Making
Asian summits count
Simon Tay and Cheryl Tan ; Associate
professor Simon Tay and Cheryl Tan are, respectively, chairman and assistant
director of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs. Both are
currently in Nay Pyi Taw to observe the ASEAN Summit meetings
|
JAKARTA
POST, 11 November 2014
Asia enters its annual season of political summits in the coming
weeks and US President Barack Obama will be a key player. Despite his
Democrat party losing America’s domestic mid-term elections, the President
will continue to be a key presence, first at the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Summit and then at the East Asia Summit (EAS), hosted by
Myanmar.
Simply turning up shows that America is, indeed, making the
effort to continue its rebalance to the region. But after the pomp and
ceremony dies down, will Asia be satisfied with what America has to offer the
region? And will Obama judge his time here as well spent?
There has always been some debate about how to define the region
— whether Asia should be paired with the US and others on the far side of the
Pacific, or be a region unto itself.
APEC and the EAS are two key meetings in the jumbled and partly
overlapping arrangements that result. APEC includes 21 members from both
sides of the Pacific, and sometimes seems too sprawling.
In contrast, the EAS membership remains more limited. Hosted by
ASEAN, the summit has gone beyond China, Japan and South Korea to include the
US, Australia, New Zealand, India and Russia.
But a moratorium has been called on including more countries and
the EAS currently seems to meet a kind of “Goldilocks” test — neither too
small to matter nor so large that it is unwieldy. Hosting the Summit is a
major part of ASEAN’s claim to ‘centrality’ in a region of rising powers.
The EAS is, however, neither without critics nor potential
rivals. There is rising contention between the major powers, with many points
of contention between the US and China, and between China and Japan.
Different major powers are taking different initiatives that are
competitive. The Obama administration’s centerpiece for trade and economic
ties, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), includes its ally Japan but just
four out of 10 ASEAN member states — Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.
China, moreover, is notably excluded.
On its part, China is upping engagement with the region in a
number of ways. The most recent and juiciest carrot dangled by President Xi
Jinping is the newly launched Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
ASEAN needs not only to be economically dynamic but also
politically cohesive and strategically coherent.
Supported by some 21 countries to date, the AIIB has a US$100
billion kitty to fund the region’s infrastructure needs. The US has pointedly
pushed against this Chinese initiative and inveighed its allies — Australia,
Japan, South Korea — to also stay out.
Unless US-China or Sino-Japanese ties improve, there are risks
for the region’s stability and progress. Expectations arise therefore for the
EAS Summit to reduce tensions and increase trust. Otherwise, the old adage
about buffalos fighting and grass dying applies.
The EAS is helmed by ASEAN, comprising just 10 smaller and
middle sized countries. But there are limits to what can be done. Watch
therefore US-China ties when Obama meets with Xi at the sidelines of APEC for
an informal summit.
Since their first meeting in California in June 2013, the
Chinese have sought a major powers dialogue with the US. Held privately and
informally, the meeting is aimed at building personal rapport between the two
leaders, and improving bilateral ties amidst their global interdependence.
The relationship — colored by contentious issues ranging from cyber security
to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea — is far from cuddly.
But the leaders are likely to seek a reassuring baseline and
some positive news to report. Cooperation on energy and climate change could
be one — given the US embracing shale gas as a source of lower-carbon energy,
and China’s own efforts to redress its emissions.
Sino-Japanese relations have been even worse, with the two
leaders declining to meet since coming into office. This goes beyond the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute and interacts with fervently held
nationalistic views on both sides.
Yet Beijing and Tokyo are beginning to recognize their economic
interdependence, and the need to return to a working relationship that is
somewhat isolated from the quite irresolvable political and historical
differences.
The Sino-Japanese and US-China relations will be determined by
these major powers bilaterally, and not by any larger Summit — whether APEC,
EAS or any other acronym.
But ASEAN can assist with its EAS Summit, in which all three
participate. This is especially if the aims for the Summit are reinforced and
its process given more focus.
With its 10th anniversary coming up in 2015 and major power
competition in the region, ASEAN senior officials are stocktaking the Summit.
This is timely as some question whether the EAS is truly effective. The
Singapore Institute of International Affairs’ recent policy brief outlines
key issues to keep the ASEAN-led Summit relevant.
We believe the EAS has the potential to be the apex multilateral
summit of the region to bring leaders of major and contesting powers together
in the same room to discuss political, security and economic issues affecting
the region. The EAS should continue to be led by leaders and informal, rather
than having a larger, bureaucratic structure.
But more focus and better preparation are needed. For this,
ASEAN and other EAS stakeholders should adopt ‘Sherpa’ system, akin to what
is used in the G7 meetings.
There is no need to take over or control other regional
meetings, but the EAS as a Summit among leaders should receive inputs from
other regional forums, such as APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
Further, for ASEAN to serve as effective hosts for much larger
powers, the group needs not only to be economically dynamic but also
politically cohesive and strategically coherent. Positions taken by ASEAN
among the major powers must, moreover, not be biased towards one side or
another.
Members can participate in initiatives that include some but not
all ASEAN members — like the US-led TPP and China’s AIIB mentioned above. But
they should be watchful if these strain intra-ASEAN unity, and work to speak
increasingly with a common voice on key issues, with balance and based on
norms of international law and regional practices.
Asia is witnessing major shifts in power and much will depend on
what the major powers do, both separately and in relation to each other.
Without economic clout or military strength, ASEAN should not be
complacent about the EAS and its claims to centrality. The group must work
together and with other stakeholders to earn the right to shape the regional
agenda, or otherwise will face the prospect of being dictated to. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar