EAST ASIA: Diverse Region Shares Common Headaches
By Wendy Wilson
WASHINGTON, Nov 17 — If one were to compile a laundry list of the major goals envisioned by and for East Asia, it would be straightforward enough: to create unity, advance economic growth, and develop democratic political structures.
If, however, one wished to propose a single strategy to transform those visions into reality, it could prove a frustrating — and futile — attempt, thanks to the extraordinary diversity within the region.
After all, East Asia is a polyglot of histories, social values and cultures, economics, and politics.
"There no single East Asia," Robert Scalapino from the University of California, Berkeley, said at a seminar here organised by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
"We are not only seeing a diversity in snapshots of East Asia but in the moving pictures of the Asian scene," said Harry Harding of George Washington University.
But despite economic and political differences, the challenges facing East Asian nations are more similar than not, Scalapino continues. "Every society today in East Asia is facing the interaction of three somewhat conflicting forces: internationalism, nationalism, and what I call communalism," he said.
These underlie the greatest internal and external struggles of each nation in East Asia, he adds.
Internationalism is a legitimate response to economic globalisation, as well as an attempt by societies to discuss mutual problems. Yet the bi-, tri-, and multi-lateral partnerships and alliances necessary for inclusion in the international community can infuse a nation with the fear that its individual, independent status is being undermined.
Internationalism can also be seen as opportunities for some nations, like the United States, to intervene in the affairs of another, hence the emergence of nationalism in East Asia as an engine motivating political and economic policy.
Witness Japan's attempts to resign from its second-fiddle status with the United States and its urge to be what Scalapino called a "normal nation", as opposed to one restricted by its Peace Constitution.
In Asia, nationalism propels economic policy, but economic recovery continues to be an unstable process.
One of the problems in societies like Japan and South Korea is the fact that because fundamental economic change will mean cultural change, it cannot come quickly or easily.
Japan, for instance, is struggling with the difficulty of fundamentally altering a system that was "so successful for so long," Scalapino adds.
In the past, the government had served as an indulgent traffic cop, identifying policies, controlling sectors of the economy - and colluding with elements within those sectors. Japan's government allowed a lack of transparency, kept import controls while firmly directing export orientation.
"But Japan is one case study that no economic strategy is good for all time," remarked Scalapino. "Once the era for globalisation set in and the need for competitiveness increased, this system was not compatible. To make the fundamental changes required, very basic cultural adjustments needed to happen, and they have not yet been made."
This is a challenge that faces many countries in East Asia.
Nationalism is likewise driving China's meteoric economic development, which has a nice side effect of benefiting its neighbours.
But it also raises questions: Is China's nationalism controllable? Useful? Will it become militant? How will China consummate its socio-economic transition without disturbing the region's political situation? "This is a concern among China's neighbours," Scalapino added.
The region is also watching how China manages the transition to a market economy without causing social disruptions, caused among others by job losses that come with restructuring state enterprises.
Vietnam shares some of the same problems China faces as its younger leaders are driven less by ideology and more by pragmatism. "They (Vietnamese) are swimming in ambivalence," observed Scalapino, "with internal differences between the conservative North and the entrepreneurial South."
Internal problems also plague North Korea, where attaining increased openness will require fighting corruption, a potpourri of political entanglements and concerns by the leadership about type of restraints to be kept.
Meantime, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, author of the 'sunshine policy' with the North, is in political trouble. He is seen as spending too much time on foreign policy and not enough on domestic economic problems.
In Indonesia, separatism is mounting, and the political centre seems incapable of response. In the Philippines, the impeachment process of President Joseph Estrada provokes questions of the viability of an elected government that needs to remove a leader from office.
According to Scalapino, bilateral ties between the many powers are still the most important factor for the region's stability.
He believes the U.S. and China will continue a policy of engagement because "containment is obviously outdated and not effective." The critical issue will remain Taiwan, "where there is no solution in sight."
Unquestionably, the U.S. perceives its presence in East Asia as a matter of national interest. For all the banter about American hegemony, Scalapino warned that people "better also worry about withdrawalism'," which he predicted is a possibility should the U.S. economy weakens.
Most of Asia sees the U.S.-Japan alliance as a very important one, whether its purpose is to contain Japan militarily or advance the region's economy. A Japan-China relationship is desirable, though historical suspicions are a constraint.
Meantime, Japan's delicate strategic partnership with Russia may actually grow more powerful due in part to mutual interest in depreciating U.S. hegemony.
But experts at the seminar said the U.S-China ties will bear special concern.
Harding says he sees a "growing security dilemma ahead" and "growing mistrust" on both sides. "I think we are going to have a competitive relationship with China. Will it be a destructive or constructive competition?" he asked.
Scalapino was more optimistic. "When faced with the alternative of war, China will come to a position of engagement with the U. S., just as we reluctantly came to engagement with China," he observed.
"The issues of human security, resources, environment and population are potential for a concert of interests," said Scalapino. "Frankly, conflict seems illogical."
These comments fly in the face of a recent report by the Pentagon — criticised as extreme by the U.S. Department of State — that cites missile proliferation and military build-ups as portents for hostilities in East Asia.
In the mid-to-late nineties, at the time of the twin Sino- American summits, there was hope of including China in a trilateral arrangement with Japan and the United States. But the lack of common goals quickly became apparent.
The Americans understood the purpose of U.S. strategy to be the integration of China into American international policy. China responded that it would accept the integration, but not the American leadership.
But though many view the US' ties with China, Japan and South Korea as key pillars of security in East Asia, they also recognise that unilateralism by big powers is no longer politically acceptable in the region.
As East Asia itself develops its own multilateral fora on regional security and economic issues, the United States must engage itself in these venues, work in partnership with key countries and address public concerns.
Matthew Palmer of the U.S. State Department said at the seminar that the U.S. must ensure that its military forces are "relevant and acceptable" to host areas like the Taiwan strait and the Korean peninsula.
"We need to engage Korea and Japan in the nature of the alliance, the role of the U.S. and how the alliance is going to cooperate — and how we are going to explain it to our respective publics," he added.
Said Palmer: "In both Korea and Japan, there's a growing sentiment among the general public that U.S. presence has outgrown its usefulness. The same might be said of some sectors with the U.S. population." (IPS/2000)
