• Mon
  • Sep 15, 2014
  • Updated: 12:22pm
CommentInsight & Opinion

Asia's leaders must work together to solve their problems and leave the US out of it

Chandran Nair says Asian leaders must realise the futility and danger of looking to America to sort out their squabbles, and see that regional cooperation is the best bet for peace

PUBLISHED : Monday, 19 May, 2014, 2:32am
UPDATED : Monday, 19 May, 2014, 2:32am

What do you think would be the tenor of global debate if President Xi Jinping, on a tour of South America, were to give speeches at each stop about the threat posed to the region by the United States? While visiting Cuba, he would offer promises of "deepening our alliance". And, at the trip's end in Mexico, Xi would call that country "freedom's frontier … on this divided peninsula".

Anything of the sort would be greeted by the universal outrage of global commentators - and probably by calls for sanctions on the part of leading US politicians.

But switch China and America's places and this is almost exactly what happened when President Barack Obama visited Asia late last month. Those words above were Obama's - but directed to the Philippines and South Korea (rather than Cuba and Mexico).

Indeed, few issues nowadays can avoid being drawn into the ideological sinkhole of Sino-US competition. But the global nervousness goes further than that.

In a speech to students in Pennsylvania, Obama recounted that "countries like Germany, China and India - they're working every day to out-educate our kids so they can out-compete our businesses". Even the Hollywood press has been buzzing about whether studios are now "kowtowing to China", by editing their films in an attempt to enter the lucrative Chinese market.

Apart from creating an attitude of fear and mistrust among the next generation of Americans, this kind of narrative promotes a dangerous national solipsism.

A world where all other countries are either threats or allies, and a world that can be divided into either being "with us or against us", is an increasingly dangerous place - whether those words are uttered by a sitting American president or others.

What may be intended as harmless, even cheerful motivation can be turned, almost accidentally, on its head - and become the spark for a generation's worth of misunderstanding and mistrust. Hardly the goal of political leadership.

Asia's political leaders have been little better. They are far from acting in any harmonious fashion, mired as they are in their own petty squabbles.

The new "game" in Asia reads like a football World Cup schedule: Japan versus Korea, Korea vs China, China vs Vietnam - and North Korea vs everyone else.

Asian leaders should know better. Their populations need them to focus on equitable and sustainable growth. Instead, far too many politicians seem stuck in the past, brooding over wars that ended 70 years ago.

The cliché is that Asian nations have long histories and long memories, which gives them wisdom. But the opposite can just as easily be true. An obsession with a perverse interpretation of history prevents cooperation on the real challenges of the future.

Small wonder then that many, both inside and outside Asia, have clung to the notion, eagerly seized upon by the US, that America has to step in and "fix" the region. But this is a dangerous idea. One need only look at the Middle East to see what kind of disasters such thinking can cause.

Nor is the seemingly placid state of Europe today something Asia should aspire to, and not just for the obvious reason that a huge amount of blood was spilt in the interim. What many too often forget is that the reason Europe is so seemingly peaceful is because western European nations have essentially forfeited any notion of an independent foreign policy. In crisis after crisis, they have listened to the United States' luring calls and become totally subservient. Europe, as many Europeans tacitly recognise, has become a tool in the global exercise of American power.

One need only look at a map of American overseas bases to know who is really calling the shots globally.

What is really needed is not just an American and a European pivot to Asia, but also a Russian pivot to Asia, an African pivot and - most of all - an Asian pivot to Asia.

Asia will undoubtedly become the world's most important region. In the early stages of this century, it will have both the world's largest economy, China, and its most populous nation, India.

The future of such a continent should not be determined by any one group, certainly not the American political class. They stand out because they are simultaneously the most ill-informed about the region and, curiously, the most prone to believing they alone have a right to shape its history.

Cooperation, rather than rivalry, on Asian politics will be in everyone's best interests. Progress on that vital issue cannot - and should not - come from outside.

It is shortsighted of China's neighbours to antagonise what will inevitably become the region's most powerful political, economic and military force. But it is just as shortsighted of China to promote any vicious form of nationalism as a means to distract from domestic challenges.

China is here to stay. Constant obsessing about regional conflicts, by whichever "camp", poses the very real danger of them becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But more than this, the real problems of the 21st century - those to do with scarce resources, climate change, rising populations and technology overreach - will need to be solved with the help of the entire world, not by squabbling groups of short-term allies.

China, in its well-understood self-interest, should be at the centre of these efforts - possibly even leading them. For this, it will need the cooperation of its neighbours. The latter should not fall victim to the "Western" folly of treating China like a pariah, largely because it has a very different, but actually quite well-functioning, political system.

The Chinese, in turn, need to step up to the plate and validate their claims of a "peaceful rise". They must start to compromise. If they don't, they risk living up to frequent accusations of bullying made against them.

In the end, only a series of mutually agreed upon regional rules can prevent a race to the bottom. To the victor the spoils? Anybody who seriously believes that notion even for a moment has no idea of the lasting damage that could be created in the struggle for control of a small group of uninhabited islands.

Chandran Nair is the founder of the Global Institute For Tomorrow in Hong Kong and a contributing editor at The Globalist, where this article was originally published. www.theglobalist.com

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

14

This article is now closed to comments

How About
To be quite fair, with a couple of anomalies where Mr. Nair may have been misinformed or had had edits done, this is by far the better article of the month about the issues. Two rather serious blanks come to mind (a) whether China would be given a fair opportunity to step up or would she still be made a pariah otherwise by stepping up; (b) will China be allowed to charter her peaceful rise given peace as in war can be unwittingly (dis)encouraged by a third party?
.
And, I look forward to read more of Chandran's work.
.
phandong
"One need only look at a map of American overseas bases to know who is really calling the shots globally" and thanks to these bases, Asia Pacific has been left in peace for many decades until the 9 dash line. Mr Nair has deliberately the public when he compares the US influence or some known as 'sphere of influence" with Chinas' maritime dispute with its neighbours. The u.S has massive influence in the region; howewer, can Mr Nair quote any outstanding or current dispute between the USA and its southern neighbours?
phandong
Mr. Nair is presenting too many misleading information on his writing, but best for propaganda. Rebalancing Asia will not be the first and the last for America to intervene in Asia to prevent one giant or war monger Asian power from swallowing a less powerful neighbour since the Commodore 's 'Blackship" bombarded the bay of Tokyo to force the Isolationist Japan to open ajar for world trade and concession more than a century ago.
stim
What do you mean "a perverse interpretation of history"?
andreaswagner
What do you think would be the tenor of global debate if President Xi Jinping, on a tour of South America, were to give speeches at each stop about the threat posed to the region by the United States?

Everybody would say, what a crock of shite. Because firstly the South American countries are not China's allies, in some cases for decades. And secondly last time I checked the US was not on a rampage stealing South American islands and trying to provoke war with each and every one of them:)
5379cd39-2f7c-400d-872b-35030a320969
Do you really consider Vietnam was an ally of the USofA int he 60s? Now that the US wants to be involved Asia because they have been left out of Europe and the MiddleEast, Vietnam is now a friend and ally! We all have short memories!
Have you not heard of all the countries in South America who loved the USofA for many years in the last century? US has been secretly interfering in the South American countries.
China was kept out of the treaties on the islands in dispute during the 1950s .... The US was transferring the occupied territories without consultation with China because it was too weak and divided then!
TigerJ
"Everybody would say, what a crock of shite."... Actually, that was many people's reaction to Obama's visit in Asia
phandong
"China was kept out of the treaties on the islands in dispute during the 1950s"....Do you really with a copy of the treaty or you are playing stupid?
5379cd39-2f7c-400d-872b-35030a320969
Dear Pandong,
The Treaty of San Francisco in 1951..... China and Taiwan were not present.
****en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands
In 1951, at the international Treaty of San Francisco conference, Vietnam's representative claimed that both the Paracels and Spratlys are territories of Vietnam, and was met with no challenge from all nations at the event. However, neither mainland China nor Taiwan participated at the conference. Separately, the Taiwan negotiated and signed its own treaty with Japan regarding the islands on April 29, 1952.[55]
How About
The Globalist is headquartered in Washington DC, say no more!.

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or