Reflections on the Human Condition - Api-fellowships.org

14
xiv
of peace in the region by this merry triumvirate—was
strongly touted, especially amongst those who “knew”
that a Pax Americana was not possible and a Pax Sinica
was to be avoided like the plague. It is a prisoner of
power politics groupthink and the natural outcrop of the
old European model for making peace. It is hierarchical
and anti-democratic. It is patently unachievable. Why,
for example, should China agree to a partnership of two
versus one? And why should Japan fund and finance the
strategic policies of its so-called “partners”?
The classic European Concert of Powers approach
would not be able to work in today’s Europe. Unlike
the Europe of the nineteenth century, in today’s world
it simply is not possible for a country to be a legitimate
policeman for a region such as East Asia, especially if
casualties are taboo, and especially if the citizens to be
policed simply won’t have it.
Some may say that the fourth option—achieving peace
through building trust, friendship, consideration,
accommodation, a sense of community and a
community of interest in peace—is very idealistic, very
laborious and very difficult. Of course it is. It truly is
very idealistic, very laborious and very difficult. But
I believe that it is much more realistic than the first
three options. It does not require much more work. It
is no more difficult than achieving true peace through
hegemony, a balance of power, or a Concert of Powers.
It is certainly much more productive of the welfare of
the people of our region.
Those who say that the community of friends approach
is not possible have to explain European success. More
pertinent and much closer to home, they will have to
explain the success of ASEAN. As so many of our good
friends have pointed out a hundred times since ASEAN
was born in 1967, ASEAN is at “a crossroads”, ASEAN
is “in crisis”, ASEAN is “a disappointment”, ASEAN
has been “a dismal failure” in many ways. In 1997-98,
it was pointed out ad nauseum, that ASEAN was not
able to prevent, still less, to “solve” the Great East Asian
Economic Crisis. It is interesting to note that those who
said that ASEAN was ipso facto “useless” did not then
go on to say that the IMF was “useless”, that the World
Bank was “useless”, that the Asian Development Bank
was “useless”, that APEC was “useless” and that sliced
bread was “useless”—despite the fact that all these
things too did not prevent and could not “solve” the
Great East Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 and 1998.
ASEAN does not walk the path of the European Union.
It has not been able to pull rabbits out of a hat and
turn iron into gold. Who knows how long it will be
Ref lections on the Human Condition: Change, Conflict and Modernity
The Work of the 2004/2005 API Fellows
before the ASEAN Economic Community committed
to in Bali will come close to reality. AFTA itself remains
problematical in many areas. No plain sailing can be
expected. Yet, there is no-one who can say that ASEAN
has not been a tremendous success in the process
of building a community of friendship and peace.
Neighbors who have been strangers have been turned
into acquaintances. Acquaintances have been turned to
comrades. Adversaries have been turned to friends, not
overnight, but surprisingly fast.
The new ASEAN members are not so chummy among
themselves, or with the old members—as the old
members are with each other. But there is no doubt
that despite centuries of disdain, distrust, prejudice,
sometimes even animosity, no-one in the entire region
of Southeast Asia is preparing or even thinking of going
to war against another. A community of friendship and
peace has more or less been established.
There is no doubt that as a peace and friendship
machine, only the European process has outshone the
ASEAN process over the last thirty years. Not bad for
a dismal failure. Is such a community—a community
of friendship and peace that ASEAN already is today—
impossible in East Asia because of the sheer size of China?
In the original ASEAN six, Indonesia was larger than
China would be in East Asia—in terms of territory and
population. ASEAN succeeded in spite of the single giant
because Indonesia was concentrated on modernization,
as China is today. ASEAN succeeded because Indonesia
was focused on economic transformation, as China
is today. Indonesia used ASEAN to lock itself onto a
productive track. Is there an analogue and an example
here, for others to follow?
The beauty about the community approach to friendship
and peace is that it does not require the abrogation of
alliances and low intensity balances of power. Countries
can and should still have strategic coalitions of the type
that do not subvert or destroy the community-building
process. It is in keeping with the ASEAN way and the
Asian way, with the core emphasis on process and on
patience, on building the solid house of peace one brick
at a time.
En passant, let me remind the skeptics that in analyzing
what can be done over the next twenty years they should
bear in mind what we have been able to achieve over
the last two decades. Twenty years ago, the Cold War
was still on. China’s new path was still uncertain and
tenuous. Southeast Asia was at daggers drawn. East Asia
is today already a very much different place. Southeast
Asia has been completely transformed.