Southeast Asia’s new leaderships

Election results in Japan and South Korea, though welcomed in Washington, have generated concern in the region.


Tariq Fatemi December 25, 2012
The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2002-2004 and to the US in 1999

China, Japan and South Korea — ancient cultures driven by modern ambitions — have recently gone through political changes whose likely impact on peace and security in a highly sensitive region is a matter of some speculation.

In a situation already fraught with grave dangers, whether because of China’s increasingly assertive policies — as claimed by the US — or because of the Obama Administration’s forceful ‘Asia pivot’ strategy (as feared by China), election results in Japan and South Korea, though welcomed in Washington, have generated concern in the region.

In Japan, Shinzo Abe’s success brings back to power a ‘nationalist’ leader, who has long advocated a ‘tough approach’ towards China. During his earlier stint as prime minister, he favoured a robust role for Japan in the region. To this end, he advocated strengthening strategic ties to the US and pushed for the ‘Quadrilateral Initiative’, a partnership framework between Japan, the US, India and Australia, arguing that these initiatives were aimed at restraining Chinese ambitions in the Pacific. But more recently, he indicated willingness to re-examine Japan’s self-imposed restrictions on spending more than of one per cent of GDP on defence, while hinting at acquiring highly sophisticated offensive weapon systems. While these pronouncements cheered right-wing nationalists, moderate parties expressed the fear that these initiatives would set Japan on a collision course with China, with serious consequences for the country, especially in view of its current economic difficulties.

Last week’s election of Park Geun-hye brought the first female to South Korea’s presidency and represented a partial redemption for the former military strongman, Park Chung-Hee, credited with impressive economic growth, though coupled with brutal policies. Like her father, President Park is likely to seek closer ties with the US and yet support conditional rapprochement with North Korea, which would be at variance with the Obama Administration’s policy towards Pyongyang. Her nationalist credentials could also lead to new strains in relations with Japan, given their historic differences and emotion-charged relations, especially over the disputed islets of Dokdo or Takeshima.

Earlier, the 18th Communist Party Congress in China saw the election of a new collective leadership led by Xi Jinping, who takes over the Party and state at a time of economic slowdown, political uncertainties and acerbic relations with the US. There is no doubt that the current state of US-China relations would be of concern to both capitals. While their public spats may refer only to differences over currency and trade matters, what has profoundly disturbed their relations is their deep strategic distrust, which has escalated ever since the Obama Administration’s declaration of the pivot. Both countries blame each other, with Washington convinced that China’s economic success has made it belligerent, while Beijing sees in the ‘pivot’ a cover for America’s implacable hostility, now focused on drawing Japan, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia within a ‘cordon sanitaire’ around China.

Concern in the region is understandable. Though many of the smaller countries favour a vigorous US presence, they are loath to be caught in a Sino-US confrontation. They fear becoming the proverbial grass that would be trampled in any jostling between the two elephants. This explains why many of them are advocating a regional solution to the dispute over ownership of the islands, known as Senkaku by the Japanese and Diaoyu by the Chinese.

For both Xi and President Barack Obama, the challenges are enormous; resisting pressure from the ‘hawks’ in their midst and the temptation to promote narrow, short-term interests will not be easy. This explains why the smaller countries are urging that the major powers not to permit unbridled ambitions, reflected in their attachment to exclusive zones of sphere, to disturb peace. But for this to happen, Washington must not see the election of pro-US governments in Tokyo and Seoul as ‘opportunities’ to be exploited, while the Chinese leadership would do well to recall Deng Xiaoping’s counsel to remain focused on the economy.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2012.

COMMENTS (15)

varuag | 11 years ago | Reply

@gp65: Your prejudice against people from across border pretty much drips from leveling geography accusations against a former diplomat. Do you honestly believe that the diplomat can confuse geography 101 ? I did refer to the fact that directions is a relative term and there are geopolitical, economic and mere geographical directions. I did back it up with HQ analogy of corporations, a good atlas and newspaper world views. Regarding headings of articles, it is more of an editorial and marketing decision rather than entirely being up-to the author, which was again already mentioned. There is always a controversy when a major book releases because the title is generally provocative due to insistence of the marketing chaps despite what author might think. There is the case of Christopher Hitchens writing the book "god is not great", which again was titled due to the intransigence of the publisher.

All your rebuttals missed the geography part as well as the headline part.

I called you insensitive because accusing a former diplomat of messing up geography is beyond insensitive. It also lacks objectivity since your definition of internalizing corporate HQ based geography is amusing to me. Failure to accept facts smacks of self-righteousness. And failure to adhere to the letter and spirit of the article and indulging in parochial grand standing does point to prejudice. The holier-than-thou lesson in geography was prejudice. Are you really trying to tell the former diplomat what ASEAN is ? If you can make implicit comments on the author what is wrong is me stating the same about you. Are you really that upset with the comments ?

What I wrote was my subjective analysis of your comment. It was certainly in much better taste than having tapeworms. And next time if you do respond do not beat around the bush but rather address the actual concerns raised.

I know what projection is but I tried to refrain from directly commenting on it since from your perch if a former diplomat lacks understanding of geography 101, well I won't lose sleep over being called insensitive, self-righteous, subjective and prejudiced. But we, the poor tapeworm carrying folks (who lacked you english teacher) can't state such analysis about her holiness, can we ?

PS I will apologize if you are hurt over being called insensitive, self-righteous, subjective and prejudiced. But are you really ? I honestly can't believe that the comments were offensive though they sure were personal.

gp65 | 11 years ago | Reply

@varuag: You make very personal comments about me as an individual without backing it up with any facts and I am the one that has deep seated prejudice. You are the one that screams (that is what posting in bold amounts to) and I am the one that needs a chill pill?

Again sir, do look up the word 'projection'.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ