Context

APEC and ASEAN are the two main bodies facilitating cooperation between nations of the Asia Pacific region. This article seeks to stipulate the main differences in the two organizations and also to analyze the cause of rising tensions over the future of APEC and how major stakeholders are seeking to influence its evolution. Pakistan’s outlook in the region will be looked at in the context of PoliTact’s previous article on India’s Looks East Policy.

Analysis

APEC

APEC is the Asia Pacific Economic Community, established in 1989 to help facilitate the growth and community of ‘member economies’. There are 21 member economies (countries) today, with the original 12 countries consisting of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. Since then, Chile, Peru, Mexico, China, Russia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea and Chinese Tai Pei have joined.

APEC’s basic goals are to work towards tariff reduction and reduction of other trade barriers between member economies in order to promote efficiency in domestic markets, and to increase exports of member economies. Less enthusiastically, APEC is also concerned with the free movement of people between member economies-however this is a bone of contention within the organization, given that it has such wealth disparities present between member economies.

Member economies of APEC account for over 50% of world GDP, and over 40% of the world’s population.

ASEAN

ASEAN is the Association of South East Asian Nations, created in 1967 with a much narrower charter than APEC, and only five founding members: Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines. Today there are 10 members of ASEAN, with Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar joining at various stages between 1984 and 1999.

ASEAN is much more focused on regional stability and community with initiatives involving education, cultural exchanges, research and technological advancement. Economic interests are of course a part of ASEAN; however they are far less articulated than in APEC.

In 1997 ASEAN + 3 was formed, including the regional powerhouses of China, Japan and the Republic of Korea into the ASEAN fold. The +3 members are not considered full ASEAN members, but partake in similar activities as between the ASEAN members themselves. On top of the ASEAN+3 members, ASEAN as a regional body has dealings with other non-member states in the Asia Pacific region, these include the US, Russia, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and Pakistan. Inter-organizational relationships are also present between ASEAN and the EU and UNDP.

ASEAN and APEC both figure prominently in the region, however APEC is marked for being the organization which can, if any can, bring an Asia Pacific community into being. While comparisons with the EU are inevitable, they can never be more than passing comparisons because of the vastly different historical, cultural and economic make-ups of the two organizations. APEC is unique in that it seeks to make community where little common history and culture exists-the nations of Chile and Japan will never share the same kind of bond that countries of the EU share, simply because they have not be forged in a common historical furnace. APEC has found commonality in its member countries via economics.

The future of APEC is widely contended, even between member economies. For China, the current, non-binding and voluntary nature of the organization is perfectly suitable for its needs, and China has expressed a desire that the ‘APEC Approach’ continue in its current course. The benefits China has derived from being a member of APEC are manifold, and include the development of over 14 bilateral FTAs since becoming a member. Japan on the other hand, partly because of the Chinese economic domination in the region is pushing for a more institutionalized and enforceable set of governing principles for the organization. Prime Minister Hatoyama of Japan has expressly stated the APEC as an institutionalized regional economic body should be put ‘firmly into place’-an agenda that he will be pushing as the APEC host in 2010.

The US shares this view with Japan to a certain extent-APEC has the distinction of being the only regional economic organization of significant size the US is a member of-with 60% of the US’s export heading to APEC member economies, the US wants, nay needs APEC to become the primary regional body for the Asia Pacific, since it is excluded from the majority of other regional organizations. The US is in direct opposition to China, in that the so called ‘noodle bowl of agreements’ that has served China so well, is seen as an obstacle for US interests in the region. The US doesn’t necessarily share the vision of an all-encompassing community as hinted at by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, or even Japan’s more integrated vision-the US desperately wants APEC to become a Free Trade Area, so that the more than 150 bilateral FTAs signed between APEC members and other regional nations (to the exclusion of the US) are subsumed under the overarching APEC Free Trade Area.

Pakistan is looking at being on the fringe of an increasingly integrated Asia Pacific-as discussed in a previous analysis of India’s Look East Policy, Pakistan is somewhat isolated from the member states of this region due to India’s industrious alliance building. That being said, China remains a friend to Pakistan, and the US is bound up in Pakistan with the ‘War on Terror’. Pakistan is in the duplicitous position of being comparatively smaller importance economically, but being of central importance to regional security and even global security matters.

India has been denied membership to APEC, despite support for inclusion by the US, Japan and Australia-a primary reason being that it does not border the Pacific-a founding logic of the organization. Its hopes are better places within ASEAN, but both Indian scenarios paint a dim picture for Pakistan with the future of either organization. China’s vision of APEC is the one that will be most in Pakistan’s favor, as any solidifying of regional community will most likely be to the exclusion and detriment of Pakistani interests in the region.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post APEC and ASEAN – Competing or Complimentary Organizations appeared first on Politact.

Context

As discussed previously, the geopolitical situation of the Middle East, especially the impact of Arab Spring and how Israel and western powers deals with Iran’s nuclear program, will have a substantial impact on Pakistan and the Afghan reconciliation. With the European economic problems getting worse, the region of Asia Pacific is taking on an added emphasis. While Pakistan’s economic vision is premised on connecting to Central Asia, it should equally concentrate on the markets of the pacific realm, and should follow the model of India’s Look East Policy (LEP). While India needs Pakistan to connect with the markets of Central Asia, Pakistan’s Look East Policy goes through India.

The success of Pakistan’s future East Asia Policy would depend a great deal on how US and China reconcile in the Asia Pacific, and if economic cooperation would cause the security worries to recede.

Analysis

APEC, ASEAN, and EAS

APEC and ASEAN are the two main bodies facilitating cooperation between nations of the Asia Pacific region. APEC is the Asia Pacific Economic Community, established in 1989 to help facilitate the growth and community of ‘member economies’. There are 21 member economies (countries) today, with the original 12 countries consisting of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea. Since then, Chile, Peru, Mexico, China, Russia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea and Chinese Tai Pei (Taiwan) have also joined.

ASEAN, on the other hand, is the Association of South East Asian Nations, created in 1967 with a much narrower charter than APEC, and only five founding members: Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines. Today there are 10 members of ASEAN, with Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar joining at various stages between 1984 and 1999. ASEAN is much more focused on regional stability and community with initiatives involving education, cultural exchanges, research and technological advancement. Economic interests are of course a part of ASEAN; however, they are far less articulated than in APEC.

The future of APEC is widely contended between member economies. For China, the current, non-binding and voluntary nature of the organization is perfectly suitable for its needs, and the country has expressed a desire that the ‘APEC Approach’ continue in its current course. The benefits China has derived from being a member of APEC are manifold, and include the development of over 14 bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA) since becoming a member. Japan on the other hand, partly because of the Chinese economic domination in the region is pushing for a more institutionalized and enforceable set of governing principles for the organization.

The US shares this view with Japan to a certain extent with 60% of its export heading to APEC member economies. The US is in direct opposition to China, in that the so-called ‘noodle bowl of agreements’ that has served China so well. The US desires APEC to become a Free Trade Area, so that the more than 150 bilateral FTAs signed between APEC members and other regional nations (to the exclusion of the US) are subsumed under the overarching APEC Free Trade Area.

The emerging American regional security architecture in East Asia envisions containment of China, with support from Japan, Australia, India and South Korea. There are increasing indications that US is now moving aggressively towards this goal. President Obama gave a clear hint on the new US Strategy during his visit to Australia, where he also announced plans to expand military presence in the country,

“As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia-Pacific a top priority,” he said. “As a result, reductions in US defense spending will not — I repeat, will not — come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific.”

Pakistan-India Dynamics

Pakistan is looking at being on the fringe of an increasingly integrated Asia Pacific. The endemic conflict in Afghanistan and traditionally strained relations with India, have limited Pakistan’s trading options. The security concerns have generally overridden the benefits of economic cooperation. This context has forced the country to depend on more distant markets of Europe and North America while spurring smuggling locally.

Unable to look West, India’s strategists naturally looked to integrate with the East, for which it had a geographic advantage. Initially India’s LEP was directed at South East Asian (SEA) nations like Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia and was specifically targeting the ASEAN organization as a means of thawing relationships that previously had frosty undertones (Cold War era). In general, the India’s LEP has been quite successful in dealing with ASEAN; although full membership has not been granted, in 1995 India was made a full dialogue partner in ASEAN and in 1996 was made a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

India had more success with the East Asia Summit; it was a founding member of the East Asia Summit (EAS) in 2005. Although India, as an emerging economic power in the region and an Asian country, had good reason to be included in the EAS for these reasons alone, many ASEAN members only acceded to India’s inclusion in order to counterweight the Chinese. This year, US and Russia have also joined the EAS formally. The stature of EAS is thus rising, although a lack of clear purpose and overlap with ASEAN Regional Forum has prevented it from being a more influential organization in the past.

With Pakistan granting India the MFN status, the easing of tensions could lay the foundation for better access to the Indian markets and beyond. Pakistan has sought inclusion into ARF and ASEAN and despite the efforts of some of Pakistan’s friends in the region; India’s established role in the organizations has kept Pakistani participation and integration minimal. Just as India’s nod was crucial in matters related to EU, it could also pave the way for a better access to the Asia Pacific.

Conclusion

Under the current circumstances, the success of Pakistan’s East Asia policy is dependent on good relations between US and China. On the surface, the American vision for the region, the New Silk Road, also attempts to achieve better connectivity between Central Asia, Pakistan and India. However, it also attempts to exclude Iran, a security concern for US.

On the other hand, India and Pakistan, including Iran, becoming full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), may also lead to a fuller regional integration. However, this complicates US-India strategic partnership.

The economic and security policies are obviously intertwined and one cannot be at the cost of the other. While Pakistan gave precedence to economic factors in granting India the MFN status, in the Asia Pacific, security concerns appear to be taking the lead. This could ultimately complicate the Pakistan-India détente.

India’s road to Central Asia markets passes through Pakistan and India’s assistance may be crucial for Pakistan in getting access to the East Asian markets. The budding economic cooperation between Pakistan and India could make them realize the true potential of their partnership, irrespective of what transpires between US and China.

Tell Us What You Think

The post Pakistan’s ‘Look East’ Policy And India’s ‘Most Favored Nation’ Status appeared first on Politact.

US President Barack Obama on Friday revealed the US would be willing to reassess its relations with Myanmar. Obama who is in Indonesia for a summit, said that he saw a “flicker of progress” in the country. The release of 230 political prisoners, relaxing of media restrictions and expected legislative changes has been viewed by the US as positive signs.

The main opposition party led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has also been allowed to re-register for the bi-elections for vacant parliamentary seats. US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is expected to visit the region in a historic visit; her two day visit would be the first by a US State Secretary since the 1962 military coup that over threw the civilian government.

Washington has applauded the progress, but has warned that more is needed; “If Burma fails to move down the path of reform, it will continue to face sanctions and isolation. But if it seizes this moment, then reconciliation can prevail,” Obama said.

The post Obama Opens To Freash US Ties With Myanmar appeared first on Politact.

US President Barack Obama met with Asian leaders at an East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia. Obama was on a regional visit and his efforts have been seen as attempts by Washington to strengthen its political, economic and strategic engagement in the region. The US head of state met with leaders of Philippines, Indonesia and India.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Obama discussed cooperation on maritime security, non proliferation as well as mutual collaboration on disaster relief. Singh also revealed the Indian parliament would soon debate on the liability laws to address the concerns of American nuclear power companies.

The US president announced a deal which involves the sale of over 200 Boeing Company passenger jets to Indonesian domestic carrier, Lion Air which would support 110,000 jobs in the US. Obama also announced that his country would be willing to reach out to Burma which has been under military rule for nearly 50 years.

The post Manmohan Singh, Obama Meet In Bali, Vow Strengthening Bilateral Strategic Ties appeared first on Politact.

China is likely to react with anger over US decision to post warships in Singapore. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced last year that a deal to deploy ships to Singapore was in the works. US Officials this week reiterated the possibility of the deployment of forces at the Changi Naval Base. The US has often used Singapore’s bases; nearly 150 US warships visited the port last year. The city-state has a strategically vital position due to its access to the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

The Chinese President at a meeting of the Association of Southeastern Asian Nations issued an indirect warning to Washington; “External forces should not use any excuse to interfere,” he said. China was angered earlier this week, when President Obama announced that the US would be sending in Marine troops into Northern Australia. The presence of US fleets in the region is likely to increase tension between Beijing and Washington.

The post US Navy’s Next Stop in Asia Is Singapore appeared first on Politact.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China recently signed a deal on the guidelines for enforcing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), which allows them to adopt a more well-defined route for cooperation in the region, according to analysts. The guidelines, released by senior policymakers from China and ASEAN on Wednesday, were officially endorsed by ASEAN and Chinese foreign ministers on Thursday. Though brief in content, these guidelines include principles that provide instructions for enforcing the DOC and work out procedural regulations for future cooperation, Chinese Ambassador to ASEAN Tong Xiaoling said in an interview.

The post New South China Sea Guidelines Give Go Ahead To ASEAN-China Cooperation appeared first on Politact.

A Russian delegation headed by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will attend a number of ASEAN summits on July 22-23 on the famed Indonesian island of Bali to boost Moscow’s role in South East Asia. Lavrov will take part in an ASEAN-Russian ministerial meeting, the eighteenth sitting of the ASEAN Regional Forum for security dialogue as well as another ministerial summit within the structure of East Asian summits. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an economic and geo-political organization consisting of ten Southeast Asian countries. This year’s summit will mark the fifteenth anniversary of the foundation of ASEAN-Russian partnership and dialogue.

The post Russian Delegation to Take Part in ASEAN Summits in Indonesia appeared first on Politact.

Context

On September 30, the US house of Representative voted to increase tariffs on goods imported from China. The vote passed in the house 348 to 79, but the bill, aimed at punishing the Chinese policy of keeping the yuan undervalued, has an uncertain future in the Senate and ultimately in president Obama’s hands. Meanwhile, China has suspended the export of Rare Earth Elements (REE) to Japan. This article examines the escalating economic dimension of the international rivalries.

Analysis

Economics has dominated US-China relations in the last couple of weeks. With the US’s economy continuing to run slow, China’s currency policy have been a thorn in the works. The China-Japan dynamics has also impacted on US-China relations, as has the series of war games the US has undertaken with South Korea in recent weeks.

The US feels that imposing tariffs may give them greater leverage to pressure the Chinese into changing their currency policy while at the same time making Chinese goods less attractive in the US, and creating more manufacturing jobs at home. However there is also the issue of China’s being one of the US’s biggest foreign creditors, so pushing them too far is also not an option.

he EU and the US have used thet EU-Asia summit last week in Brussels and G7 and IMF/World Bank talks in New York to try and convince the Chinese to allow the yuan to appreciate naturally in the market. The upcoming November meeting of G20 in South Korean would cover further discussion on this topic. The EU and American officials contend that their recovery from the recession would be considerably slow without economic and monetary cooperation of China.

The Chinese are showing no signs of bowing to the pressure, especially since the US is taking monetary easing policies of their own to try and devalue the US dollar; Beijing is rather skeptical at the ‘do as we say, not as we do’ rhetoric coming out of Washington.

With their economic entanglement forcing a degree of politeness between the two rivals, geopolitical issues between China and Japan have nevertheless been putting additional pressure on the already fraught US-China interactions. A recent round of joint war games that US and South Korea held together in the Yellow Sea, has angered China. The defense ministers of US and China finally met today in Vietnam, at the ASEAN Defense Ministers meetings. The military relations of US and China have remained tense since US approved $6.7 billion of military aid for Taiwan, and President Obama met Dalai Lama, earlier this year. Side talks were also held between Japan and Chinese officials and there are signs that the military aspect of the tension may be easing but the economic dimension is escalating.

China produces 95% of the global supply of REE, and it and has suspended the supply of it to Japan since the collision between a Chinese fishing vessel and two Japanese coast guard boats near the disputed Senkaku islands, located in the East China Sea.

REE’s are used in petroleum refining, computer laptops and other electronic gadgets, production of green energy, and defense equipment. Other suppliers of REE include Australia, India, Russia and Malaysia; however, they would be unable to meet the demand in the short term, and thus increasing the monopoly of China in this regard.

China seems to be applying an economic leverage against Japan similar to how Russia has used its energy advantage over Europe. Pakistan also recently applied a comparable tactic when it temporary closed one of the supply routes for NATO forces in Afghanistan. In evaluating the future of Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project, PoliTact presented the following three factors, which remain valid to understand the politics around the leverage game:

1. Which countries have the gas and energy reserves?
2. Which countries have the most need for these energy reserves, for future development and ambitions?
3. The intermediate countries whose strategic location relative to these energy reserves increases their leverage vis-a-vis the global and regional powers.

Tell Us What You Think

The post The Economic Dimension of China-US Relations appeared first on Politact.

The tension between North and South Korea has reached unprecedented levels as Seoul points the finger at Pyongyang for the sinking of the warship Cheonan on March 26. The US is backing Seoul, while Pyongyang is pointing the finger at the US; and China is urging restraint on all sides.

In this Analysis of Perception and Perspective PoliTact examines the evolving relations of Russia, China and US in the Asia Pacific and its impact on Middle East and AfPak region.

Analysis

Investigators from the US, Australia, Sweden and Britain have been working in cooperation with South Korean investigators to comb over the wreckage of the warship Cheonan, which sank mysteriously in the Yellow Sea of March 26. According to the investigation’s report, released on the 18 of May, a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the explosion which tore the ship’s hull in two, killing 46 sailors. According to North Korea, this is a fabrication, and it was a US manufactured sea mine that sunk the ship.

Tensions are at breaking point, and it’s not just between the North and South.

Pyongyang has come out in strong opposition to the indictment, blaming the US for igniting tensions in the region, and fueling the fires of war and accusation in Seoul. North Korea’s official news agency, the KNCA claims that the US is being reckless to so blatantly point the finger at Pyongyang, and that the bravado from the ‘puppet government’ in the South is solely caused by the egging on of its ‘master’ the US-not unfamiliar rhetoric from the North, but they are right in noticing the unusually ‘amped up’ rhetoric coming from the South.

In the previous decade, there was a thawing of the North-South relations, with increased trade, aid and communication, but since taking office in 2008, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has taken a tougher stance against the North, especially since the nuclear issue boiled over. Since the investigation report was released, Lee Myung-bak has implemented a punitive package against the North, including slashing trade ties, barring the North’s ships and resuming anti-north propaganda-all of which the US fully backs and calls “absolutely appropriate.”

Whether or not North Korea did torpedo the Cheonan, the situation at present is dividing the region, and rapidly. The US makes no bones about its full support of South Korea, and other US-backed players in the region, such as Japan, have also thrown their cards in with South Korea. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said in an announcement while in Seoul that “this was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea, and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond.” South Korea is not ruling out a war on this issue, so the stakes are high all round.

China is walking a fine line on all sides, as one of the regional heavyweights who chooses to have dealings with the North. It is urging restraint from all parties, lest the region descend rapidly into all-out war. Meanwhile Chinese representatives are staying mum on its ally in the North while undertaking talks with Japan and South Korea about deepening security and economic ties in Seoul.

South Korea has asked China to stand behind the findings of the investigation team, and not veto the proposed UN Security Council resolution condemning the North. China has stated that it will not protect anyone found guilty of the attack, but it was still mulling over the evidence.

North Korea is warning the UN that the Security Council resolution is nothing more than another ‘weapons of mass destruction’ case, a front for “occupy[ing] the Korean Peninsula just as it did Iraq with sheer lies,” according to a statement by KNCA. The KNCA further claims that the US is purposefully backing the South in order to deepen its hold over the South and Japan, as well as putting China in an ‘awkward position’ in the meanwhile.

If there weren’t enough players in the game already, Russia is stating that it may conduct an independent investigation into the alleged torpedoing, and given that Russia also have veto power at the UN Security Council, the South may well be worried if there is indeed any misleading accusations being published about the North. Russia and China are both key players in the stalled six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. These talks are likely to be further derailed, given that the other three members of the ‘six’ are South Korea, Japan and the US.

The fault lines in US-Russia-China relations are being additionally tested by the situation in the two Koreas, as they are on the Iran nuclear issue, as previously discussed by PoliTact. China and Russia on both fronts are being put in ‘awkward positions’ by the US.

With both China and Russia deepening ties with neighbors and states further afield in the Middle East and AfPak region, the US may be blundering into a situation where it is no longer perceived as a bastion of fair mindedness and justice-in fact, despite the eloquent prose coming from the White house, many people who are subject to the US’s actions-in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and most of the Muslim world, see the US as decidedly the opposite. World opinion of the US aside, alienating both Russia and China on two separate fronts can only bode ill for relations in the region.

If the US keeps ‘picking sides’ while other powers like Russia and China have been trying desperately not to have to, there may come a crisis point where either Russia or China are forced to come out and also ‘pick a side,’ and if that side happens to be on the opposite to the US? The Asia Pacific may well become a concert of war once again.
Tell Us What You Think

Feedback@politact.com

The post North and South Korea Tensions Rise As US Points The Finger appeared first on Politact.

APEC and ASEAN are the two main bodies facilitatingcooperation between nations of the Asia Pacific region. This article seeks to stipulate the main differences in the two organizations and also to analyze the cause of rising tensions over the future of APEC and how major stakeholders are seeking to influence its evolution. Pakistan’s outlook in the region will be looked at in the context of PoliTact’s previous article on India’s Looks East Policy.

The post APEC and ASEAN – Competing or Complimentary Organizations? appeared first on Politact.