|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| |
Rethinking Southeast Asia
 Email  Printer-Friendly |
|
Morton Abramowitz,
Stephen Bosworth,
The Century Foundation,
4/21/2005
|
|
|
The United States needs a longer-term approach to Southeast Asia. This means getting
a better perspective on China's role in the region. It also means serious cooperation
to help improve governance in the region, particularly to help make Indonesia
and Vietnam dynamic, successful states. That would enormously strengthen the area's
regional stability, cohesion, and independence.
Since the end of the cold war the U.S. has paid attention to Southeast Asia mostly
when there is trouble. America's initial lack of attention to the region contributed
to the financial crisis of 1997 which went on to ravage much of Asia and threaten
global economic stability. The U.S. is still paying the costs of that episode
in Asian public opinion. Only after 9/11 did the United States discover jihadism
in the area. The disastrous tsunami once again rekindled American attention and
U.S. assistance was prompt, large, and enormously welcomed. While the U.S. ability
to respond to crises in Southeast Asia is important, it is not an alternative
to a coherent policy.
The current U.S. approach to the area has been spasmodic: some counter-terrorism
effort here, a bit of development financing there, an occasional presidential
visit, and frequent statements about the glories of ASEAN, while pursuing a few
bilateral free trade agreements on the side. Increasingly some now argue that
growing Chinese influence in the region threatens American interests and that
the U.S. should somehow be doing more. The Pentagon is more fixated on China's
growing military capabilities and its impact on Taiwan and Asian security in general.
U.S. policy is not commensurate with its interests in a changing Southeast Asia,
an area of half a billion people. Central among them is commerce. In 2003 U.S.
total trade with ASEAN was 130 billion dollars and investment reached some 90
billion. The large Muslim population of the region is another focal point of American
interest. The pockets of Islamic extremism are still small, but they have produced
acts of violence and interwoven networks of terrorism. The U.S. has a fundamental
interest in stable effective states in Southeast Asia that can stop extremist
violence and generally strengthen the region.
Part of the difficulty in coming up with a cogent approach to the region is that
the region is such a mixed bag. Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia have become
dynamic and largely successful states. Indonesia and the Philippines have struggled
to establish effective governments. Vietnam is on the ascent but has a long way
to go and needs plenty of external support. Burma, Laos, and Cambodia remain more
or less trapped in backwardness.
Given the varied nature of the region it is not surprising that outside governments
view ASEAN, the area's one big institutional creation, as a central point of engagement.
In its nearly four decades of existence ASEAN has reduced the likelihood of conflict
among its members and created a growing web of economic and security cooperation.
ASEAN has become a cornerstone for wider Asian economic cooperation, including
China, Japan and South Korea. However, despite all the rhetoric devoted to ASEAN
by its member countries, most states remain focused on their own internal problems
and bilateral relations with immediate neighbors. At some point ASEAN is also
going to have to decide what constitutes East Asia if they are going to proceed
in a serious way toward significantly enhanced broad regional cooperation.
Much has been made of China's growing involvement in the area, and the notion
that the Chinese "are cleaning the American clock" in terms of influence
in the area has gained currency in some American quarters. That may be overdrawn
but China is indeed a rapidly expanding presence in the area. Trade and investment
flows with China are increasingly important to all the economies of the area.
Some countries fear Chinese productivity and dread a "hollowing out"
of their manufacturing sectors. But most also see major opportunities as China's
demand for their raw materials and agricultural products grows exponentially.
China is bringing new dynamism to Southeast Asian economies and on balance that
can be supportive of U.S. interests in the region.
To be sure China's diplomacy in Southeast Asia has also been adroit. They have
used the lure of access to their markets to consolidate their relationships in
the region. They have invested heavily in bilateral relations and are building
ties multilaterally through ASEAN. Southeast Asian students increasingly study
Chinese and go to China mostly because that is where they believe money is to
be made. China's growing weight in the area was well expressed to us by a prominent
Malaysian: "We are not prepared to kow tow to China but we must be deferential."
Bow from the waist apparently rather than the knees.
China, however, remains distrusted in the area, notably in Indonesia and Vietnam.
There are also serious abrasions including continuing contention over claims to
resources in the South China Sea among China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Taiwan and Brunei. Probably most important, Southeast Asian countries do not want
to feel left alone with China. That is not to say that they want the United States
to view them as an arc of containment. But they do want America to remain seriously
involved.
In fact, the U.S. remains a significant if receding presence in the area. America's
open markets and investment remain important to economic progress. Southeast Asian
countries respect U.S. military might, though some fear the U.S. may be too quick
to use it. The American image in this heavily Islamic area is problematic. There
is much criticism of the United States' allegedly unquestioning support of Israel
and in particular the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Yet most countries are still prepared
to cooperate with the U.S. No country wants to get in a hassle with the U.S. and,
perhaps more notably, wants the U.S. to cause any hassle with China in the neighborhood.
There are continuing complaints about the U.S. government's "myopic"
absorption with terrorism, restrictive visa policies, and not "paying sufficient
attention to the area."
Advancing American interests in Southeast Asia requires more than simply wooing
ASEAN, although that is desirable and inexpensive. To deal with terrorism, the
U.S. government needs to further enhance intelligence and law enforcement cooperation
and in some cases military to military cooperation with states of the area. To
foster economic growth and commerce, the private sector requires a framework of
good working relations among governments. Moreover what the United States needs
to recognize clearly is that all its interests—counter-terrorism especially
and any concerns about China—are best served by the evolution of strong,
effective governments in the region. Over the longer term the best antidotes to
jihadism are good governance, education, and economic progress. If ASEAN is to
prosper it requires strong member countries, particularly the larger ones that
have real weight in the region and have both the fiber not to be intimidated by
China but also the realism to deal cooperatively with Beijing.
Two countries especially important in this regard—Indonesia and Vietnam—deserve
concerted U.S. attention and more support: the former if only because it is the
world's largest and most secular oriented Muslim country, and Vietnam because
of its size, location and potential.
Indonesia has had a series of weak governments since the fall of Soeharto in 1998,
and it is not clear whether last year's impressive election will change that.
The new government's ability to deal with the tsunami's devastation is an important
test of its effectiveness. So will their handling of Aceh rebellion. U.S. relations
are still troubled over the past conduct of Indonesia's military. All that needs
sorting out and the U.S.-Indonesian relationship needs to move on, resumption
of the IMET program is a start.
Vietnam's eighty million people are coming out of their shell and want to be part
of the world. That should help change its authoritarian and repressive government,
which recognizes the need for domestic change but moves cautiously. It still holds
its faith in socialism while cautiously opening its economy to encourage growth
and gradual integration into the global market. Despite its very low per capita
income, the country's economic dynamism is palpable. Its abiding security concern
remains China but it realizes it must be prudent in dealing with its northern
neighbor. Vietnam may also be, ironically, the most pro-American country in the
area. To be sure Vietnam will not be a vassal state to anyone.
Despite all the problems of governance in both countries the United States, as
well as major Asian allies like Japan, should seriously commit itself to finding
cooperative ways to assist them in expanding economic growth and producing modern,
effective, and open states.
Morton Abramowitz is Senior Fellow
at The Century Foundation and Stephen Bosworth is Dean of The Fletcher School
at Tufts University. Both served as American ambassadors in East Asia and are
preparing a book on America and East Asia. A version of this article originally appeared in the Jakarta Post on April 20.
|
|
| |
|
|
Copyright 2010 The Century Foundation. Privacy Policy
NY Office: 41 East 70th Street—New York, New York—10021—Phone:212-535-4441—212-879-9197
DC Office: 1333 H Street, NW—10th Floor— Washington, D.C.
20005— Phone: 202-387-0400— Fax: 202-483-9430
|
|
|
|
Taking Note
