Security with Asian
characteristics By Tim Shorrock
WASHINGTON - The United States, which has
100,000 troops based in Northeast Asia, has expended
huge amounts of diplomatic energy in recent months
trying to resolve a nuclear standoff with North Korea
that threatens to undermine US concepts of regional
peace and security.
But despite its enormous
political and military clout, the United States has
found itself on the defensive in the crisis and recently
bowed to pressure from South Korea, China and others to
find a solution that conforms to the regional momentum
toward engagement with North Korea and supporting
Pyongyang's efforts to end its isolation.
That
tension between US power and regional realities, a group
of scholars says, underscores a deeper truth about Asia.
Despite decades of US dominance, several
destructive wars and lingering tensions over the future
of Korea and Taiwan, the nations of East Asia are
lurching toward their own system of political and
economic order that could be more stable and offer
greater opportunities for long-term interdependence than
the Pax Americana of the past 50 years.
"Asia is
not an unstable, unpredictable place," said Muthiah
Alagappa, the director of the East-West Center office in
Washington and the editor of a new book, Asian
Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features,
which makes the case that a home-grown security
environment is gradually emerging in the region. "Order
in Asia doesn't rest only on the shoulders of the United
States".
Speaking to a seminar about his book
sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, Alagappa
argued that the political order in Asia is not static,
but instead a mixture of three competing models.
The first one, he said, is based on US concepts
of "hegemony with liberal features" centered on
bilateral alliances and expansion of a market-based
free-trade system.
The second is based on
China's desire for a balance of power where the key role
is played by global institutions such as the United
Nations, where Beijing has a vote.
And the third
is based on what Alagappa called the "multilateral
institutionalism" of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), which emphasizes the non-use of force
and the importance of sovereignty.
The Chinese
and ASEAN concepts, he said, emerged in the late 1990s
as an alternative to US dominance of Asia. Their
popularity underscores the fact that "the United States
has not been able to impose its concept of order on the
region", Alagappa said. "It has a negative veto but
doesn't have the power to write the rules by itself."
That view stands in contrast to the
establishment view in Washington, said G John Ikenberry,
professor of global justice at Georgetown University and
an expert on Asian politics. "We tend to see East Asia
as an immature region," he said. "It's actually quite
stable even if you diminish the US role."
Ming
Wan, an associate professor at George Mason University
and a contributor to Alagappa's volume, argued that the
wide acceptance of open markets and the stress placed by
Asian governments on economic performance as a source of
political legitimacy have been major contributors to
regional stability.
"In a way, we're seeing the
triumph of capitalism in the region," he said, noting
that both South Korea and Taiwan experienced democratic
transitions while their economies were expanding.
While China still has a long way to go on that
path, Wan pointed out that Chinese authorities are
permitting "limited democratic reform" in the Shenzhen
Special Economic Zone, where some of that country's
market reforms were first implemented.
The
half-century of peace on the Korean Peninsula
illustrates the relative stability of East Asia compared
to other parts of the world, said David Kang, an
associate professor at Dartmouth College, also a
contributor to the book. "We're coming up on 50 years
that the Korean powder keg hasn't blown up," he said.
"Is it just luck? Or does Asia provide more stability
than we care to admit?"
Answering his own
question, Kang argued that all countries in the region
"know how bad it would be to go into a war. Everybody is
aware of the cost and potential damage." As a result,
the "potential for war is much, much lower than it was
at the height of the Cold War".
Both Wan and
Kang described South Korea's emphasis on dialogue with
North Korea as a sign of Asia's independence from
Washington's traditional Cold War approach to conflict
in Korea. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and his
successor, President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, believe that
"confrontation hasn't worked", said Wan. "That's a
powerful and logical argument, so the Bush
administration has little choice" but to talk to the
North.
Recent anti-American demonstrations in
South Korea, suggested Kang, are "not just an emotional
response" to the recent deaths of two schoolgirls who
were struck by a US military vehicle but an expression
that "engagement has worked and strides are being made.
Maybe here in America we don't see those gains."
Alagappa said the US emphasis on the war on
terrorism has obscured its understanding of events in
Asia. "It's easy in Washington, DC, to see terrorism as
a primary threat," he said. "But it doesn't feature in
Asia like the Cold War dynamic did. Most of the dynamics
were there before the terrorist threat."
The
Malaysian scholar cautioned US analysts against assuming
that a US military withdrawal from Asia would
automatically mean that Japan would become a military
power.
"That's not a given," he said, noting the
recent changes in Sino-Japanese relations. Many Chinese
officials, he said, believe that in the long term they
will have to "accept Japan becoming a normal power.
Gradually the major players in Asia will accommodate" to
that development.
"It's a disservice to say that
America is keeping the cork in the bottle," Alagappa
said. "The United States deters war, but it also
prevents solutions. The US presence carries positives
and negatives. There's beginning to be a movement [in
Asia] to put relationships on a different footing
despite the role of the United States."
(Inter
Press Service)
|