SEAview from India

There won't be much posting over the next few weeks, as I'll be off the beaten track in India.

Good place for a SEAview, mind you. There's plenty in the newspapers these days about Looking East... India and Myanmar... India and Viet Nam...

And always in the context of relations with China.

But Tridivesh Singh Maini warns, “One of the biggest mistakes Delhi could make would be to see the Indo-Vietnam relationship as simply a means for countering China.”

All the more so as the uptick comes in tandem with the warming relations with Myanmar.

According to Rajeev Sharma, “China will likely view these close ties with concern, and strategists in Beijing are likely to see India’s moves as part of a zero-sum game in the region. The view from Delhi, though, is that China is being repaid for its so-called ‘string of pearls’ strategy of encircling India. Certainly the latest meeting comes at an awkward time for China, with Burma having riled Beijing by suspending a $3.6 billion China-driven dam project.”

ASEAN round-up

• Fuadi Pitsuwan wonders: “Does the ‘Asian Century’ include small and middle income countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations?" Surely yes, although it doesn't always appear that way in the Northeast Asia-obsessed commentary. But then the next question is: “What does ASEAN have to do to keep riding with the rising tigers of Asia?” It’s appropriate to ask, and two of the article’s recommendations seem very sound: form a single market, and create an ASEAN identity. They are already things ASEAN is committed to doing. But establish an ASEAN Defence Force? With a “NATO-style collective force that is robust in capabilities and sufficiently large for self-protection and deterrence”? I’m far from sure this would be a useful step in the current climate.
• Global economic turmoil could be a powerful attention-focuser for the realization of the ASEAN Economic Community’s goals. But as Fuadi (above) warns, “The unwillingness of the bureaucratic system to follow the regional vision for fear of change has led to the slow implementation of AEC-oriented policies.” It is not only the bureaucrats who resist change. There is also, as the Malaysian trade minister discreetly puts it, “pressure from stakeholders towards adopting policies which may be deemed protectionist in nature”. Bureaucrats and powerful domestic lobbies -- a hard duo to face down.

Depressing...

We’re in dynamic times, and in many ways the story of shifting power and influence is invigorating and inspiring.

But some things remain depressingly the same, shockingly common to developed and developing, old powers and new. Nationalism is one, inequality another.

The meeting of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Council closed on Monday 8 October. Malaysian Information, Communications, and Culture Minister Rais noted that regional “history and culture has so much in common that sometimes we are confused as to where certain aspects of our culture originate from, so much so it may even result in friendly tiffs among us”.

But those “tiffs” often don’t look so friendly. Especially the ones between Malaysia and Indonesia. Cultural quarrels are just one area of contention. Migrants and domestic workers are another. Boundaries a third.

The heat is turned up so, so easily. Earlier this week, the Indonesian government had to deny reports of Malaysian encroachment in West Kalimantan, after members of a Indonesian House of Representative commission “accused Malaysia of seizing parts of Indonesia’s territory”.

A storm in a teacup. But it still produces the messages on Facebook – from young, intelligent people – accusing Malaysia of stealing Indonesian land, spewing threats and bluster.  

It's going to be hard to produce a community with this stuff still lurking.

Inequality is the other old, old problem that seems disturbingly familiar across the economic and geographic board. As Asian Trends Monitoring puts it, alongside the economic miracles in SEA,  “the problems of endemic poverty, increasing divides between rural and urban communities, and absolute growth in economic inequalities, represent the dark shadow of Asia’s success that is too easily overlooked”.

Their crystal clear charts illustrate the gaps in SEA (between countries and within countries) in terms of access to basic infrastructure, communications technology and financial services, and health provision.

A problem of the region’s stage of development? Well, you’d like to think so. Except that gross inequality is not something that developed countries have remotely managed to deal with either.

Where are the models for taming destructive nationalism and corrosive inequity? Are they replicable? Because wherever we are on the power cycle, we desperately need to find some. Otherwise, power shifts will just bring more of the miserable same.

Global power shifts need changed ideas

Views on how to navigate/manage/exploit/avoid obliteration by (delete as appropriate) the world’s changing power configuration come thick and fast these days.

Here are some recent SEA-relevant pieces.

Anthony Milner argues that if Australia is “not to be a ‘lonely country’ – and this would be an uncomfortable fate – Australians will also need to be prudent in handling our neighbours. Abusing Malaysia, for instance, does not help to promote the type of regional cooperation we need to handle refugee flows.”

This is an obvious but very good point.

I don’t think abusing ASEAN helps much either, but it's still a kind of reflex action in many circles.

In similar vein, Shiro Armstrong reminds us that “Indonesia is now a larger economy than Australia’s in purchasing power parity terms”, and its power and influence are likely to grow. Presumably, this is another neighbour that would repay more prudent handling. It's not just what the government says that is important. I have had many conversations with Indonesians who feel their country does not get a fair deal from the Australian media. And public attitudes towards Indonesia “remain mired in distrust and suspicion”, according to this year's Lowy Institute poll. 

Meanwhile, Javad Heydarian regrets a tendency on the part of the US as well “to relegate ASEAN to a secondary position within its broader Asian policy”. Some of this is due to ASEAN’s own (so easy to blame, so hard to fix) “institutional handicaps”. But there is also the fear that “ASEAN has transformed into something of a strategic battleground for Beijing and Washington”.

It sounds like a change in mindset on SEA would be useful across the board.

ASEAN round-up

• Kevin Rudd must be delighted with this interview with Indonesia's foreign minister. It offers a bit of a counterweight to this earlier reaction, and recalls the recent AUSMIN communiqué’s welcome for “Australia’s leadership role in building a more robust community in the Asia-Pacific region through the EAS”. Singapore’s was actually an ASEAN-plus-eight proposal, and it wasn’t alone, although the Philippines has presumably since changed its tune… If the US plays a smart role in the EAS, then Australia and Indonesia will be vindicated. If it starts throwing its weight around too ostentatiously, or if future administrations lose interest, then the merits of ASEAN-plus-eight will be apparent in retrospect. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
• The liberalization of trade in services is still a hard nut to crack for the ASEAN Economic Community. In the meantime, comparatively small gestures, like an “ASEAN lane” at immigration would be both symbolic and practical.
• And amid all the difficulties of realizing economic integration, it’s good to be reminded of some fundamentals: “The ASEAN region is a fairly large economic bloc today in terms of GDP and is expected to be among the top five in the world over the next 15-20 years… A young growing population with strong income levels and low consumer debt-to-GDP are the growth drivers… The ASEAN has been one of the top performing regions from a stock market returns perspective.” Sometimes we get so obsessed with the difficulties of ASEAN the organization that we lose sight of SEA the region.

"One clear voice"?

Indonesia’s foreign minister has prioritized the need for ASEAN to speak with “one clear voice” on international issues…

Aside from the difficulties of this (the EU hasn’t managed it yet), is it wholly desirable?

Surely the usefulness of one clear voice depends on what that voice articulates.

ASEAN’s most telling defence of its driving-seat position in regional architecture is that the organization is non-threatening. A key factor in this profile is SEA’s capacity, corporately and individually, to practise the kind of balancing that engages all the major powers, and exclusively favours none of them. This strategy has made an important contribution to regional peace and confidence-building to date. Even now, with a recalibration of the balance under way in certain countries over the South China Sea, no state wants all its eggs in one basket.

If the evolution of “one clear voice” were to also equate with an unequivocal leaning towards or away from any one particular power or perceived array of powers, this would not bode well.

And part of the reason ASEAN looks unthreatening lies in its very variety. Its components have politico-security feet in many different camps, and may at any given time be leaning in slightly different directions, at slightly different angles. If one country adjusts its balance slightly, therefore, this does not imply the tilt of the whole region in the same direction. Such a move can be compensated for on a regional level by the dozens of other micro-balancing manoeuvres that are constantly taking place. The ASEAN states are not a solid mass of colour, as it were – they are more akin to a variegated, “twinkling” pattern.

And that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Such an entity is far more likely to forestall a dangerous regional binary.

ASEAN round-up

• China was not impressed with that meeting in the Philippines… In an article headlined, “ASEAN’s united front against China does not exist” (26 Sep), the People’s Daily argues: “The Philippines has lost its cool over the territorial disputes. It clamors for a united ASEAN front to blunt China, which appears to be diplomatic illusion… There is no collective will to unite and confront China… The Philippines does not have the willpower to sacrifice its relationship with China and become involved in an armed standoff. Seeking ASEAN help to isolate China is pure nationalist fantasy.”
• Sam Bateman, meanwhile (29 Sep), notes that discussions over the South China Sea are confused by two crucial points: “The first is the mistaken notion that sovereignty over the islands and reefs of the sea can be resolved on a multilateral basis. This is incorrect because sovereignty is fundamentally a bilateral issue for resolution between the states that claim a particular feature. The second confused idea is that maritime boundaries, or some other segregation of the disputed areas, will be determined by the law. This is also incorrect. The settlement of boundary disputes, like that of sovereignty, is fundamentally a political issue for negotiation between the respective parties.” That being the case, he argues, the disputes will be solved only “when the bordering countries change their mindsets from one of sovereignty, sole ownership of resources and seeking ‘fences in the sea’ to one of functional cooperation and cooperative management”. Sound advice. 
• ASEAN finance ministers have agreed to create an ASEAN infrastructure fund (25 Sep). Edmund Sim observes that this development was not accompanied by parallel investment in institutional infrastructure, but nevertheless illustrates “ASEAN’s resourcefulness in dealing with legal and institutional vacuums”. Meanwhile, an opinion piece in the Inquirer (27 Sep) urges ASEAN to “work on narrowing the gaps that persist among and within its members”. Good advice, too – but, of course, “ASEAN” can't do this alone. Individual governments promoting smart policy need to be the prime movers in this direction...
• Here’s another of the now frequent calls for ASEAN “to build a sense of community among its people”, this time by Surakiart Sathiratha, a former Thai foreign minister and deputy prime minister (27 Sep). Suggestions that ASEAN make a joint bid for the 2030 World Cup represent one of the many ways to attempt this, and the Asian Football Confederation has lent its support to this effort (28 Sep). Tourism is another way to get the region’s people talking more amongst themselves. So reports that 47% of the around 73 million tourists visiting ASEAN countries in 2010 (around 34 million) were from other ASEAN countries are a good sign (28 Sep). The tourism figure as a whole represents an 11% increase from 65 million in 2009. It’s perhaps a bit of a stretch to conclude: “This huge intra-ASEAN travel indicates that the region is on the right track to establish an ASEAN Community in the years to come.” But it’s an encouragement for ongoing ASEAN efforts to promote the whole region as a tourist destination.
• It's good to have news of a developing dialogue between civil society organizations and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC).