Asia's future depends on peaceful co-existence

Today, in Asia, trillions of dollars are moved within a matter of minutes around the Asian super-cities – Tokyo, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai, Delhi, Singapore and Bangkok. The potential for Asia remains enormous, but whether or not it can be fully realised depends on how we steer our current actions. 

The future of Asia hinges upon the following factors.

First, the realisation of regional cooperation and integration. Over the years, we have witnessed a mushrooming of regional organisations in Asia. Although there is an abundance of them, the private sector’s confidence in the success of these groupings has not always grown correspondingly. When considering such regional groupings, one is often concerned whether governments are really ready to sacrifice their national interests for the sake of regional goals. The need to protect domestic industries is often cited as the explanation for the delay in fully adopting liberalisation. The opening up of trade, investment and capital movements under the Asean Economic Community in 2015 is a case in point. 

If the future of Asia is to deliver real and sustainable prosperity, one needs to strike a proper balance between looking after domestic industries and having sufficient social safety nets, on the one hand, and reaping the benefits from a more open economy, on the other. The most difficult factor in achieving such a balance does not lie in the strength of the private sector. It lies in the actions, vision and far-sightedness of politicians of each country.

As for Asean, this will be a test of how a more rules-based Asean, created by its Charter and other economic agreements, can exist side-by -side with the “Asean way” of doing things – characterised by flexibility, consensus-based decision making, a non-adversarial culture, and compromise and negotiations. 

The second factor is “the integration of Asia”. We should look at “Pan Asia” from within Asia, not from somewhere else. Thus, we should refer to West Asia instead of the Middle East and East Asia instead of the Far East. Economically, although it is difficult to include all economies to the Asian economy, it is more difficult to de-link some economies from the whole region since in reality the economic activities of all countries are inseparably linked, both regionally and globally. The difference lies in the magnitude of linkages rather than the reality of the linkage.

Accordingly, the challenge for the future of Asia is how these linkages can be enhanced, either through a regional organisation or sub-regional organisation. It is in this context that successful routes for the future of Asia have to be thought of and, if plausible, be strategised. Several questions can be raised. Is an “Asian Community” the objective of the future of Asia? If so, can an Asian Community be formed through increased linkages among many sub-regional cooperation groups? 

The third factor is the reality of “Asia Rising” and the challenges of how Asia can handle its own rapid growth. There are countries that have only just opened up their market and need quick business infrastructure improvement. There are countries whose economies grow at a rate that is much faster than their macro-economic management can handle. There are also emerging new challenges for Asia. How can Asian countries, individually or as a group, adopt a strategy to handle global mega trends such as an ageing society, urbanisation, food and energy shortages, climate change adaptability, innovation and so forth? These trends will continue to change our lives. 

We in Asia are being faced with new “good problem”. We have seen a reverse of the 1997 economic crisis, from capital outflow to too much capital inflow. Economists in Asia have debated how to handle too much capital inflow, which induces a too strong currency and a risk of inflation. Some Asian countries will have to rethink their macro-economic management so that all agencies have a common position on how to handle the new problem of “a lot of money but harder to export”. 

The fourth factor is the competition between major powers. The competition among major world players in Asia is clearly seen. The US policy of “pivoting” back to Asia is manifested in increasing US involvement in Asian affairs in all fronts: economic, political and security. While China continues to build infrastructure connecting Central Asia, South Asia and Asean to mainland China, the US’s “hedging strategy” surrounds the Chinese presence by working closely with old and new allies in Central, South, Southeast and East Asia. The challenge is how Asia can balance influences among all the major players in the region? In other words, how can we be friendly with our regional and extra-regional friends when our friends are not necessarily friendly to one another on all issues.

The fifth factor is territorial conflict and political tensions. This decade has witnessed increasing tensions among countries in Asia. Domestic and regional conflicts or tensions still exist in Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the southern Philippines, the South China Sea and the Korean peninsula. All have added to the concern over military conflict, which would naturally hamper economic and business activities in the region. 

The strategic waterways of East Asia act as arteries for global energy supplies and commercial trade. Military modernisation programmes have been on the rise in Asia. And while there may be no clear threat of any Asian country’s pursuing territorial expansion through the use of force, the dangers of accidents or miscalculations leading to military clashes remain. 

How can we convince foreign investors to come to Asean if our goods cannot be shipped out because of armed conflicts at sea? Here the challenge is clear: how Asia can devise a mechanism for conflict avoidance, reducing tension and conflict resolution, especially on issues concerning sovereignty where nationalist emotion can easily get out of hand?

The sixth factor is the mechanism for conflict avoidance and resolution. Despite Asean acting as an important entity for peace-building in the region, it is the opinion of many that Asia is in need of a culture of proactive conflict avoidance and resolution. A group of eminent persons that can serve as a regional conflict management mechanism could support the work of governments and regional institutions. While Asia has many such highly qualified personalities who have successfully helped other countries to achieve peace and reconciliation, Asia does not have a mechanism where such expertise can be drawn into a collective effort to create a peaceful dialogue among parties to conflict. 

It was against this backdrop and out of such need in Asia that there was an emergence and convergence of views from former leaders, policy-makers, academics and peace experts from Asia and beyond, resulting in the launch of the Asian Peace and Reconciliation Council (APRC) was in September last year in Bangkok. The APRC’s cardinal principles are quiet diplomacy, non-intervention in the domestic affairs of any country and acting only upon the consent of all parties to the conflict. The APRC is international, non-governmental and does not belong to any country, government or any political party, thus ensuring full impartiality. The APRC intends to assist and compliment the work of any existing regional mechanisms, especially the Asean Institute of Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR).

The difference between the AIPR and APRC is that the APRC’s coverage is pan-Asian and it is a non-governmental body. 

In Asian society, the role of a respected, trusted and impartial third party is always found useful in rendering good offices, especially in a case where, because of politicisation of conflict, parties that used to communicate with one another cease to do so. This is particularly so in the case of conflicting territorial claims at sea, where alternative dialogue on economic cooperation should be initiated in parallel with dialogue on sovereignty. In many cases, a joint development zone in the overlapping claim is created for profit sharing of oil and gas production. Yet this kind of alternative dialogue cannot be publicly proposed when conflicts have been politicised, and nationalism has come into play. Therefore, an impartial go-between who is well known in each society and country can play a crucial role through quiet diplomacy to assist in bridging differences, creating space for dialogue and helping to find mutually acceptable and amicable solutions.

It is this role that serves as the APRC’s essence. In January we organised a briefing for all foreign ambassadors in Jakarta. We have written to all government leaders and heads of international organisations, informing them of the APRC and our readiness to help. Council members led by me had meetings with, for example, the leaders of Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Timor-Leste, China and Vietnam, including experts from leading non-governmental organisations. In those meetings we received good support for the principle and objective of the APRC and we exchanged views on areas where the APRC could be useful in reducing tension and creating a peace dialogue and atmosphere of reconciliation. 

In conclusion, although economic potential can be achieved and challenges overcome, the lack of an effective Asian way to handle conflicts and tension will undermine such potential, thus threatening the promising future of Asia. The APRC is new, but the consensus so far is that it is needed. It is the duty of everyone to work for peace. This duty and responsibility is not confined only to diplomats and politicians. It is also the responsibility of the business sector, since it is us in the business sector who are the engine of growth and prosperity for the future. It is the business sector that will be severely affected if conflicts turn into war. In order for the business sector to be an engine of growth, it is a prerequisite that we have be an engine of peace. A culture of peace must be cultivated, the seeds of peace must be sown. Peace is like good health: we only realise how much we need it when we do not have it, and that’s always too late. As much as we should not be complacent about taking care of our health, let’s not be complacent in taking care of peace. Therefore, let’s work together for peace in Asia. Let’s work together for the APRC to succeed – for its success is part and parcel of the success of the future of Asia.