THE MALACCA STRAITS AND JAPAN'S TIGHTER GRIP OF ASEAN

Japan has stepped forward to increase cooperation and assistance to ASEAN. Japanese Transport Minister Keiichi Ishii joining his Malaysian counterpart in declaring open the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services in Port Klang, Malaysia’s largest port on August 29, 2017, noted that advancements in the ASEAN region would result in greater traffic. The contribution of Japan which has been estimated at US$ 4 million has enabled the setting up of the facility, but more importantly and of much higher value is that it has given Japan a deeper stake in a region that once abhorred anything Japanese. 

Mistrust, prejudice and hatred stemming from the Second World War were to have a lasting impact on Japan’s relations with South East Asia, given the numerous war-time atrocities. Yet it was the Asian Development Bank, originally a concept of Thai banker, Paul Sithi-Amnuai that saw Japan gaining favour in the region. Calling for a regional bank, Sithi-Amnuai identified the need for an institution geared towards developing intra-regional trade. He did so when addressing a trade conference organized by the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) in 1963.

At first the United States vehemently opposed the creation of another regional bank, in the wake of the establishment of the Inter-American Development Bank in 1959, and given that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund possessed the ability to assist countries in the developing world, especially in South East Asia. A new venture was seen to curb American influence, and hence wasn’t a welcome suggestion.

With the escalation of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was persuaded to support the establishment of the ADB in 1964. Senator J. William Fulbright, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the War would not only bleed American blood and treasure, but would also be detrimental for America's image in Asia. Subsequently realizing the potential of such a bank, Johnson tasked former World Bank President Eugene Black with assisting in the establishment of the new institution.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk was keen on seeing Japan play an important role in the ADB, arguing that the biggest danger to American foreign policy in Asia was Japan's inability to integrate into the Asian society of nations following the animosities of the World War. Whilst countries expressed distinct opposition to Japan’s participation, persuasive American diplomacy resulted in Japan being accepted by the majority of participating nations, and a proposal was made that Tokyo would be the site of the bank's headquarters.

Meeting stiff opposition from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, who threatened to travel to every Asian capital and scuttle the idea, a decision was taken to locate the headquarters in Manila, thus silencing Marcos, and as a ‘concession’ to the Japanese, the inaugural presidency, which would be on a rotating basis, would first go to Japan. Interestingly the position has been retained by Japan ever since, with the concept of rotation long abandoned. Whilst taking up the presidency, Japan also arrogated itself control over critical "reserve positions" such as the directorship of the Budget, Personnel, and Management Systems Department.

By the end of 1972, Japan had contributed US$173.7 million, which was 22.6% of the total ordinary capital resources and US $122.6 million, 59.6% of the total special funds, while the United States contributed only US $1.25 million to the special fund. The ADB then focused much of its assistance on food production and rural development, with early loans going largely to Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Republic of Korea and the Philippines, accounting for 78.48% of the total ADB loans between 1967 and 1972.

The mistrust, prejudice and hatred which had once bedeviled relations seemed to have rescinded as American strategy and Japanese implementation saw the tide change in relations between Japan and most of South East Asia. The usage of a bank and finances altered the perception of a country, and more importantly improved relations to such an extent that Japan cooperates extensively with countries, specifically in ASEAN.

The latest move to establish the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services comes in the wake of the collision of the USS John S. McCain on August 21, 2017 off the coast of Johar, Malaysia, which was the fourth accident that involved American vessels. The US vessel, from its home port of Yokosuka in Japan, had been on its way to Singapore. Collisions, ship wrecks in the waters, piracy and haze are just some of the challenges navigators of the Strait have to overcome.  

In November 2004, ASEAN members along with Bangladesh, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Sri Lanka signed the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAPP). It was Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi who first articulated the need for the agreement at the ASEAN plus Three Summit in Brunei in 2001. He wanted the maintenance of a database, the conducting of analysis and carrying out the task of being an information clearing house.  

Efforts to boost cooperation and ensure greater involvement, though continuous, are being increased amidst attempts by ASEAN to ensure a balance of power in the region. China, following a similar model as Japan and the ADB, through their own mechanism, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which is augmenting the work of the One Belt One Road initiative of President Xi, is seeing results, as relations improve with ASEAN, in comparison to what they were a decade ago, or even a couple of years ago when looking at the Philippines.

China’s growing assertiveness in its relations cause concern for allies such America and Japan, who want to thwart, or at the very least, mitigate the impact China is having and the influence China is gaining in the region. Whilst the issues of the South China Sea seem to have abated, if only for the present, thanks in part to Philippine President Duterte and his altered policy towards China, and with attention focused on North Korea, China has been able to enhance economic influence in the intermission.  

While both Japan and China are keen on infrastructure development, and the Japanese having used the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) programme since 1954 after signing the Colombo Plan, are confronted today with a stronger, determined and confident China. For the infrastructure development to occur, they also realize they need to maintain or at the very least ensure secure sea lanes, with the Malacca Straits being the most contentious at present. Running between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the Straits which are claimed to be the second busiest waterway in the world, rose in significance as it serves as a gateway in trade to and from Asia. Yet it has remained a source of friction as nearly half of the world’s total annual seaborne trade tonnage is said to pass through the Straits. Expansion of trade and the implementation of the OBOR initiative have seen the Straits gain in significance, and also become more vulnerable to regional and international rivalry.  

As Malaysia becomes home to the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services on the eve of its 60^th anniversary of independence, the role of the Centre, the entrenched involvement of Japan, the heightened influence of China, as well as the impact these two countries would have on ASEAN, are at spilling point. 

For Japan, the latest move indicates a step towards enhancement of ties with ASEAN. Yet ASEAN, whilst celebrating half a century under the banner of ‘Partnering for Change, Engaging the World,’ has balanced regional rivalry, and more importantly, gained in the process.

-          AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

WHY REGIONAL INTEGRATION IS THE WAY FORWARD

Synergy has been closely related with mergers and acquisitions in the realm of business and commerce, yet the concept when related to International Relations (IR) and the engagement of states has the potential to replicate similar results. The process whereby two or more entities work together to create a result that none would have achieved on their own, has been experienced in Europe through the model of the European Union (EU). From an IR perspective, integration has seen the EU become one of the most advanced cooperative models the world has known. As a region, it has traversed decades and merged vital areas of trade, agriculture, immigration, currency and even foreign policy. The Coal and Steel Pact of 1951 saw Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg merging their vital resources, and not transfer them to a negative list, which other less-successful regions have done. 

The Treaty of Paris was aimed at achieving a political Europe through shared leadership, a common market and reaching the goal of a European Federation. The signatories thereof understood the herculean task ahead and realized they wouldn’t see the fruit of their action, yet they knew the beneficial nature of integration would auger well for the peace, security and unity of a region they called home.

Collective development

With the ending of the Second World War and the devastation in which Europe found itself the main focus was on avoiding further conflict, preserving peace and aiding development in countries that were caught up in the numerous battles that had ravaged lives, livelihoods and economies. The ensuing phase of development aided by America through the Marshall Plan and pursuant to the Truman Doctrine saw countries working with Germany, a country whose leadership had brought much destruction, albeit in its divided form.

The collective development the region experienced through gradual forms of integration resulted in the creation of a Common Market, adoption of common currency and reaping of shared benefits. Regarded as one of the strongest economic areas, the region has a population of 500 million, which is 7% of global population but accounts for 23% of nominal GDP in the world. A reduction of costs and prices has been realized through free trade and the removal of non-tariff barriers, with household income also increasing.

The collective decision to remove customs barriers has resulted in less paper-work, greater confidence and enabled countries like Ireland, Portugal and Spain to make significant economic progress owing to their membership in the regional bloc, which also boasts of countries which are occupy the highest rungs of the Human Development Index.

Reducing tension

While regionalism helped reduce suspicion, tension and brought Germany closer to countries in Europe, the process of interdependence enabled South East Asia to forge a cooperative system. Once countries realize the economic benefit of working together, tensions reduce drastically as they opt to engage rather that antagonize neighbours. The economic facilitation of dependence, though frowned upon for it’s over reliance, can, in an appropriate proportion, produce positive returns.   

As colonialism plagued South East Asia, countries responded individually as they grappled with the impact of the Cold War, the Vietnam war, border disputes, rivalries over islands, differing political systems and general widespread diversity. It has however been able to convert many challenges in to opportunities through its collaborative framework which was born through the Bangkok Declaration in 1967. The key focus on respecting state sovereignty, nonintervention in internal affairs and renouncing the use, or threat of use of force in resolving disputes that may arise, has collectively made a massive impact on an otherwise conflict prone region. Possessing an exhilarating diversity of community, language, traditions and geographical conditions, what could result in turmoil is being used instead to foster unity and cooperation.

Respect, more than tolerance, remains critical. Whilst tolerance is touted as an essential prerequisite for effective integration and general cooperation, it is the effort of going further and not merely tolerating, which itself has a negative connotation, but instead learning to respect difference and diversity that remains at the heart of reducing tension.

Strengthening security

Reduction in tension and the ability to co-exist augurs well for internal regional security but also has an added aspect of strengthening the security and stability of the region as a whole. Having overcome political differences, states look to consolidating their security, be it in the spheres of defence, economic, human, food and the list could be endless. It is argued that defence of the EU is more guaranteed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) than by the EU itself, yet the unified stance of countries even in a body such as NATO has seen them receiving a vital blanket of security, which they would otherwise have had to manage individually. It is integration that matters, and irrespective of the source of such integration, the resulting benefits accrued by member states, has seen a heavy reliance rather than indifference towards integration.

With terrorism, organized crime and cyber crime remaining at the top of the list of priorities in Europe, countries have done well to intensify the process of standardization, thereby raising the bar across the region, which in turn has boosted national mechanisms. The borderless region that has been created requires this intensified security mesh if it is to remain secure. Through Europe 2020 Strategy, the region is, through integration, introducing a collective security plan to protect ‘citizens, society and economy as well as infrastructure and services, prosperity, political stability and wellbeing.’  

Although the EU is hailed as the best model of integration, Brexit brought to the fore the question of whether the region integrated too much. Could they have continued in the form in which they existed or was it necessary to continue the process of seeing a truly borderless region in the realization of a European Federation? While a few, like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) felt they had, they led the charge of taking Britain out of the Union and have been successful in getting the required public support. Yet others, who benefited from integration, like the German Chancellor Angela Merkel truly believe in the European model and have found like-minded adherents in French President Macron and other European leaders.

At the signing of the Bangkok Declaration, Singapore’s Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam cautioned that countries had to think at two levels, national and regional, at when embarking on integration. He noted that ‘if we are really serious about it, regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. …If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.’ The visionary thinking fifty years ago saw South East Asia merge, just as Europe did owing to decisions taken nearly seven decades ago. The synergy of their actions from then to the present are benefiting generations now and will continue to do so in the future. Whilst the ‘pain’ Rajaratnam warned about remains a part of every collective decision a region has to take, it also means another step has been taken towards prosperity through collective development, peace through a reduction in tension and security through a cohesive policy.

-            

       -      AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

PEOPLE OR POLITICS? ASEAN AT 50

By George I. H Cooke 

‘A people-oriented and people-centered ASEAN’ are among the core principles of the Philippines’ chairmanship of the South East Asian grouping which marked its 50^th anniversary in early August 2017. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte identified the people of the sub-region to be at the heart of community-development and stressed that people want ‘a stable source of livelihood, a roof over one’s head, quality education for their children, affordable healthcare, a peaceful and stable government and a dynamic economy.’ Hailing from a democracy in Asia, Duterte’s attention is justified, yet questions arise over the progress made in five decades, the prosperity wave in most of South East Asia and most importantly the impact of ASEAN on the people.

Half a century constitutes a significant milestone for reflection and review. Yet it also presents an opportunity to address challenges which could in time, overwhelm the grouping and even subsume in the long term. Regional groupings which made integration ‘fashionable’ over the last century have seen a diverse array of associations sprouting across the world. While the European Union (EU) and its initial Coal and Steel Pact paved the way for the countries of West Europe to converge, membership grew with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the wave of independence in most of East Europe after the Cold War. More than seven decades after the Coal and Steel Pact, it remains uncertain whether the current level of integration was first envisaged. Whilst Britain cast a shadow over the Union with Brexit, the concept of integration is the most challenged.

Other regional bodies, though not comparable, have attempted to follow a similar course. In 1967, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand sought to create a model based on unity, solidarity and cooperation. The Founding Fathers of ASEAN, the Foreign Ministers of these five countries signed the five-articled ASEAN Charter in Bangkok commencing a journey that would see Brunei Darussalam join nearly two decades later in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia two years later. They all called for strengthened solidarity, adaptation to times, development of a framework, and the upliftment of a region. The then Philippine Foreign Secretary, Narciso Ramos explained that the negotiation process ‘truly taxed the goodwill, the imagination, the patience and understanding of the five participating Ministers.’ Resolute on the need for cooperation, he identified that their ‘fragmented economies…carry the seeds of weakness in their incapacity for growth, and their self-perpetuating dependence on the advanced, industrial nations.’

Ramos and Duterte sing off the same sheet. They both envision the grouping making substantial progress. The difference is that they spoke fifty years apart. In 1967, Ramos wanted ASEAN to ‘marshal the still untapped potentials of this rich region through more substantial united action.’ The noble aspirations were expressed at a time when Vietnam was in conflict and American forces were present. Fifty years later though not Vietnam at war, and despite American forces still being present, though in limited numbers and for varying reasons, the countries have prospered.

Statistics from member states in ASEAN indicate progress. While the total population grew from 317 million in 1990 to 617 million in 2012, total GDP expanded from US$334 billion to US$ 2, 311 billion during that same period, and bound to US$2.6 trillion last year. Total trade of these ten countries rose from US$ 306 billion in 1990 to US$ 2, 436 billion, while intra-regional trade increased from US$144 billion to US$602 billion. This indicates that in 1990 intra-regional trade amounted to nearly 50% of total trade of the ASEAN region while in 2012 it had dipped to 24%.

This halving of intra-regional trade comes despite the Association planning for a common economic programme since 2007, the ASEAN Economic Community. Based on four pillars of a single market and production base, competitive economic region, equitable economic development and integration in the globalized economy, the Community is geared towards harnessing the capacity of a regional economy which is the seventh-largest in the world, and a population estimated to amount to 620 million at present, making it the third largest third in Asia after China and India. This reduction in intra-regional trade could be attributed to new ventures and trading opportunities outside the region which attracted the attention of ASEAN member states.

Despite the opportunities that exist for the region, it is clear that challenges abound. From an absence on interest in forging a political or monetary union, to the divide in development between founding and new member states, the difficulty of forging an ASEAN identity and the concern over language, all contribute towards withholding progress. The lack of a strong secretariat, as is the experience with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), also lends to a lack of promotion of the regional identity. The European Commission was established (EC) to look after all matters regional. Tasked with promoting the interests of the Union, the EC is unlike any body within other regional groupings. The centre is strong, hence the attribution of the degree of progress experienced in the EU model. ASEAN is not alone in this regard, but neither are those other bodies as old as ASEAN.

Will ASEAN look at creating a single political entity or prefer to merely profess political cooperation and have leaders meet frequently? Is the region keen on merging national economies in producing a common market? Are member states focused on building their own national economies or truly strengthening regional capacity? Have the people of the member states, from all walks of life been able to grasp the operation of ASEAN? Has ASEAN reached beyond the leaders and the private sectors of the member states?

Until and unless the challenges ahead are addressed in the spirit of forging a common identity, the success attributed to the ASEAN region could well be attached to individual countries, their own economic planning and development programmes, rather than have it ascribed to regionalism. It is remarkable that success has been made, but the question pivots on the realization that it is the political arena that brags about it. People need to experience the fruits of integration, and people will forge much more than just the identity of ASEAN, that was first envisaged. Only then will ‘a people-oriented and people-centered ASEAN’ be created.