The international response to Russia's role in the downing of MH17 - and the larger Ukraine conflict - has been muddled, given the varying national priorities
The international response to Russia's role in the downing of MH17 - and the larger Ukraine conflict - has been muddled, given the varying national priorities
The international response to Russia's role in the downing of MH17 - and the larger Ukraine conflict - has been muddled, given the varying national priorities
herein lies the complexity that arises from regional tensions. Asean does gain from engagements with China and Japan. But Sino-Japanese rivalry could grow so that each side may use special concessions in aid, trade and investment to expand influence among different members. If that happened, what seemed like attractive economic assistance and investments may pressure different Asean member states to take one side or the other. While regional integration needs Chinese and Japanese involvement, Asean must remain cohesive. Moreover, the group must begin to define a common voice on key global and regional issues. Asean must be active and united to help manage the region, rather than being the passive subject of Sino-Japanese tensions. Otherwise, members will regret too late that old adage that when the elephants fight, the grass dies. Simon Tay and Gina Guo are respectively chairman and policy research senior executive at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs. The SIIA will host the Asean and Asian Forum on August 1to discuss the politics and economic policies that matter to regional business A sians are now awake to the fear of armed conflict. A recent survey of 11Asian countries by the Pew Research Centre found that more than half of those polled expressed concerns that tensions over rocks and islets claimed by China could spill over. In countries with conflicting claims against China Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam 80 or even 90 per cent share such fears. Steps must be taken to de- escalate tensions or else the stability and growth of the region will be affected. The high- level strategic discussion between the US and China, hosted in Beijing, was one notable effort. Another recent and positive step was taken by China, to move the oil rig that it had earlier controversially placed in disputed seas. Other measures could come from emphasising the economic interdependence between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Japan and China. One key area would be in the creation of an Asean Economic Community by 2015. It is estimated that about 80 per cent of the planned steps have been achieved as of last August, but the remaining tasks are probably the most difficult to accomplish. Economic integration is neither going to be complete nor on time. Privately, Asean officials are now talking about 2015 being amilestone, and not a deadline, and have begun to identify an agenda beyond that date. What is even clearer is that integration efforts depend not only on the 10 member states and the relatively small Asean secretariat, but also on China and Japan. The two largest Asian economies are stepping up their efforts to economically engage the grouping. This can be helpful. But given the tensions between China and Japan, and also between China and some Asean member states it can also be tricky. There is a clear need for infrastructure to link Asean members. Its own infrastructure fund has targeted a relatively modest US$13 billion, with initial capital of US$485.2 million. China has shown considerably more ambition with a pledge of US$100 billion to kick-start an infrastructure investment bank to finance projects in Asia. One pending infrastructure project that can benefit is a railway link, stretching from Kunming in southwestern China down to Singapore. Currently, some 90 per cent of the necessary rail connections remain unfinished and there is a need to speed up work. Another area is investment. While China is Aseans largest trading partner, Chinese investments in the region remain small, at only about 7 per cent of what Beijing sends overseas. These, however, look set to rise, given Chinas reform of its state-owned enterprises, rising labour costs, more liberal approaches to cross-border trade and investment, and gradual internationalisation of the renminbi. Even as China ramps up engagement, Japan has also shown resurgent interest in Asean. From 2012 to 2013, Japanese corporate investments in Southeast Asia doubled to reach US$22.8 billion. This is three times their China-bound investments. More than size alone, Japanese investments potentially help Asean firms move up the value chain, innovate and boost technology and human capital. This provides something that government-led initiatives cannot. Such partnerships not only help integrate the region but also raise competitiveness. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is increasingly active beyond economics. Tokyo is proposing enhancements to the East Asia Summit, an Asean-led multilateral gathering, so that it can become a premier forum for regional security. The Abe administration has also controversially pushed for the reinterpretation of the countrys pacifist constitution, and could ultimately seek a more assertive role. Some welcome this. Most notably, the Philippines accepted a Japanese gift of 10 Asia must not let politics stand in the way of economic integration Simon Tay and Gina Guo say territorial disputes deter closer ties between Asean, China and Japan Asean must be united, rather than being the passive subject of Sino-Japanese tensions Wednesday, July 23, 2014 A11 > CONTACT US Agree or disagree with the opinions on this page? Write to us at letters@scmp.com. If you have an idea for an opinion article, email it to oped@scmp.com I was in Kuala Lumpur last weekend, where flags flew at half mast for the victims of flight MH17 and the key terms in the media coverage seemed to be outrage and damning. The front page of Malaysias The Star news- paper, for example, emphasised outrage from various world leaders but exactly which leaders are the most outraged depends on each countrys political biases and economic priorities. One hundred and ninety-three lives have weighed heavily on the mind of Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, yet he refused to rush to join the anti-Russian condemnation issuing from the Obama administration. Rutte emphasised that there was much about the tragedy that we couldnt be sure of. This may be sensibly circumspect, or it may reflect the fact that business with Moscow is booming: Russia is the Netherlands third-largest trade partner. Rutte did, however, say that he would personally ensure the culprits are found and brought to justice. This gains him political ground in his own country with- out upsetting the Russians. Tony Abbott, the prime minister of the nation which suffered the third-highest death toll (after the Netherlands and Malaysia), said, with unexpected under- statement: Australia takes a very dim view of countries which facilitate the killing of Australians. Later, more typical com- ments that described Russian behaviour in the Ukraine crisis as outrageous pro- voked stiff condemnation from Moscow. Abbott can afford to talk tough: Russia is not a major trade partner for Australia. Straight off the bat last weekend, before US Secretary of State John Kerry provided any detail to begin to back up his accusa- tions, Malaysias New Sunday Times saw no reason to pussyfoot around the Great Bear. They accepted the United States damning assertion of where the blame lay. Pro-Russian separatists launched the missile, the newspaper declared, leaving little doubt that they were abetted by the Russians under the aegis of Vladimir Putin. The response from the Malaysian media must not be taken to represent Malaysia officially. Tragically, the govern- ment has too much recent experience of handling airline tragedies. Whereas it took Prime Minister Najib Razak a week to make a public statement about MH370 in March, this time, he appeared on Malay- sian TV within hours. His comments echoed those of his transport minister, Liow Tiong Lai, who used the phrase outrage against human decency. In reality, not all of the world wants to push Putin too far. Putin is the ultimate opportunist and will play this situation as such. Should he concede it was the rebels fault, he will present Russia as saving the situation for domestic consumption, at least. Russias boldness throughout the Ukraine crisis has been a reaction to Kievs tilting towards the West. Devolution for east Ukraine will be the likely result and is probably exactly what the Russian leader hoped to achieve from the outset. Under Putin, Russia doesnt look much like the has-been power we have been told it is. The Obama administration insists what happened to MH17 should be a wake-up call for Europes approach to Russia over the Ukraine conflict. But its hard to see how Putin and his cronies could be hurt in any substantial way. The US would like to see EU sanctions involve a reduction in the level of natural resources imported from Russia which supplies 30 per cent of the gas Europe uses. Its easy to see why many EU leaders have been so diplomatic: in many cases, including the Netherlands, mainland European nations are increasing their dependence on Rus- sian resources. Whats more, they fear retaliatory sanctions. The US is pushing for tougher eco- nomic measures against Russia, taking the apparent moral high ground but America doesnt have the trade relationship with Russia that continental European nations, such as Germany, have. British Prime Minister David Camer- ons tough posturing against Russia entails criticising fellow EU members which plays to his domestic audience for being too soft for too long. Cameron gets low marks for speaking out against Chinas human rights record or standing up to Israel over the horrors in Gaza because, in these examples, British political and economic interests dictate Londons near silence. To be fair, UK businesses (Russia is a major buyer of British cars and financial services) may suffer through retaliatory sanctions from Moscow. And oil giant BP has a significant stake in Russian energy but Britain has less to lose than the gas- dependent European states. The US perhaps has even less to lose, given that its relations with Russia are already so low. President Barack Obama must be considering this as an opportunity to fast-track Ukraine into Nato thereby strengthening the neo-iron curtain. But little has been said publicly: Obama is too wary of feeding Putins fire. Putin has used the threat of Nato encroachment to rally support for his bold nationalist agenda. Around 2008, the US considered smoothing the path for Nato membership for Ukraine, together with Georgia. Euro- pean states, dependent on Russian resour- ces, were less keen: the plan was put on the back burner. In this area, Ukrainian public opinion which surveys suggest has re- cently moved to a majority in favour of joining Nato plays little part in the nations destiny. Obama has been clear that US military involvement in Ukraine is not on the table, and he is also cautious regarding the provi- sion of arms. Senior Republican Senator John McCain did suggest the US should supply the Ukrainians with military aid if Russian involvement in the downing of MH17 is proved. Although his suggestion is areasonable one, McCain has greater free- dom to speak his mind, and to tread all over Russian sensibilities, because hes not aworld leader. Since Marchs MH370 tragedy, Malay- sian observers see their own countrys standing as rising in the eyes of the worlds powers. They point to Obamas post- MH370 visit to their country, and, after a knee-jerk reaction of condemnation of the Malaysian authorities in the early weeks, Beijing is seen as toning down if not retracting its rhetoric out of respect for relations with Malaysia. This time, the focus of criticism falls not on Malaysian authorities but Russian: in what terms they should be condemned depends on who you ask. Paul Letters is a political commentator and writer. See paulletters.com Under Putin, Russia doesnt look much like the has-been power we have been told it is Paul Letters says the international response to Russias role in the downing of MH17 and the larger Ukraine conflict has been understandably muddled, given the varying national priorities Fight or ight S exuality is not a choice; science shows genetics plays a part. Being gay is not something people can turn on or off, like a switch. What we can control, however, is the stigma we attach to non- traditional family arrangements. This is why Singapores recent attempt to destroy a childrens book about penguins is like something out of Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451, in which all books are outlawed. Singapores National Library Board made the decision to destroy three childrens books because they were pro-homosexuality (even though public outcry forced it to backtrack on two of those titles). The offending trio were: And Tango Makes Three, a sweet tale of two male penguins raising a chick together; The White Swan Express; and Whos In My Family. The countrys Media Development Authority also banned for sale an issue of the US comic book Archie: The Married Life, because it, too, featured a same-sex marriage. The very idea that reading a book about two male penguins is somehow going to turn a child gay is irrational, insulting and infuriating. Such books are critically important not just for gay rights, but for normalising alternative family arrangements. Ill never forget the day when my son was in a park in San Francisco and another boy told him he had two mums. My sons eyes widened. He ran over to me and asked: Why does this boy have two mums? I replied: Why not? My son thought about my answer. Finally, he shrugged and ran back to play with the boy. As it turned out, the boys two mums were not gay. One was his surrogate mother; the other his real mother. They were raising him together, along with his father. Here in Asia, an increasing number of children are being raised by grandparents. In Shanghai, 90 per cent of the children are reportedly being looked after by at least one grandparent. If we are serious about accepting alternative lifestyles, then childrens books have an important role to play. Not so long ago, most English-language childrens books featured Caucasian children living in big, two-storey houses because the major publishers were all either in the US or Britain. As a child, I remember falling in love with the stories. I also remember looking in the mirror and wondering why I have black hair and small, brown eyes. It wasnt until I became a mother myself that I questioned why my children also had to read only books about white kids living in the suburbs. That was when I started writing books so my children, who are half-Chinese, wont also stand in front of the mirror and wonder why their lives are so weird. Their lives are not weird. Neither is the life of the boy with two mums, the girl with two dads, or the kids looked after by grandparents. None of this would be weird if we read more books like And Tango Makes Three. Singapore prides itself on being a cultural and intellectual hot spot in Asia. Yet its missing the one crucial ingredient: freedom of speech. Hong Kong still has that; lets hang on to it. Kelly Yang is the founder of The Kelly Yang Project, an after- school writing and debate centre for students aged 5-17. She is also the author of several childrens books, including the best-selling Wheres Broccoli? kelly@kellyyang.edu.hk Pages of life Kelly Yang says to teach acceptance, we should celebrate books about non-traditional families, not censor them as Singapore did M atters regarding the establishment of universal suffrage in Hong Kong in 2017 have come to ahead rather sooner than most expected. Was it wise for Occupy Central and its allies to raise the stakes so high so early? We are now awaiting a decision by the National Peoples Congress on the question of Hong Kongs electoral system, which is likely to lead to a hardening of the fronts on both sides. In advance of the NPC statement, radical activist groups are proposing to launch a civil disobedience campaign next month. The groups say this may not be necessary, as direct nomination for candidates has yet to be formally ruled out; but they are assuming the worst. Indeed, they are right to assume the worst, as it is hardly conceivable that the NPC will leave any room for doubt as to the central governments position on nomination. Acampaign of active civil disobedience, as well as putting great pressure on Hong Kongs institutions, will severely test the concept of one country, two systems; let us hope it will not test it to destruction. One iron rule I learnt when working as a diplomat in China was this: never ask a question if it will only provoke the answer you dont wish to hear. It was most unwise of the radical wing of the pan- democrats to neglect this proviso. Understandably, many in Hong Kong have no time for advice from representatives of the old colonial power. But one person whose modus operandi remains worth studying is Chris Patten, Hong Kongs last governor. Seemingly on a hiding to nothing, with constant fulminations against him emanating from Beijing and only dubious support from his own diplomats, he managed a creditable fighting retreat, leaving Hong Kong self- confident and well prepared to establish a modus vivendi with the central government on the one country, two systems principle. To have given in during the run-up to the handover would have left the territory essentially rudderless, with the mainland authorities calling all the shots. As it was, Patten retained control of events to the very end, by which time he had established a space for free public debate over Hong Kongs future, which Hongkongers could use to establish among themselves precisely how much or how little democracy they wanted and were prepared to stand up for. Yes, this is now an internal Chinese issue, but it cannot be denied that the democrats situation has some similarities to that of the British in the mid-1990s. And if that is the case, raising the crunch issues at an early stage conforms to the Patten playbook. But it remains to be seen whether the pro- democracy camp can manage the fighting retreat tactic anywhere near as well. Burning bridges is unlikely to allow for a retreat to defensible positions; that is, of course, the point of it, to try to bolster desperate courage by leaving no possibility of retreat or compromise. And the central government might also do well to rein in some of its more enthusiastic outriders: those who respond to pan-democratic provocation by sounding more Catholic than the Pope, and describing attempts to draw international attention to Hong Kong as conspiring with foreigners. Nobody can seriously think the outside world wishes to interfere: we simply want the successful post-1997 settlement to continue for everybodys benefit. For that, it is vital to avoid provoking Beijing into a face- saving crackdown that would leave Hong Kong worse off than before. Civil disobedience will always remain an option in a free society; but maybe it is an option better not exercised. At the very least, some fallback positions should be prepared before the confrontation becomes really damaging. Tim Collard is a former UK diplomat specialising in China. He spent nine years as an analyst in Beijing Pro-democracy camp should rethink burning its bridges Tim Collard says active civil disobedience would leave no room for retreat One rule I learnt: never ask a question if it will only provoke the answer you dont wish to hear