By Hitoshi Tanaka
The rapidly growing international influence of non-Western economic powers presents a clear challenge to ideologically-oriented institutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the G-8. This increased influence, coupled with the emergence of a number of new non-traditional threats to global stability, has made it increasingly difficult for these institutions to execute their mandates effectively. A review of the efficacy of these institutions is desperately needed. Henceforth, the focus must be on tackling functional issues related to liberalizing trade and investment, energy security, environmental degradation, and other non-traditional security threats.
One example of a major institution in urgent need of reform is the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a body whose permanent membership reflects the global power distribution of 1946, not 2008. If the international community fails to reform this institution to more accurately reflect contemporary realities of the global system such as the expanding influence of global powers including Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, the UNSC is at risk of descending into irrelevance. Unless these institutions more accurately reflect the interests of the increasingly influential developing world, non-Western states may come to see the decisions of these Western institutions as self-serving and illegitimate. In short, whether efforts to improve global governance succeed or fail will hinge on the extent to which Western leaders are willing to give the developing world a greater voice in decision-making.
More Effective Global Governance
The presence of nascent global superpowers China and India makes it clear that any attempt to reform international institutions and maintain global peace must prioritize Asia's regional integration and the development of a region-wide architecture. This is the only practical way to ensure that their rise does not foment further instability in Asia.
Although the spread of liberal democratic political systems throughout the region is an obvious prerequisite for Asia's complete integration with the existing global order, current conditions in the region mean that democracy must remain a long-term objective. In the meantime, states should pursue a two-track policy, concentrating their efforts on minimizing risks in order to prevent destabilization as the global balance of power shifts toward Asia while maximizing opportunities brought about by the recent economic liberalization and proliferation of free trade agreements throughout the region. In order to minimize risks, existing "Western" security alliances centered on US military presence in the region (US-Japan, US-South Korea, US-Australia, etc.) should remain in place as an insurance policy or "hedge" against instability. At the same time, however, leaders should maximize opportunities by advancing inclusive regional cooperation among all states in the region over "functional" issues.
Since current circumstances in Asia are likely to frustrate any attempt to duplicate an immensely complicated and comprehensive institution like the European Union, the region's immediate goal should be the creation of a multi-layered network of inclusive multilateral institutions with a mandate to address specific issues or "functions." Together with multilateral dialogue and an expanded emphasis on proactive and cooperative action to address issues of common concern, these efforts will strengthen intraregional ties and deepen trust and mutual confidence among states.
The Security Function
Going forward, the most effective way to facilitate the strengthening of community will be a functional approach to address issues around which the interests of all countries in the region converge. In particular, an emphasis on action-oriented regionalism, through which states are bound together by rules and operations, rather than (necessarily) values, religion, or political systems, stands to make a significant contribution to the creation of a region-wide architecture. The value of this novel approach lies in going beyond existing dialogue-based institutions and engaging states in proactive and cooperative efforts to tackle challenges of common concern.
One of the most pressing areas demanding new regional cooperation is that of non-traditional security. To more effectively address transnational security issues such as disaster relief, infectious disease, resource scarcity, nuclear proliferation, and maritime piracy, Asia is in need of a new regional body capable of action. The creation of an East Asia Security Forum (EASF) to tackle these issues would foster a more secure environment for continued economic expansion and--through joint action on issues of common concern--also play an invaluable role as a confidence-building measure. The membership of this institution would be restricted to a small core of nations, such as ASEAN+6 (the ten nations of ASEAN plus China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and India) and the United States. Its mandate would be a proactive and operational approach to regional security, cooperatively addressing threats through joint operations modeled after the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative. The EASF is intended as a complement to, not a replacement for, existing multilateral security institutions in the region, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Fora such as ARF have served well in recent years as effective tools for facilitating regular region-wide ministerial dialogue on security issues.
The Six-Party Talks format has also emerged as an important framework for multilateral cooperation on threats to regional stability, in this case the danger posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Although originally ad hoc in nature, this forum's mandate should not expire with the final settlement of the North Korea nuclear issue. Rather, the Six-Party Talks should remain in place as a sub-regional forum to address other security concerns on the Korean Peninsula such as normalization of Pyongyang's relations with the United States and Japan, the establishment of a permanent peace regime to formally conclude the Korean War, and North Korea's economic development. In addition to hopefully resolving these issues, state-level interaction within this forum has the added benefit of deepening trust and confidence among the six nations.
Although multilateral initiatives that engage as many nations as possible will be an integral aspect of efforts to improve the security environment within Asia, it is abundantly clear that no attempt to consolidate peace and stability in the region stands a chance of success without sanction from the region's three superpowers: Japan, China, and the United States. In light of the essential role that these nations will play as guarantors of regional stability, regular high-level trilateral security dialogue should be established as soon as possible. In addition to discussing how to address the various security challenges, regular dialogue would play an invaluable role in reducing mutual suspicions, increasing transparency, and consolidating trust.
Although Asia's leaders should work toward further consolidating multilateral security institutions, contemporary realities necessitate a deterrent against potential aggressors and hedge against the uncertainties surrounding the region's evolution. With this objective in mind, rather than creating new networks among states, for the foreseeable future existing bilateral security arrangements between the United States and several nations in the region should remain as the primary insurance policy against instability. These bilateral ties can be supplemented by strengthening links between existing "minilateral" institutions such as the trilateral fora for strategic dialogue among Japan, the United States, and Australia.
In sum, the most effective way to ensure continued peace and stability in Asia is by constructing a multi-layered security architecture in the region. This mechanism should be composed of three layers: 1) existing bilateral security arrangements and minilateral strategic links and dialogue, 2) the Six-Party Talks at a sub-regional level, and 3) the EASF as a region-wide and inclusive mechanism for addressing non-traditional security threats.
A Region-wide Rule-based Economic System The process of deepening intraregional ties will occur first through economic and financial cooperation. The objective should be to create an economic community that is linked to institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and observes the rules and obligations of the global system. This community should go beyond WTO norms to address not only trade in goods and services but also investment, standards, and the movement of people. In addition to promoting bilateral economic partnership agreements (EPA) between states, the region must simultaneously hold discussions about establishing a region-wide (ASEAN+6) EPA. This would not only lay the groundwork for the creation of a broader free trade zone between Asia and North America via APEC but could also facilitate the eventual creation of a similar agreement between Asia and Europe in cooperation with the Asia-Europe Meeting. Another institution that could contribute to the consolidation of a rule-based economic system would be an "Asian OECD." The OECD has had a very impressive track record dealing with many of the same issues that Asian states currently face such as low living standards, corruption, energy security, and difficulties achieving financial liberalization and promoting investment.
A qualitative shift in the global balance of power has made it clear that if the current system is to effectively weather this period of transition the international community must reform the existing mechanisms of global governance. The consolidation of a new rule-based architecture in East Asia will be a key step in realizing this objective. It is incumbent upon the Western world, in particular the European Union and the next US administration, to acknowledge the transformation that is taking place, proactively address the manifold challenges posed by the rise of Asia, and treat reform as a foreign policy priority.
Hitoshi Tanaka is a senior fellow with the Japan Center for International Exchange and a former deputy foreign minister of Japan.
To read the footnotes and sources related to this article, please visit the Web site of our partner Internationale Politik Global Edition.
Post to other social networks:
Stay informed with our free news services:
| All news from SPIEGEL International | Twitter | RSS |
| All news from World section | RSS |
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
