allies and deputies in the East Asia together? Alternatively, is Rudd prepared to give up the US - Australia alliance? Is Japan willing to do so? Why would China want to create more trouble for itself by including Japan and Australia in its dealing with the US if it can do it on a bilateral basis?

I have no doubt that Rudd is good intentioned in his APC proposal. But if Ron Huisken is correct that Rudd's key objective is to see the United States cemented into a body within which there are some members that are militarily aligned with the US while the other rising power is not, it is unlikely to get off the ground.

That should not be a too subtle point for people to see. In that context, there is also the Australian white paper on defence. It does not appear to sit well with Rudd's APC concept. At the least they have been poorly timed together.

An Asian Union - a true community for Asians

Comments on Ryo Sahashi “A three-tier approach to Asian regional architecture”, 20/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/20/a-three-tier-approach-to-asian-regional-architecture/

This is my third comment on this article - likely to be the last one.

There is the European Union; there is the African Union; there is the Summit of the Americas. Asia is world largest continent with about half of the world population. Yet there has been no such a thing as the Asian Union, or the Summit of Asians. Neither culturally, economically, or militarily, is Asia world most advanced, nor is it the least developed. So in the modern time of integration or globalisation, why has this been the case for so long? One has to ask. The answer is not necessarily an easy one.

I don’t attempt to provide an answer to that question here because I am not qualified to do it that I know that for sure. What I would like to venture, however, is to try to contribute constructively to the future. This is because I was born in Asia (in its true meaning) and had lived there for more than half of my current life long. I must, as a matter of disclosure of information, say that I am now a Chinese Australian, not far from Asia in its true meaning. Further one can recall that Mr Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister, had tried very hard to put Australia into the map of Asia during his time as the minister, that is, to join Asia.

I think Asians should establish an Asian Union as a community for Asians to look after the affairs including the security of Asia and advance the wellbeing of Asians. The membership of such a union should be open to any countries in Asia. In that, it should include countries which have part of their land in Asia, such as Russia, if that is what they want to do. It could potentially include Australia and Oceania, but that should be a matter for the Asian Union to decide, taking into account the efforts by Australians wanting to be a part of Asia.

What governing structure should such an Asian Union have? It should have permanent annual summit of heads of government/country to decide the priority agenda for the next year. This is an assembly of Asians. The Union should have a permanent secretariat organisation, similar to that of the UN Security Council. Such a secretariat may have a number of permanent members and a group of rotating members to be effective. Its president / secretary general should be rotated among the members or representatives of groups of members with much smaller populations of each.

The permanent members of the secretariat should ideally be a small odd number, such as 5 or 7. They may come from a combination of the most populous countries and the largest economies in Asia. Instead of each of the permanent members having a veto right, the majority of the permanent members can veto on any matters of draft resolutions. This will make the secretariat more representative and effective than UN’s current governing structure.

I think such an Asian Union will be the next step in Asia development in its long history. It is badly needed now, given the development of the other continents. Those large Asian countries should put aside their historical issues aside and take the leadership of Asia. The simply matter of fact is this: if you don’t want to be strong and look after your own affairs, you will not be strong and your interests have to be looked after by others who may or may not put your interests first in their agenda, and why should they?

More realistically, I think the existing platform of ASEAN plus three could form the impetus of an organisation of the Asian Union. Alternatively, it would be better if India could be included in such a formation process, given its share of the Asian population.

There should be plenty of important and urgent Asian regional issues to be addressed by the Asian Union, not only the economic development, trade and investment, but issues such as the North Korea nuclear issue, the conflict in Afghanistan, the instability in Pakistan and some other regions in Asia. If the Asian Union is created and operates effectively, issues such as the increase in regional military expenditures, regional territorial dispute can all be on the agenda. It could also contribute to the resolution of the Middle East conflicts.

A true and more transparent Asian Union that is not in the shadow of any other world powers will be in the long term interests of all Asians. I look forward to its creation in the not so distant future.