Comments on Anthony Milner “From Asia-Pacific to Asia?” 3/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/03/from-asia-pacific-to-asia/
It seems the issues are not as clear cut as one might assume they are.
I am a layman to foreign affairs, regionalism and regional construct.
From a layman's perspective, the issues may be characterised by incomplete information, uncertainty, rational, evolving and dynamic interactions of players especially the more significant players.
There can be many types of uncertainties, such as the changes in both expectations and real relative weights between players and their reactions, as well as the ability of each player in terms of planning and execution of what may be perceived the correct course.
People have to make choices in that environment and different choice may lead to a different outcome.
The reality is that even the best and simple concept may not necessarily lead to the best outcome through a complex process.
The current debate on mining taxes in Australian may serve as a reminder. Most people may accept that a profit based royalty regime may be better than a sales-based regime. But is the Australian government's RSPT the best implementation or scheme for a profit based royalty? The debate has been very furious and little indication is in sight for a satisfactory resolution, yet.
During the debate, there was a statement in support of the proposed tax by 20 leading Australian economists. On the other hand there was also an article by another equally leading Australian economist pointing out problems with this particular mining tax proposal.
No wonder the public has been totally confused.
That very debate has serious implications for the issues of this post, no matter whether it is due to possible faulty design in the whole or part of the current proposal or poor consultation and communication on the government’s part, or both.
Showing posts with label Regional architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regional architecture. Show all posts
2009-07-26
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.
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.
2009-06-16
Open regionalism and Asian and Asia Pacific communities
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/
In light of Gary Hawke’s arguments in this article, I would like to make some comments. First, Hawke is correct in saying that some sort of Asia Pacific community has been developing and forming. Hawke mentioned a few and I would also add PECC to that long process. All those reflect the real needs and desire of the region, loosely defined. There is no question about that.
Second, Hawke is also correct that the focus of most of those organisations have been on economics as opposed to politics and security. Partly they have been a pragmatic approach to the diverse situations in the region, as Hawke pointed out.
Thirdly, I agree with Hawke completely on the following, to quote from the above:
“It has been convenient for Asia to try to tie the US into an ‘Asia Pacific’ vision, but the US will insist on a global perspective. The vision of ‘open regionalism’ can be a contribution to world affairs, but Asia Pacific integration has to be compatible with Asian integration just as it will proceed alongside regional arrangements elsewhere.”
What I would like to add is that it is very likely that there will eventually an Asian integration and some organisation or community to represent Asia. An Asia Pacific community is a trans-regional one.
Fourthly, while I agree with most of Hawke’s arguments, I do see the value and need for a regional and trans-regional organisations or communities to explicitly have a broad focus than economics. I think the concept of open regionalism with an enriched content will be able to serve that purpose.
Open regionalism should include:
open trade with the region and beyond
open capital flows and investment
broadly and in the long term, few restrictions on labour movement
common and non-discriminative security and open peace
collective governance and multilateral approach to regional affairs
aspirational community goals but respect diversity and autonomy.
I think with an open mind and a focus on long term prosperity and peace and security, such an Asian community and Asia Pacific community will see the day of light.
In light of Gary Hawke’s arguments in this article, I would like to make some comments. First, Hawke is correct in saying that some sort of Asia Pacific community has been developing and forming. Hawke mentioned a few and I would also add PECC to that long process. All those reflect the real needs and desire of the region, loosely defined. There is no question about that.
Second, Hawke is also correct that the focus of most of those organisations have been on economics as opposed to politics and security. Partly they have been a pragmatic approach to the diverse situations in the region, as Hawke pointed out.
Thirdly, I agree with Hawke completely on the following, to quote from the above:
“It has been convenient for Asia to try to tie the US into an ‘Asia Pacific’ vision, but the US will insist on a global perspective. The vision of ‘open regionalism’ can be a contribution to world affairs, but Asia Pacific integration has to be compatible with Asian integration just as it will proceed alongside regional arrangements elsewhere.”
What I would like to add is that it is very likely that there will eventually an Asian integration and some organisation or community to represent Asia. An Asia Pacific community is a trans-regional one.
Fourthly, while I agree with most of Hawke’s arguments, I do see the value and need for a regional and trans-regional organisations or communities to explicitly have a broad focus than economics. I think the concept of open regionalism with an enriched content will be able to serve that purpose.
Open regionalism should include:
open trade with the region and beyond
open capital flows and investment
broadly and in the long term, few restrictions on labour movement
common and non-discriminative security and open peace
collective governance and multilateral approach to regional affairs
aspirational community goals but respect diversity and autonomy.
I think with an open mind and a focus on long term prosperity and peace and security, such an Asian community and Asia Pacific community will see the day of light.
2009-05-27
Strategic thinking needs to be really strategic
Comments on Han Sung-joo “North Korea: strategic thinking, strategic response”, 27/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/27/north-korea-strategic-thinking-strategic-response/
While Han Sung-joo's article is very much focused on Republic of Korea (RoK) and its alliance with the US in response to the North on the Korea peninsular peace and stability issue, the issue is really very much beyond that context. Indeed it is much wider and broader.
North Korea has so far successfully explored the weaknesses of the other members of the six party group. It appears that the North gained substantial concessions from the group and at the same time has kept and further developed its nuclear capacity and capability. In the end, it slapped at everyone’s face through the recent test of a second nuclear device and the defiant lunch of missiles. This has made the whole processes of the six party talks in the past years laughable.
North Korea’s escalation on its nuclear and missile development to defy the international community is serious and cannot be tolerated. The whole international community must act and act urgently.
If the Republic of Korea is to think and respond strategically, it needs to go beyond the conventional US alliance as a passive response to the North nuclear issue. It should consider more strategically about the security issue not only in the Korea peninsular, but also in the broader Northeast Asia, at the least.
I am not a security expert, but the North appears to have used the US presence in Korea as pretence for many things, including its development of nuclear and missile capability. Now the North has declared that it will no longer be bound by the armistice accord made to end the Korea war in the early 1950s, following Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
A long term solution to the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular will need to consider the impact of the alliance issue and create an environment that both Koreas will feel secure. In that context, a collective security guarantee for both Koreas by the six parties will be needed. Any alliances will need to be recast in that context.
While Han Sung-joo's article is very much focused on Republic of Korea (RoK) and its alliance with the US in response to the North on the Korea peninsular peace and stability issue, the issue is really very much beyond that context. Indeed it is much wider and broader.
North Korea has so far successfully explored the weaknesses of the other members of the six party group. It appears that the North gained substantial concessions from the group and at the same time has kept and further developed its nuclear capacity and capability. In the end, it slapped at everyone’s face through the recent test of a second nuclear device and the defiant lunch of missiles. This has made the whole processes of the six party talks in the past years laughable.
North Korea’s escalation on its nuclear and missile development to defy the international community is serious and cannot be tolerated. The whole international community must act and act urgently.
If the Republic of Korea is to think and respond strategically, it needs to go beyond the conventional US alliance as a passive response to the North nuclear issue. It should consider more strategically about the security issue not only in the Korea peninsular, but also in the broader Northeast Asia, at the least.
I am not a security expert, but the North appears to have used the US presence in Korea as pretence for many things, including its development of nuclear and missile capability. Now the North has declared that it will no longer be bound by the armistice accord made to end the Korea war in the early 1950s, following Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
A long term solution to the peace and stability of the Korea peninsular will need to consider the impact of the alliance issue and create an environment that both Koreas will feel secure. In that context, a collective security guarantee for both Koreas by the six parties will be needed. Any alliances will need to be recast in that context.
2009-05-21
Can Asians stand up on own feet?
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/#more-4179
I have a quick comment first and will provide more comment latter on.
The point or the approach that Ryo Sahashi is making does not quite match the title of the article. Or, maybe it is the other way round, the title does not match well with the content. Anyway, it seems that we have got here a wrong labelling of product. It may reflect the complexity of the reality as well as some entrenched / long held thinking among some people.
The title is "A three-tier approach to Asian regional architecture". According to this title, one would have thought that this is a matter for Asian countries. But in the article, Ryo Sahashi goes on to talk about G-2 (US and China) and “China-Japan-U.S. trilateral dialogue”. In both and probably the third tier, one cannot fail to see the US as a key player in them.
Is the US an Asian country? Or is the author talking about some other arrangements than the Asian region? If it is about Asian regional affairs, why does the author have to drag the US from America not Asia into this? Why not get any other regional powers into it? I have been left wondering.
One can't help have the impression after reading this article that Asians can't survive or don't know how to do so without the US! How doomed are the Asians! Poor Asians!
I have a quick comment first and will provide more comment latter on.
The point or the approach that Ryo Sahashi is making does not quite match the title of the article. Or, maybe it is the other way round, the title does not match well with the content. Anyway, it seems that we have got here a wrong labelling of product. It may reflect the complexity of the reality as well as some entrenched / long held thinking among some people.
The title is "A three-tier approach to Asian regional architecture". According to this title, one would have thought that this is a matter for Asian countries. But in the article, Ryo Sahashi goes on to talk about G-2 (US and China) and “China-Japan-U.S. trilateral dialogue”. In both and probably the third tier, one cannot fail to see the US as a key player in them.
Is the US an Asian country? Or is the author talking about some other arrangements than the Asian region? If it is about Asian regional affairs, why does the author have to drag the US from America not Asia into this? Why not get any other regional powers into it? I have been left wondering.
One can't help have the impression after reading this article that Asians can't survive or don't know how to do so without the US! How doomed are the Asians! Poor Asians!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
