|
|
|
|
|
August
3, 2001 MEMORANDUM
TO: OPINION
LEADERS FROM:
GARY SCHMITT SUBJECT: East Asia I would like to draw
your attention to the following op-ed (“Replace Asean”) written
by Ellen Bork in today’s Asian Wall Street Journal. Ms. Bork argues
that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has outlived its
utility as the principal forum for addressing region-wide issues. Instead,
she proposes that “Asia’s democracies should establish a regional
political and military alliance committed to strengthening the democracy
and security of its members and expanding it in the region. Such an organization
would be the logical outgrowth of Asia’s democratic development over
the last half-century, and an answer to the anachronistic regional institutions
that now fail to guarantee the region’s security and freedom.”
As she notes, as well,
this is an idea that President Bush put forward during his campaign for
the White House last fall. Ms. Bork’s piece
follows on the heels of meetings in Australia in which American diplomats
and military officials began to float the idea of closer security cooperation
among the United States and its democratic allies in the region. Admiral
Dennis Blair, Commander-in-chief of the U.S. Forces in the Pacific, has
described this new effort as an attempt to transform our traditional bilateral
relations with our Asean allies into a network of relationships in which
the U.S. would be the hub and our allies the spokes of this new arrangement.
We think this is a sound direction for America’s Asian policy. The only sour note
arising from the talks in Australia came in response to China’s immediate
complaint that the idea of such a cooperative security arrangement was
a threat to peace and stability in the region (read: a possible check
on China’s own ambitions.) Admiral Blair’s own response was
that none of this effort should be seen as “directed against the
Chinese.” But, of course, the Chinese don’t believe this, nor
should they. The reality is, China’s growing power and assertiveness
has raised concerns throughout the region and, by beginning to put in
place a more effective network of security ties among our democratic allies,
the United States, as the region’s leading power, is taking the appropriate
steps in response. Replace
Asean Last week’s meeting
of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean)
and Asean Regional Forum (ARF) foreign ministers lived up to expectations.
It flopped. There was consensus on U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s
boffo performance in the group’s annual variety show, but very little
of substance took place. Instead, the meeting was overshadowed by the
participants’ major preoccupation -- relations between the U.S. and
China -- and continued concern that the organization’s lack of cohesion
and failure to solve chronic regional problems threaten to make it irrelevant. Hopes that Asean,
and its corollary ARF, can promote harmony and stability in Asia are misplaced.
The regional group’s membership, history and principles are irreconcilable
with the most important element in achieving them -- democratic principles.
What Asia needs is an alliance of democratic nations committed to the
freedom and security of its members. Asean has outlived
its purpose. Founded in1967 in response to a perceived threat of communist
insurgency throughout Asia, none of its members were democracies (today,
a minority are). Its guiding principle of “noninterference”
reflected the organization's emphasis on external threats. The continued
insistence on noninterference and decision-making by consensus render
the group incapable of dealing with festering problems like Burma, or
new ones like Indonesia, where solutions require a commitment to democracy
and its attributes -- a pluralistic civil society, free press, rule of
law and civilian control of the military. The ARF, founded in
1994 to discuss security issues, includes the Asean 10 and the U.S., China,
Russia, European Union, Canada, Japan, Australia, India, Papua New Guinea,
New Zealand and North Korea. As U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James
Kelly told the Bangkok Post, expectations for ARF's progress are bound
to be limited “if only because there are so many partners with very
many different interests and histories.” Efforts to overhaul
Asean have failed. In 1997, then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar
Ibrahim provoked controversy by advocating “constructive involvement”
in the affairs of other Asean member states, including assistance for
electoral systems, civil society, rule of law and other reforms. Though
it carefully avoiding explicit support for democratic transitions, the
proposal made no headway because it threatened so many sitting heads of
Asean states, including Mr. Anwar’s boss, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who
later jailed Mr.Anwar. One year later, in
the wake of the Asian financial crisis and the fall of the Indonesian
dictator Suharto, the longest serving Asean head of state and most ardent
devotee of noninterference, Foreign Ministers Surin Pitsuwan of Thailand
and Domingo Siazon of the Philippines revived efforts to change Asean’s
modus operandi. For reasons of principle or pragmatism, they assured their
colleagues that that their proposal for “constructive intervention”
was not aimed at bringing about democratic change in member states. Thailand, said Mr.
Surin, is “a well-wisher of democracy-loving people everywhere, but
we are active champions of only our own.” Instead, he tied the initiative,
renamed “flexible engagement” to be less threatening, to the
need for countries to be able to address issues that may have consequences
beyond a country's sovereign borders, such as drug-trafficking or refugees.
“We do not seek to interfere in the internal affairs of any country,”
he said, “but we will voice our opinion on any issues that impact
our country’s stability and our people’s well-being.” Unfortunately, these
were the high-water mark of efforts to reform Asean. The late 1990s saw
Laos, Burma and Cambodia admitted as members and North Korea invited to
join the ARF. This prompted one Thai diplomat to exclaim that Asean's
expansion had “swung the balance in favor of the closed societies.”
Some Asean members had gone through “temporary authoritarian phases,”
the diplomat said. But now there was “a sense of permanence.”
While damaging Asean irreparably, this trend has worked to the benefit
of the authoritarian leaders involved, and of course China, which has
assiduously cultivated influence in Asean, especially among Burma, Cambodia
and Laos. The outlook for Asean
and the ARF is not promising. There is, however, an alternative. Rather
than trying to the transform the Asean/ARF system, Asia’s democracies
should establish a regional political and military alliance committed
to strengthening the democracy and security of its members and expanding
it in the region. Such an organization would be a logical outgrowth of
Asia’s democratic development over the last half-century, and an
answer to the anachronistic regional institutions that now fail to guarantee
the region’s security and freedom. It would also serve
as a powerful incentive to others to fulfill democratic criteria for membership,
much as NATO has attracted aspiring new members in Europe. And like NATO,
the U.S. would be an indispensable member of an Asian democratic alliance.
President George W. Bush spoke during his campaign of working “toward
a day when the fellowship of free Pacific nations is as strong and united
as our Atlantic partnership.” To that end, he has appointed defense
and foreign policy officials who support strengthened relationships with
democratic allies much neglected under the Clinton administration. Obviously, an alliance
of Asian democracies, especially one including the U.S., would provoke
intense outrage from China. Over a long period of time, Asian countries
have become conditioned to dealing with each other, and with the region’s
two powers, China and the U.S., on a bilateral basis. China has benefited
from this situation and can be expected to strenuously resist any change. Taiwan’s participation
in the alliance, which should be self-evident given its democratic status,
would also cause controversy and require a long overdue re-evaluation
of the way U.S. policy on Taiwan has evolved. In fact, the U.S. is already
taking important steps to institutionalize a de facto defense relationship
with Taiwan, and the president has expressed the solidity of America's
commitment. Top Bush administration officials signed a 1999 position paper,
sponsored by the Project for the New American Century, calling past U.S.
pressure on Taiwan to acquiesce to reunification on Beijing's terms “dangerous
and directly at odds with American strategic interests, past U.S. policy
and American democratic ideals.” The circumstances
that inspired Asean’s founding have long since changed. However,
while the old Cold War threat is gone, there is still a contest within
Asia that involves ideals and the potential use of force. Asia has no
regional institution capable of advancing and protecting the interests
of its democracies. It should have one.
|
 |
   
|
