AsiaCurrents

The Idea of Asia

2010-01-31T02:21:00.000-08:00

"There are two powerful myths about Asia that plague any debate over whether it exists as a region. One treats Asia as essentially an outsider's invention. The other conflates it with the "rise of Asia". Both are misleading, the latter even more so than the former......."
Read More:
http://www.nbr.org/publications/asia_policy/ap9/AP9_B_AsiaTrainRT.pdf

Book Launch: Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia (2nd Edn)

2010-01-30T07:27:00.000-08:00

ASEAN Secretariat Press Release
Launched: ASEAN Secretariat Policy Forum
ASEAN Secretariat, 14 July 2009
http://www.aseansec.org/PR-Launch-ASEANSecretariatPolicyForum.pdf
http://www.routledge.com/books/Constructing-a-Security-Community-in-Southeast-Asia-isbn9780415414296

The ASEAN Secretariat Policy Forum – a platform for a larger reach of people to be involved in the activities of the Secretariat – was formally launched at the ASEAN Secretariat today. To be held regularly, the Forum is envisaged to draw prominent speakers to share ideas and insights with the public on issues relevant to the work of the Secretariat. The Forum takes the place of the previous ASEC Brown Bag Series.

In launching the Forum, Dr Surin Pitsuwan, the Secretary-General of ASEAN, said that the ASEAN Secretariat was aware that policy matters were the purview and the space for the political leadership – the ASEAN Leaders and the Ministers. He stressed, however, that it remained incumbent upon the Secretariat to look at the horizon to see what the issues that could be policy issues of ASEAN were, so when it reaches the level of the Leaders and the Ministers, the Secretariat would be prepared for their deliberation and bring the decision down to the implementation level. “We just want to be prepared to be their good instrument of policy implementation,” he highlighted.

The first speaker of the Forum was Prof. Amitav Acharya, Professor of International Affairs at the School of International Service at the American University in Washington D.C., who spoke on “Reconstructing ASEAN: Challenges for the 21st Century”. His address tracked how ASEAN had witnessed momentous changes to its membership, institutional structure and role from the early years until today with the development of an ASEAN Community and the adoption of the ASEAN Charter. He stressed that there was a need to ensure that the initiatives of the past were fully implemented and the provisions complied with. He said that the region’s future credibility depends on how it carried out the goals and priorities it had set out for itself.

His lecture was followed by a panel session comprising Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Research Professor and Deputy Chair for Social Sciences and Humanities at The Indonesian Institute of Sciences, and the Director for Programme and Research at The Habibie Centre in Jakarta; Prof. Dato’ Dr Zakaria Ahmad, Distinguished Fellow of the Malaysian Armed Forces Defence College; and Dr Rizal Sukma, the Executive Director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta. A Q&A session followed the panel session.

The Forum concluded with the launching of Prof. Acharya’s latest book, “Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, 2nd ed. (http://www.routledge.com/books/Constructing-a-Security-Community-in-Southeast-Asia-isbn9780415414296) The book, in offering a comprehensive evaluation of the reconstructed ASEAN, reviews a decade of new developments and argues that ASEAN remains indispensable to the security of Southeast Asia, and will continue to play a major role in the wider Asia-Pacific security. Prof. Acharya is also the Chair of the ASEAN Studies Center at the American University. The Center was formally established on 1 July 2009. It is the first ASEAN Studies Center in the United States. The Center is part of American University’s School of International Service, the largest and one of the oldest schools of international relations in the US.

Islam and the East

2010-01-30T06:38:00.000-08:00

Interview with Riz Khan, Al-Jazeera TV, 18 Nov 2009

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Amitav+Acharya%2C+Riz+Khan&rlz=1R2RNTN_enUS363&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

Islamic movements have been growing in the countries of Southeast Asia for decades.

In the Philippines, the Muslim struggle for independence in the southern region of Mindanao has cost 120,000 lives and displaced millions. Attempts for a peaceful resolution have stalled.

Some of Thailand's 2.2 million Muslims have taken up arms as well, demanding independence for the southern - traditionally Muslim -part of the country.

And in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, Islamists lost seats in elections earlier this year, but militant groups continue their bombing attacks against Western targets.

One US politician, Republican senator Christopher Bond, says the region could be a testing ground for the future of Muslim-Western relations. In his new book, The Next Front: Southeast Asia and the Road to Global Peace with Islam, he warns that the US could "end up fighting Islamist radicals on a second front".

He urges the Obama administration to reverse decades of neglect of the region by launching "soft-power" initiatives - diplomatic and economic tools, along with personal outreach.

So what is the state of the Islamic movements in Southeast Asia? And do they pose a threat to the West? Is the branding of the region as a "second front" counterproductive? And can "soft power" initiatives improve relations between the Muslim world and the US?

On Wednesday, Riz speaks with Bond, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Amitav Acharya, the chair of the ASEAN Studies Centre at American University, and previously headed research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Robert Hefner, the director of the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs at Boston University, and president of the Association for Asian Studies. Since the mid-1980s, Hefner has conducted research on Muslim culture, politics and education.

This episode of the Riz Khan show can be seen live on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 2030GMT with repeats on Thursday at 0030GMT, 0530GMT and 1130GMT.

From: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2009/11/20091118103211283864.html

You can watch the full interview in two parts:
Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_pI5VJk1_I&feature=related
Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObnEy7ths4)

Book Launch: Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism

2010-01-30T06:06:00.000-08:00

October 8, 2009

Dr. Amitav Acharya discusses Asia regionalism at the East-West Center in Washington
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/ewc-in-washington/events/previous-events-2009/october-8-dr-amitav-acharya/

(Washington D.C.) October 8– Asian nations do not passively adopt foreign concepts of regionalism but instead adapt them to serve the unique needs of the region. In an East-West Center in Washington Asia Pacific Security Seminar, Dr. Amitav Acharya, professor of international relations in the School of International Service at American University, introduced his new book Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=5347) in which he examines Asian regionalism from the viewpoint of Asian actors.

Dr. Acharya pointed to a long history of the adaption of outside ideas in local Asian communities. For example, Southeast Asia imported Buddhism from India and China along with religious art and architecture. However, temples, paintings, and statues associated with Buddhism in Southeast Asia are quite different in appearance from the original Chinese and Indian sources; in each instance, the ideas from outside were modified by local craftsmen who created a distinctively local take on a foreign concept. As with ancient art, foreign ideas of regional institution building were not passively acquired, but were adapted with modification by regional actors. The foreign concepts, Dr. Acharya explained, did not make local ideas go extinct. Rather, local actors synthesized outside concepts of regionalism with local ideas to create a new concept of regional interaction unique to Asia.

Dr. Acharya explained that Asian institutions tend to focus less on the creation of material concepts, such as power and money, and more on the normative sharing of ideas. These institutions are not designed to be problem-solving mechanisms like the institutions of other regions. Further, he noted that while many Western institutions are interested in collective security, Asian institutions are more focused on common security and tend to avoid humanitarian intervention activities.

Dr. Acharya also pointed out that no Asian great player has ever successfully dominated any regional grouping in Asia. He explained that Asian nations are uninterested in institutions where one or two major countries hold most of the power, instead preferring groupings where each nation, regardless of size or power, has an equal voice. He noted that this makes Chinese attempts to create a China-dominated organization in Asia unlikely to succeed: while Asian institutions need Chinese involvement to be viable, local Asian actors will not join an organization where China holds all the power.

Thus, Asian actors adapted Western ideas to best suit the needs of the local populations, creating a distinctively Asian version of regional architecture. Civilizations, Dr. Acharya argued, learn from each other, adapting foreign ideas through creative synthesis with local ideas to create new and unique concepts, allowing the local and the foreign to grow together.

For Video Link:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/ewc-in-washington/events/previous-events-2009/october-8-dr-amitav-acharya/

The APEC Summit: A Future for Transpacific Regionalism?

2010-01-30T05:58:00.000-08:00

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Time: 2:00 PM — 4:00 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

President Obama will soon attend his first Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' summit in Singapore, underscoring U.S. engagement and commitment to the region. Unlike other regional institutions, the APEC forum provides an opportunity for the United States to participate in the policy dialogue of a dynamic, economically-diverse region of the world. This year's agenda includes significant attention to the current economic climate and to the reinforcement of the G20 summit measures for economic growth and recovery. Japan, the United States' most important ally in Asia, is set to host the 2010 APEC summit. The 2011 meeting will take place in the United States, providing the Obama administration with an excellent opportunity to shape the APEC agenda and ensure American influence in the region in the years to come. Will the Obama administration use this opportunity to define a U.S. trade policy? Can the new administrations in Tokyo and Washington work together to set a regional agenda? Will the United States be able to create and assume a central role in APEC despite increased momentum toward an "Asian community"?

At this event, Matthew Goodman, senior adviser to the under secretary of state for economic affairs; international trade expert Jeffrey J. Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Amitav Acharya of American University; and AEI resident scholars Claude Barfield and Michael Auslin will discuss the importance and impact of the APEC summit, as well as long-term U.S. policy and interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

For more and video link, visit: http://www.aei.org/event/100163

OBAMA FROM A SOUTHEAST ASIAN PERSPECTIVE

2010-01-30T05:19:00.000-08:00

THE SIGUR CENTER FOR ASIAN STUDIES
Elliot School of Internaitonal Affairs
The George Washington University
Lecture on the Series on:
Power and Identity in Asia
November 12, 2009

Given President Barack Obama’s Southeast
Asian ties and his visit to Asia, Amitav
Acharya, in a lecture at the Sigur Center for
Asian Studies, discussed Southeast Asian
perspectives of Obama. His analysis incorporates
discussions from both official and
non-official sectors of Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, and Thailand. More specifically,
Acharya examines two questions:

1. How do Southeast Asians view Obama
as a person and as a president?

2. How has Obama’s election been
viewed; how has it affected

Read More at: http://www.gwu.edu/~power/assets/docs/Acharya%20November%202009%20Asia%20Report.pdf

Asian Dreams: Can A Divided Region Lead the World?

2010-01-30T04:56:00.000-08:00

(published as: "China, India, Japan: Who Will Speak for Asia?" Canada-Asia Viewpoints, November 30, 2009. http://www.asiapacific.ca/editorials/canada-asia-viewpoints/editorials/china-india-japan-who-will-speak-asia)

Amitav Achraya

Washington, D.C. President Obama heads to Asia to attend the annual summit of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Singapore on 13-15 November, and visit several other Asian capitals. Among his interlocutors in Asia would be the leaders of two Asian nations who have staked a claim to global leadership. China is leading the charge, Japan is not far behind. India, a third contender, will not be represented at the Singapore summit (it’s not an APEC member), and Obama is not going to Delhi on this trip. But on 24 November, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh becomes the first foreign visitor to enter the Obama White House on a state visit.

Asia is rising, and the Asian dream of global eminence is clearly visible, but can China, India and Japan offer leadership to Asia and the world? The debate over Asia’s role in global institutions is in full swing now.

India, Japan and China are part of the G-20, the much talked about forum that symbolizes the transition to the “post-American world”. But Asians, while not lacking in money or manpower, do not agree among themselves as to who represents Asia and what is the best way of dislodging the West from the perch of global leadership.

Let’s begin with the idea of a G-2, an imagined condominium or sorts between China and the US that may actually reflect the global distribution of power in the 21st century. Accepting a G-2 would mean accepting China as the power to represent Asia. But neither Japanese nor the Indians would hear of it.

China has only itself to blame for this. It opposes Japan and India taking up a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, which in many respects remains the true seat of global power.

Japan for its part has been less than enthusiastic about the G-20, seeing a threat to the G-8 forum where it, and not China, is represented. Last July, on the occasion of the St. Petersburg G-8 meeting, the then LDP-led Japanese government strongly defended the G-8 as a more homogenous group of industrial democracies, with a set of common values (forgetting Russia of course). As a government spokesman put it: “…would you call China a democracy? Could a Group of 20 have a meaningful discussion in 60 minutes?”

US, Japan and Australia have promoted the idea of an Alliance of Democracies, which might also involve India and Indonesia. But this is sure to divide Asia and infuriate China, whose 1. 3 billion people remain under communist party rule that shows no sign of sharing power with the people.
In the meantime, Asian countries have been put on the defensive on global issues such as climate change, more busy blaming the West for high carbon emissions than coming up with new ideas to ensure global environmental protection. When pressed, the best India could come up with is to promise not to exceed the carbon emissions levels of Western countries, arguing that if the West brings down its carbon emissions, it can set a lower target for India.

As Amartya Sen, Asia’s preeminent contemporary philosopher, asks: “Has Asia been doing enough in leading the world opinion on how to manage, and in particular not to mismanage, the global challenges we face today, including that of terrorism, violence and global injustice?”

The answer sadly could only be no, not enough. This is not surprising, since Asians cannot agree over who should lead Asia, how can they agree on who should lead the world?

Of course, India, China and Japan all are busy redefining their international roles. The Chinese speak of their “peaceful rise”, insisting that China’s growing economic and military power need not lead to conflict or expansion, but peacefully integration into the international system. The Japanese are pursuing the idea of becoming a “normal state”, an idea first proposed by Ichiro Ozawa of the Democratic Party of Japan (Japan’s current ruling party) in the early 1990s. As the Japanese see it, being normal means shedding some of the constitutional restrictions on its military deployments so as that Japan can participate more fully in UN-led peacekeeping missions abroad. But what the Japanese see as normalization, the Chinese see as neo-nationalism and militarization. And India has moved from old Nehruvian idealism to what noted commentator C. Raja Mohan calls a “Curzonian” (after British Viceroy Lord Curzon) foreign policy which acknowledges Indian centrality in Asian geopolitics.

But none of these are ideas about global governance or leadership, but are more of self-serving attempts to carve out and legitimize the growing power and clout of these nations in regional and world affairs.

What about Asian regional groups? Led by ASEAN, groups like ASEAN Regional Forum and ASEAN Plus Three do offer a forum for intra-regional dialogue and confidence-building that is valuable. The region is better off with them and without them. But they have not served as platforms for generating new ideas about global governance. It’s about time they started building an Asian consensus on who leads them over what issues so as to make a meaningful contribution to the reform and strengthening of global institutions.

In the meantime, one regional forum that looks more and more dispensable in recent years is the annual APEC summit, the very reason for Obama’s November date with Asia. Originally proposed by Australia and where the US has been a founding member, APEC has done little to fulfill is original goal of advancing free trade. But it has achieved little. Its free trade mission has long been overtaken by other multilateral and bilateral initiatives, like the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. India remains outside of APEC, making the forum’s relevance to Asian security and prosperity highly questionable. The need to attend an APEC summit every year makes it difficult for an American president to join the East Asian Summit (in which India is a member). APEC should be shut down, although its secretariat can be turned into a clearing house of economic data for the region and regional training center. The US should join the East Asian Summit, but only if Asian nations show serious purpose about turning it into a meaningful regional forum for resolving regional issues and reforming global leadership.

http://www.asiapacific.ca/editorials/canada-asia-viewpoints/editorials/china-india-japan-who-will-speak-asia

Indonesia: Asia’s Emerging Democratic Power?

2010-01-30T04:41:00.000-08:00

Canada-Asia Viewpoints, October 30, 2009
http://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default/files/Amitav-Indonesia.pdf
Amitav Acharya

Indonesia, the largest nation of Southeast Asia, the fourth most populous in the world, and the largest Muslim majority country, has received mostly bad reviews since the downfall of the Suharto regime in 1998. As economist Fauzi Ichsan of the Standard Chartered Bank in Jakarta remembers, “the betting was not whether Indonesia would fall apart -- breaking into half a dozen island states -- but how soon”.

But a decade after Suharto’s ouster, a new Indonesia is emerging, which is poised to play a more important role in the affairs of the Asia Pacific region, and indeed the world.

The new Indonesia is the direct result of its consolidating democracy. This has been a painful process. Widespread riots accompanied the weeks before and after Suharto’s downfall. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives. But the past two general elections (both parliamentary and presidential), including the August 2009 Presidential elections which returned incumbent Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), have been free of violence. The terrorist strikes on the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels in Jakarta that followed the last presidential election had nothing to do with electoral animosity.

Moreover, the elections show declining support for Islamic parties, whom, many in the West had mistakenly feared, could take the nation down on a spiral of extremism and violence. Their share of votes declined from 38.1% in the 2004 elections to 27.8 % in the 2009 elections, the poorest showing ever by Islamic parties in a democratic election in Indonesia.

Some argue that elections in newly democratic countries with weak political and administrative institutions generate an intense nationalism leading to violence and war. But the Indonesian elections have shown otherwise. Julia Suryakusuma, an Indonesian writer, says that the victory of SBY was “an unequivocal rejection of the juvenile xenophobic nationalism” that some political parties, including the one led by former President Megawati Soekarnoputri, had espoused. It was also a rejection of military revivalism represented by former Army chief Wiranto, who contested for the vice presidency under Jusuf Kalla.

Instead of turning inward, Indonesia shows a new commitment to international cooperation. Rizal Sukma, a prominent Indonesian analyst, says that, “Indonesia, once seen as the instability-producer in Southeast Asia” could “become the security provider to the region and beyond.” Reflective of Indonesia’s new approach is its effort to reform the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which would have human rights and democracy as its basic values, and develop new mechanisms and institutions to address transnational problems such as terrorism, pandemics, and environmental pollution. In the words of a Jakarta Post editorial, “As the largest ASEAN member – in terms of population, geography and economy – Indonesia has the obligation to encourage the universal values of democracy and human rights to our less democratic neighbours.”

Some of these proposals met with opposition from the more conservative ASEAN members. Jakarta’s idea of a regional peacekeeping force was dropped. Another idea, a regional human rights body, was watered down. Undeterred, Indonesia took its message to the global arena. It has developed solid ties with other democracies, especially Australia, US, Japan and India. Relations with Australia, often hostile during the Suharto era, have never been better. Ties with the US have been normalized, with the lifting of sanctions imposed after the East Timor violence in 1999 blamed on Indonesian security forces.

Indonesia’s shift reflects its new political elite’s “democratic pride”. They, as diplomat Umar Hadi told me, see their nation as a standard bearer in Asia of “modernity, moderate Islam and democratic values”. Indonesia is putting Japan and India, the two established democracies of Asia, to shame by making democracy promotion a key objective of its foreign policy. While Tokyo and New Delhi compete with China to woo the brutal regime in Burma, and other members of ASEAN shy away from isolating the junta, Jakarta’s position is moving closer to that of the US. “We now find ourselves often making the same statements [towards Burma’s regime] as Western countries and international organizations did toward Indonesia during the Soeharto years,” says the Jakarta Post.

But Jakarta’s democracy promotion approach is drastically different from that of the US under the Bush administration. Instead of building an alliance of democracies, or promoting democracy through coercive means, as Bush did, Jakarta’s newly democratic government is pursuing an inclusive approach to democracy promotion and cooperative peace.

Thus, in December 2008, Indonesia launched the Bali Democracy Forum. Membership in the Forum is not restricted to democratic countries alone. Indonesia has made it clear that it will not pursue an aggressive posture of democracy promotion and will not close the door to countries which are not democratic or fully democratic, such as Burma, Brunei, Singapore, and even China. All of them were represented at the inaugural forum. The Forum is to share ideas about democracy and develop mechanisms for mutual assistance in building democratic institutions.

The new Indonesia arouses mixed feelings among its neighbours. With a touch of envy, a commentary in the Manila-based Philippine Daily Inquirer called Indonesia “the new democratic heavyweight of Southeast Asia” and “democracy’s gatekeeper in the region,” a role that should have belonged to the Philippines had it kept its own house in order. Along with its robust economic performance, Indonesia’s democratic consolidation challenges the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in Asia. At the first Bali forum, Singapore stressed the need for “good governance” (which comes with its authoritarian regime), rather than democracy. Neighbors are apprehensive that Jakarta may be seeking a larger international role at the expense of ASEAN. For example, Indonesia has been an active member of the G-20 group, which is competing with the G-8 as a manager of global issues in the 21 st century. Indonesia also seeks membership in a new Australian-proposed regional grouping (an Asia-Pacific Community) comprising the bigger players like China, US, Australia, Japan, and India. While such a club may not be feasible anytime soon, there is little question that Indonesia has defied dire predictions about its future after Suharto’s ouster to enter into a new era of democratic governance and regional leadership. And in that process, it has silenced critics of democratization who blame it for internal violence and foreign adventurism.

http://www.asiapacific.ca/editorials/canada-asia-viewpoints/editorials/indonesia-asias-emerging-democratic-power

The Obama Administration and Asia Pacific Security (Asia Pacific Bulletin, May 2009)

2009-03-05T23:29:00.001-08:00

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to make Asia her first overseas destination since taking office is not just an act of symbolism, it is also fraught with important policy implications... The new US focus on Asia is not without significant challenges. The foremost relates to the implications of the global financial crisis. The past year has seen that while Asia is not immune to the crisis, this is clearly not an ‘Asian crisis’ or an ‘Asian contagion’. Asia is much more a part of the solution than the problem. Unlike the 1997 Asian financial crisis, which started in Thailand and remained confined to Asia, the financial meltdown in 2008 begun in the US and engulfed Asian nations, some more so than others. And there are indications that Asians victims of the contagion may be doing better than the West, and better than they did during the 1997 ‘Asian’ financial crisis. Ironically, as some Asian commentators have pointed out, by learning the lessons of the 1997 crisis, lessons which the West had forgot to practice itself. Moreover, Asia is moving to multilateralise the system of bilateral currency swaps, with a total commitment of 120 billion US dollars. There is some irony in this, as Washington had in the past vetoed the idea of an Asian Monetary Fund mooted by Japan in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, not to mention its earlier opposition to Malaysian-proposed East Asian Economic Caucus mooted by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

One ostensible purpose of Obama’s Asia policy is to reaffirm the US alliance relationships in Asia. In the past, this would have meant its security ties with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines and Australia. But the US alliance relationships in the region are in a state of flux. Some allies are becoming more important than others and new strategic relationships are being forged by passing traditional alliances. Clinton’s visit to Indonesia was largely a symbolic but fitting recognition of the progress achieved by the largest Muslim nation and the largest Muslim democracy in the world. Indonesia has defied dire predictions by Western analysts (and some Asian neighbours like Singapore) not that long ago about an imminent collapse to consolidate its democracy, find a peaceful settlement to the Aceh separatist movement, but also manage its economy creditably. The visit comes in the wake of a steady revival of US-Indonesian security relations. Yet, the US courting of Jakarta is likely to cause discomfort in its traditional treaty allies, Philippines and Thailand, both of which earned ‘Major Non-NATO Partner’ status for their backing of the Bush administration’s war against Iraq…

The Obama administration has reaffirmed its security ties with Japan. Not only was Japan the first stop in Clinton’s trip, but Japanese prime minister Taro Aso, despite his below 10% popularity and facing the distinct prospect of leading the LDP to electoral defeat for only the second time in history, also secured the distinction of being the first foreign leader to meet Obama in the White House. Yet, the Obama administration has also reaffirmed the importance of US-China ties, dubbing it as the most important bilateral relationship in the world. To be sure, the Obama administration inherited a healthy relationship with China from its predecessor, but from preliminary indications, it seems to be intent on placing its relationship with China on a new footing without appearing to neglect Japan. This requires an extremely delicate balancing act, especially in view of emerging suspicions in Tokyo about closer Sino-US relationship.

Read more at: http://www.asiapacific.ca/files/Bulletins/bulletin305.pdf

Op-eds

2008-04-21T00:39:00.000-07:00

ASEAN

ASEAN at 40 (Foreign Affairs.org)
The current state of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) evokes both pessimism and hope. Skeptics see the organization -- founded in Bangkok on August 8, 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore -- as increasingly irrelevant in the post-Cold War milieu and unable to confront the new enemies of a globalized world: currency speculators, pandemic viruses, and shadowy terrorist groups. To its harshest critics, ASEAN is little more than a quarrelsome bunch of peripheral nations too beholden to a nineteenth century view of national sovereignty to effectively cooperate and build a regional identity.....

Read more at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070815faupdate86481/amitav-acharya/asean-at-40-mid-life-rejuvenation.html

The Next Steps for Burma (Yaleglobal)

Western nations have tightened economic sanctions and ASEAN has expressed "revulsion" at Myanmar's repression of non-violent protests. Concrete actions must now follow the outrage. UN efforts to encourage talks on the country's constitution and renew humanitarian poverty relief, while positive, do not go far enough, argues Amitav Acharya, professor of global governance. Such steps alone would fail to achieve the fundamental goal of fostering political openness, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners. He suggests new institutions that could reduce violence as well as overcome the reluctance of Burma's neighbors to pressure the junta: First, a contact group of pertinent and prominent countries should engage in continuous dialogue with the regime, pushing greater freedom for the Burmese people. Second, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be organized, offering incentives for military officers in Myanmar to break with the junta and refrain from attacking their own people. The international community holds mechanisms for moving beyond the rhetoric to create a more peaceful and democratic Burma....

Read more at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9882

Asia needs better ways to protect its people

SINGAPORE: The international response to the Indian Ocean tsunami has been prompt and generous, and some Asian countries - Japan, China, Singapore and India - made special contributions. But in general Asian countries have a long way to go in becoming significant providers of humanitarian assistance in the region, not to mention in the international community at large....

Read more at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/15/opinion/edacharya.php

China's charm offensive in Southeast Asia

It's a time of hype in China-Southeast Asian relations. During the past year, the prime ministers of Malaysia and Thailand have vigorously denied that a rising China was or would be a threat to Asian stability and prosperity. David Kang argues in the journal International Security that Southeast Asian states may even be "bandwagoning" with China....

Read more at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/11/08/edacharya_ed3_.php

Clash of Civilizations?No, of National Interests and Principles

"The swift collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan under the weight of American military power marks the defeat of one of the more prominent ideas to emerge from the ashes of the Cold War: Samuel Huntington's thesis about a "clash of civilizations."....

Read more at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/01/10/edach_ed3_.php

SINGAPORE'S FOREIGN POLICY: The Search for Regional Order

2008-04-20T05:48:00.000-07:00

Amitav Acharya
World Scientific, 2007

Table of Contents (407k) Preface (410k) Introduction: Rethinking Singapore's ForeignPolicy (435k) Chapter 1: The Evolution of Singapore's Foreign Policy: Challenges of Change (468k)

The conventional understanding of Singapore's foreign policy can be summarized in three main propositions: first, it is dictated by the imperatives of being a small state; second, its primary purpose is to ensure Singapore's survival, given its small size; and third, this logic of survival dictates a realpolitik approach to foreign policy and national security.

This book argues that an exclusively realist view of Singapore's foreign policy is inadequate. Singapore's foreign policy is also shaped by the positive effects of economic interdependence and regional institution-building ?instruments that realists tend to dismiss, but which Singapore has self-consciously tried to promote as instruments of regional order. The book first looks at the evolution of Singapore's foreign policy, before analyzing Singapore's international relations and national security in the context of economic growth and terrorism. It concludes with an interesting chapter on the impact of the rise of China and India on the regional landscape.

Contents:
Introduction: Rethinking Singapore's Foreign Policy
Part I: Foundations:
The Evolution of Singapore's Foreign Policy: Challenges of Change
The Economic Foundations of Singapore's Security: From Globalism to Regionalism?
Part II: Adaptations:
Diplomacy in Hard Times: Singapore Confronts Global Terrorism and Regional Regression
Waging the War on Terror: Singapore's Responses and Dilemmas
Singapore and Southeast Asia in a Fast-changing Landscape: Coping with the Rise of China and India

Readership: Undergraduates, graduates and academics in foreign policy and international relations; government ministries; general readers interested in Singapore issues.

Challenges the conventional realist understanding of Singapore's foreignpolicy in favor of a liberal institutionalist and social constructivistapproach?Contains a collection of essays written between 1992 and 2005, thusproviding a picture of the evolution of Singapore's foreign policy?Covers topics such as the linkage between economics and nationalsecurity; globalization versus regionalization; terrorism; regional,inter-regional and bilateral cooperation; and the impact of the rise of Chinaand India?Includes past speeches by Lee Kuan Yew, S Rajaratnam, S Dhanabalan andTommy Koh on foreign policy

-->

"This is an insightful book. By highlighting Singapore's emphasis on ideas and cooperation rather than confrontation and conflict, Acharya sheds new light on the city-state's emerging key role in the region and its leaders' continuing influence in world affairs. Singapore's Foreign Policy: The Search for Regional Order reaffirms that Acharya is always worth reading."
Richard Stubbs McMaster University, Canada

"This book of original essays challenges dominant explanations of Singapore's foreign policy, offering a nuanced portrait of the core ideas underpinning its policy strategies. I recommend it as required reading for all those interested in both Singapore as well as the wider Southeast Asian region."
Rosemary Foot University of Oxford, UK

"Acharya systematically exposes the limitations of the dominant realist approach for understanding Singapore's foreign policy, challenging some influential foundational myths in the process. In rendering historical conjuncture, international structures and regional institutions integral to the analysis, Acharya sheds new light on the forces and dynamics behind Singapore's foreign policy."
Garry Rodan Murdoch University, Australia

216pp
Pub. date: Dec 2007
ISBN 978-981-270-859-5981-270-859-6
US$45 / £24

ASIA RISING: WHO IS LEADING?

2008-04-20T05:39:00.000-07:00

Published by World Scientific http://www.worldscibooks.com/eastasianstudies/6594.html

by Amitav Acharya (University of Bristol, UK)

China, India and Japan are among the biggest players in the global economy today. However, Asia's future depends not just on its impressive growth rates or its immense natural resources and human talent; rather, it also hinges on the quality of leadership provided by the major nations and associations of Asia, and their ability to overcome persisting rivalries and respond to new transnational challenges.

Conflict and cooperation are the two central themes of this book ?a collection of commentaries and opinion pieces by Professor Amitav Acharya from various newspapers and publications from 2002 to 2006. It covers a wide range of issues such as the rise of China, Asia's leadership legacy and the role of ASEAN. Also discussed are the fate of democracy in Asia, and the implications of transnational dangers and the changing world order for Asia.

Contents:
China's Rise and the East Asian Community
A Historical Legacy
Transnational Dangers
ASEAN: Regressing or Reinventing?
Democracy and Regional Order
The Changing World Order: Implications for Asia

Readership: Undergraduates, graduates, academics in Asian studies and political science. Government ministries and diplomats. General readers interested in current affairs and the Asian region.

Analyzes Asia's rise and the relations among its leading economies,China, India and Japan

Examines Asia's leadership abilities by looking at the 1955 BandungConference?

Discusses the role of ASEAN in the new world order?Highlights the challenges and dangers facing Asia as it looks toestablish itself as the world leader in the 21st century

Analyzes Asia's rise and the relations among its leading economies,China, India and Japan?Examines Asia's leadership abilities by looking at the 1955 BandungConference?Discusses the role of ASEAN in the new world order?

Highlights the challenges and dangers facing Asia as it looks toestablish itself as the world leader in the 21st century
-->
216pp
Pub. date: Jan 2008
ISBN 978-981-277-133-9(pbk)981-277-133-6(pbk)
US$25 / £14