Theme 1
Dynamism and Uncertainty in Asia
Akihiko Tanaka
Director and Professor, International Politics, Institute of Oriental Culture, The University of Tokyo
There are at least three important structural forces at work in East Asia. Globalization, the ending process of the Cold War, and democratization in domestic societies. They are the key components of “dynamism” in East Asia.
Without globalization, the rise of Newly Industrialized Economies in the 1980s, the East Asian Miracle in the early 1990s, and the rise of China have all been impossible. The ending process of the Cold War, which in Asia actually started in the 1970s in the form of Sino-American rapprochement, gradually created a sphere of inter-state peace, thus contributing to the economic development in the region. Since the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, which was deeply colored by the remnant of the Cold War in Asia, there have been no inter-state wars in East Asia. Since the Paris peace accord of Cambodia in 1991, East Asia has seen no large scale civil wars, either.
Democratization has steadily been in progress in East Asia. Since the middle of 1980s, many countries saw transition from authoritarian rules to democratic ones: the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia. Pressure for more liberalization is increasing in non-democratic countries.
However, these three trends, though desirable in themselves, because of their dynamic nature, often create instability.
The Asian financial crisis was a manifestation of such dynamic instability of globalization. Many countries had to face political and social disruption as well as economic crises. Where there are inadequate institutions, misplaced policies, corruption, and combination of various other vulnerabilities, a small incident could trigger a panic that leads to a chain reaction in other countries that have similar vulnerabilities.
The ending process of the Cold War has also created instability. The current crisis over North Korea, though often described as the remnant of the Cold War in East Asia, can partly be explained by the end of the Cold War. The sudden termination of the Soviet security guarantee and the economic assistance gave Pyongyang a strong incentive to develop nuclear deterrence capability against the United States as well as to sell missiles and possibly other WMD technologies to other countries to obtain cash.
Invited Speakers’ Abstracts
Democratization could create both domestic and international sources of tension. Democratization in Taiwan added a significant new element in the confrontation between Taiwan and the PRC. Previously the confrontation was a continuation of the Chinese civil war between the PRC and the KMT, in which both parties pursued domination over what both of them regard as “One China.” With democratization in Taiwan, there emerged a new debate about the identity of the people living in Taiwan, thus creating a sizable forces in Taiwan to realize formal “independence”.
In many ways, the international politics in East Asia in the late 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, centered on how to manage the three crises thus created partly by the three dynamic forces of our era. How should we prevent the repetition of the financial and economic crisis? How should we persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program? How should we encourage parties concerned with the Taiwan Strait to peacefully resolve their problems without violating democratic principles? These are the questions facing international politics in East Asia now.
One of the most progressive elements of international cooperation centering on ASEAN+3 has been financial cooperation. The emerging network of swap agreements among ASEAN+3 countries was the product of ASEAN+3 cooperation since the Chiang Mai Initiative of 2000. The recent attention to how to manage the issues of renminbi also indicates the importance of preventing a possible instability caused by globalization. The existence of huge American twin deficits as well as the huge foreign currency reserves in Asia, pessimists often say, is unsustainable. Some say Asia requires something similar to the Plaza accord of 1985. Some others say that the situation is becoming more and more similar to the early 1970s that brought about the Nixon shocks of August 1971. In other words, this is not simply an Asian matter; how to make a smooth currency realignment in Asia is now having global consequences.
The six party talks, which now dominate international politics in Northeast Asia, is currently the only hopeful international framework to deal with North Korea. If the six party talks do not produce positive developments, East Asia continues to struggle with how to deal with North Korea. As no military solutions are desirable over the peninsula, failing to persuade Pyongyang to abandon nuclear weapons program would mean that neighboring countries have to create their defense programs to cope with a North Korea with nuclear weapons and a North Korea that might sell WMD abroad. This is not at all a solution. This is aggravation of the situation that might disrupt the peace in Northeast Asia.
Although the issues surrounding the Taiwan Strait are not dealt with in any formal international arrangements, they are the major issues of contention in Sino-American relations and Sino-Japanese relations. Even if the Taiwan strait issues are regarded as “domestic affairs,” as the PRC insists and many countries accept, they could have devastating international implications if they were to bring about military confrontation.
The three trends thus far discussed - globalization, the ending process of the Cold War, and democratization, are probably creating new problems too.
First, energy and environmental issues could become very serious as a result of rapid economic development in Asia, especially China. The Central Committee of the CCP recently decided a goal of 9 percent annual economic growth for the next five year plan. As China’s energy efficiency in terms of realizing economic growth is often said to be at least four times worse than the United States, which is one of the worst energy user among the advanced economies, the world energy demands could become very tight. If China could not continue to buy the necessary energy sources from abroad, it needs to face serious bottlenecks for its economic growth that might create domestic problems. If China successfully buys up all energy supply in the world, less fortunate developing countries should suffer serious energy shortage. This huge energy consumption in China and elsewhere could produce terrible environmental problems. What worries most to the specialists in international politics is the possible geopolitical implications of this increase of energy demands. Currently there are disputes about natural gas excavation in East China Sea between Japan and China. Unless managed wisely, the background of increasing energy demands might heighten political tension.
Second, the ending process of the Cold War, though bringing about peace in general, also poses general questions as to the coming security threats to many countries. The obvious new threat was those from terrorists. But there are general concerns about strategic implications of the growing China. The recent Pentagon document on China’s military capability suggested that China is building up arms more than necessary for its defense purposes. I do not want to exaggerate the implications of China’s defense modernization programs but at least more transparency on the part of China is desirable.
Third, the process of democratization is still going on. Its impact is growing in currently nondemocratic countries, including China. The amazing speed of spread of the internet in China is creating a space where people can exchange views in a degree previously unthinkable. The media newspapers and television-- is one of the most actively developing industries in China. Many Chinese people are now not ready to accept “orders” of the authorities; many take to streets in protest against “pollution” and forceful confiscation of their houses and lands caused by arbitrary industrial developments planned by the authorities without the consent of the people. The problem of managing “nationalism” is becoming important in this respect. There could be a strong temptation among the Communist leaderships to use “nationalism” to prop up its legitimacy. Some commentators in Japan pointed out this elements in the recent anti-Japanese riots in April. Although I do not believe that the Hu Jingtao government intentionally planned the anti-Japanese demonstration, it showed difficulties in handling the rise of people’s nationalistic sentiments. The Chinese government so far acted very cautiously in this respect in this very important year of 60th anniversary of victory over Japan. But given the increasing people’s desire of expressing their views, too much repression, even to control excessive nationalism, could undermine the long-term political stability.
Invited Speakers’ Abstracts
It seems that most of the potential sources of uncertainty, except for the North Korea, center on the future of China. By listing up these uncertainty, I do not mean to propagate the so-called “China threat” thesis. I do not believe that the current Chinese leadership has a clear intention to achieve a hegemonic position in Asia, let alone in the world. However, because China is a center of Asian dynamism, it is the center of uncertainly. Unless the problems emanating from the dynamic trends in Asia are wisely managed, any one of them could cause tremendous instability in the region.
In the current world of globalization and interdependence, any significant national problems of a major power could have international implications. Even on essentially national decisions should be made wisely with their international implications fully into consideration. In this sense, it is of extreme importance to strengthen international frameworks of consultation among countries in the region.
Since ASEAN+3 has been around for sometime since 1997, APEC around since 1989, and now we are having an East Asian summit in December, peoples in Asia should be resolved to strengthen such international frameworks of cooperation of prevent the negative tendencies of Asian dynamism from undermining its benefits. The East Asia Vision Group, an advisory panel to the ASEAN+3 summit, proposed a report in 2001 and in that report it argues the goal of community building in East Asia was to create “peace, prosperity, and progress” in East Asia. Peace is possible if Asia continues to take advantage of the ending process of the Cold War; Prosperity is possible if Asia continues to take advantage of globalization; and Progress is possible if Asia continues to take advantage of forces of democratization.