2009年2月17日是中越戰爭30周年紀念日，大陸人通常習慣“對越自衛反擊戰”的叫法。中越官方都沒有特別的表示，但是那場戰爭卻割不斷很多人的記憶。
記得有一次隨父親與一群當年南京兵聚會時，他們還提到當年的一些南京戰友在參加了那場傷亡慘重的戰役后，決定永遠留在廣西，守候逝去的年輕生命，不再囘南京。由於許世友將軍的固執己見，沒有空軍掩護，強佔高地的死命令讓這場戰爭從一開始就帶上了悲壯的色彩。進入越南境内以后，巷戰的殘酷更是可以達到把人逼瘋的程度。冷槍隨時可能從背後射來，生命隨時可能就此終止。這就是一群軍人對於那場戰爭的記憶，也是我對於中越戰爭了解的開始。
戰爭的直接參與者不僅是軍人，也是百姓。很多同齡人或許會覺得中越兩國關係很好，但是經歷過戰爭的百姓是不會輕易抹去痛苦的記憶，他們的子孫充滿仇恨的環境中也不可能毫無影響。撫平創傷需要時間，對中國人是這樣，對越南人也是這樣。中越戰爭后，兩國關係的復蘇是從1991年開始的，而雙方的陸上地界勘探是去年才完成的。這種關係的復蘇是國際形勢、國内政治、經濟共同作用下促成的。蘇聯的解體令越南的政體需要尋找新的模式進行運作。而唯一可以選擇的模版只有中國。
鳳凰何亮亮的一篇博客分享了關於中越戰爭的一本新作《1979對越戰爭親歷記》的大概内容，覺得寫得挺好的，下面摘錄部分，並附錄其原文網址，以供詳細閲讀。
1979年2月17日至3月5日，中国发动了对越战争。中国军队出动了陆军50军、54军、20军、41军、42军、43军、11军、13军和14军的22个师以及20军20军第58师、广西军区独立师、云南省军区独立师、广西军区2个边防团、云南省军区5个边防团）、2个炮兵师（炮1师、炮4师）、两个高炮师（高炮65师、高炮70师），以及铁道兵、工程兵、通信兵等兵种部队近56万兵力的解放军部队在广西、云南的中越边境500公里长的边境线攻入越南，3月4日中国军队占领谅山省会谅山，此为防守河内的要地，陷谅山则可南下直取河内。3月5日中国宣布停火并全线撤军。
本书附录的《1979年对越自卫反击战大事记》中透露，1978年12月7日的中央军委扩大会议即以决定发动对越战争并随即开始全面备战，广州军区司令许世友被任命为广西前线总指挥，但有关这次军委会议的内容至今未解密。
值得注意的是，邓小平在1978年底开始访问美国，根据美国媒体的报导。他在访问中先后向白宫和国会领导人通报了中国将“教训”越南；1979年2月初邓小平访问日本，也向日方高层作了同样的通报
……
作者用了一章专门记叙对手越南军队，在第26章《不可低估越南对手，他们也不是白吃饭的》中，作者对于越军的长处有客观的详尽的描述。当然也不能忘记，越军的许多军官都是在中国接受军事教育，越南的军备与其他工业设备多为中国无偿支持。“兄弟阋于墙”，战争的惨烈绝对不输于长期敌对的两国之间。越南与中国是同样的政治体制，因此中国军队进攻越南，越南是全民抗战，军民一体，使中国军队吃亏不少，也是中国军队开战不久就放弃了愚蠢的亲民纪律。中国军队的轻敌也造成自己的重创，在北京宣布停火后第二天进入越南的50军150师两个营的部队被就越军包围，被俘二百余人，可视为中国军队的奇耻大辱，因为此前中国军队俘越军数千人，未料战争结束反而有两个营全军覆没。
……
網址：http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2203869.html
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
18 February, 2009
16 November, 2008
從卡城(Calgary)的兩座華人紀念碑說起
於陣亡將士紀念日前的周末和友人前往卡城遊玩。在卡城的最後一日，和友人一起沿著河岸欣賞城市中心區的高樓大廈，在唐人街附近的一個街心公園裏發現了兩座華人的紀念碑。這兩座碑是由兩個不同的華人組織樹立的，不過卻帶來了早期華人在加拿大的辛酸歷史。
最早關於加拿大華人的紀錄可以追溯到1788年。19世紀，早期的華人被運送到加拿大做廉價勞力修建加拿大鐵路，開礦或擔負其他低下的工作。由於工作環境惡劣，且遭到白人歧視，不少人死于飢餓、勞累、工傷、謀殺。加拿大鐵路完工，數以千計的中國勞工被辭退，大量中國廉價勞工充斥加拿大，被指責擾亂勞動力市場秩序。由於早期移民主要是廣東一帶的底層百姓，生活所迫，爲了讓家人有生存的機會，越來越多的華人開始移民加拿大，做廉價勞工。1885年，加拿大政府開始向華人移民徵收人頭稅(headtax)，這是加拿大境内唯一一個被徵收該稅項的少數族裔。這一稅項，從一開始的50加幣，一直升到了500加幣。該稅項不僅向新移民徵收，還要追溯已經定居加拿大的所有華裔。1923年，加拿大政府更是設立了《華人移民法案》(Chinese Exclusion Act)，徹底禁止華人移民。當時的唐人街，可以被形容為單身社區，因爲這些青壯勞動力隻身前來加拿大，而一家老小依然留在中國。禁止移民，徹底把很多華人生生分隔兩地。
在很多華人眼中，二戰是一個非常重要的轉折點。雖然當時華人社區被隔絕，華人被剝奪很多權利，但是華人社區中的不少年輕人堅信，只要爲了加拿大而參戰，昭顯華人社區對於加拿大的貢獻就可以使得所有華人移民獲得合法權益。400多名華裔報名從軍，被派往緬甸和印度尼西亞的敵人後方的叢林執行任務。華人血統，一度在加拿大國内成爲華裔的包袱，在這一刻成爲了華人的資產。他們可以更好地和當地人相處，完成任務。可是戰爭結束了，華人血統，又成為了包袱。
由於簽訂了《聯合國世界人權宣言》，1947年加拿大被迫取消《華人移民法案》。同年，華裔被准許在聯邦選舉投票。但是直到20年后，華人才被同意以“獨立身份”移民加拿大，並在選舉中採用同樣的標準。而政府向華人道歉是一直到2006年現任總理哈珀上臺以後了。
華人在今日的加拿大已基本過上了平等的生活，而据統計，25%的華人更是出生在加拿大的華裔。對於這個群體，很多人也許並不會對於移民有什麽深刻的體會，也未必對於先民的移民史太感興趣。而今天來加拿大的移民恐怕更不會對那段往事有什麽閒工夫去追溯，畢竟似乎那段往事的主要對象是廣東一帶的華人，語言也是以粵語為母語——而今天的移民大多是來自于中國大陸，他們只說普通話，聼不懂粵語，在華人社區裏即使居住地理位置同操粵語的華人並不遙遠，但從兩個社群的交流來看，是明顯不足的，甚至可能是有溝壑的。
如今的移民情況與以前已大大不同，如今的移民者恐怕也不再會有激情和機遇去為他們的“國家”而戰。但是在今天，不再為餐飯和危機擔憂的今天，國家對於他們究竟意味著什麽？他們又會為他們曾經稱爲祖國的地方和現在身份證上註明國籍的地方做出一些什麽樣的事跡呢？也許只有時間才知道。
關於早期加拿大華人的紀錄片可以參看：http://archives.cbc.ca/society/immigration/topics/1433/
最早關於加拿大華人的紀錄可以追溯到1788年。19世紀，早期的華人被運送到加拿大做廉價勞力修建加拿大鐵路，開礦或擔負其他低下的工作。由於工作環境惡劣，且遭到白人歧視，不少人死于飢餓、勞累、工傷、謀殺。加拿大鐵路完工，數以千計的中國勞工被辭退，大量中國廉價勞工充斥加拿大，被指責擾亂勞動力市場秩序。由於早期移民主要是廣東一帶的底層百姓，生活所迫，爲了讓家人有生存的機會，越來越多的華人開始移民加拿大，做廉價勞工。1885年，加拿大政府開始向華人移民徵收人頭稅(headtax)，這是加拿大境内唯一一個被徵收該稅項的少數族裔。這一稅項，從一開始的50加幣，一直升到了500加幣。該稅項不僅向新移民徵收，還要追溯已經定居加拿大的所有華裔。1923年，加拿大政府更是設立了《華人移民法案》(Chinese Exclusion Act)，徹底禁止華人移民。當時的唐人街，可以被形容為單身社區，因爲這些青壯勞動力隻身前來加拿大，而一家老小依然留在中國。禁止移民，徹底把很多華人生生分隔兩地。
在很多華人眼中，二戰是一個非常重要的轉折點。雖然當時華人社區被隔絕，華人被剝奪很多權利，但是華人社區中的不少年輕人堅信，只要爲了加拿大而參戰，昭顯華人社區對於加拿大的貢獻就可以使得所有華人移民獲得合法權益。400多名華裔報名從軍，被派往緬甸和印度尼西亞的敵人後方的叢林執行任務。華人血統，一度在加拿大國内成爲華裔的包袱，在這一刻成爲了華人的資產。他們可以更好地和當地人相處，完成任務。可是戰爭結束了，華人血統，又成為了包袱。
由於簽訂了《聯合國世界人權宣言》，1947年加拿大被迫取消《華人移民法案》。同年，華裔被准許在聯邦選舉投票。但是直到20年后，華人才被同意以“獨立身份”移民加拿大，並在選舉中採用同樣的標準。而政府向華人道歉是一直到2006年現任總理哈珀上臺以後了。
華人在今日的加拿大已基本過上了平等的生活，而据統計，25%的華人更是出生在加拿大的華裔。對於這個群體，很多人也許並不會對於移民有什麽深刻的體會，也未必對於先民的移民史太感興趣。而今天來加拿大的移民恐怕更不會對那段往事有什麽閒工夫去追溯，畢竟似乎那段往事的主要對象是廣東一帶的華人，語言也是以粵語為母語——而今天的移民大多是來自于中國大陸，他們只說普通話，聼不懂粵語，在華人社區裏即使居住地理位置同操粵語的華人並不遙遠，但從兩個社群的交流來看，是明顯不足的，甚至可能是有溝壑的。
如今的移民情況與以前已大大不同，如今的移民者恐怕也不再會有激情和機遇去為他們的“國家”而戰。但是在今天，不再為餐飯和危機擔憂的今天，國家對於他們究竟意味著什麽？他們又會為他們曾經稱爲祖國的地方和現在身份證上註明國籍的地方做出一些什麽樣的事跡呢？也許只有時間才知道。
關於早期加拿大華人的紀錄片可以參看：http://archives.cbc.ca/society/immigration/topics/1433/
12 April, 2008
Turn to History before You Speak
After the Tibet riot in March, the bombs from western government and media finally explode. However, the fuse here is not the Olympic Game to be held in Beijing. Those who propagate an independent Tibet have made good use of the torch rally outside China and created a perfect chance for the western government and media to put pressure on Chinese government on not merely the Tibet issue.
This is politics, rather than pure human rights, sovereignty or anything else. The reason I say so is based on the fact that facts and history are not upheld at the first position before those people who speak out or protest. The fame of the western “free” and “independent” media is to some extent destroyed by their biased report. Some obvious evidence is provided by www.anti-cnn.com.
It is also quite regretful that many people support the protest against the torch rally without a clear knowledge of the relationship between Olympic and politics and the history of the complex Tibet issue.
Although the governments of many countries recognize that Tibet is a part of China, many ordinary people do not really understand why. What more, the long history of the Dalai Lama’s biased propaganda and the distrust of the communist regime due to the historical reasons made the westerners stand out without really look into the issue.
The complexity of the Tibet problem is not something can be simply illustrated by the nationalism or the separatism. There are a lot more behind.
How to find out the truth? If you don’t trust the viewpoint from Chinese Han, then you should not trust the viewpoint from exiled Tibetans. The reason rises from the possible bias which you fear that might mislead you. Go back to read those third parties’ description and introduction about the issues happening at their own times.
I come across an article about the establishment of the present Gelug branch of the Tibetan Buddhism. Although it is in Chinese, it refers to a lot of authoritative western scholars’ research and experience. I would like to regard it as quite neutral. You can find it at
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!_4qwYw6ZGQQ0SgBMthp8sw--/article?mid=2358&prev=2359&next=2357.
If you cannot read Chinese, I hope that you can try to read several books:
1. Tucci, Giuseppi, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, Libreria dello Sta to, Rome, 1949
2. Petech, Luciano, China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet, 2nd Ed. T'oung Pao Monographie I,E.J.Brill, Leiden 1972
3. Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet,University of California 1989
Do remember to turn to history before you speak.
This is politics, rather than pure human rights, sovereignty or anything else. The reason I say so is based on the fact that facts and history are not upheld at the first position before those people who speak out or protest. The fame of the western “free” and “independent” media is to some extent destroyed by their biased report. Some obvious evidence is provided by www.anti-cnn.com.
It is also quite regretful that many people support the protest against the torch rally without a clear knowledge of the relationship between Olympic and politics and the history of the complex Tibet issue.
Although the governments of many countries recognize that Tibet is a part of China, many ordinary people do not really understand why. What more, the long history of the Dalai Lama’s biased propaganda and the distrust of the communist regime due to the historical reasons made the westerners stand out without really look into the issue.
The complexity of the Tibet problem is not something can be simply illustrated by the nationalism or the separatism. There are a lot more behind.
How to find out the truth? If you don’t trust the viewpoint from Chinese Han, then you should not trust the viewpoint from exiled Tibetans. The reason rises from the possible bias which you fear that might mislead you. Go back to read those third parties’ description and introduction about the issues happening at their own times.
I come across an article about the establishment of the present Gelug branch of the Tibetan Buddhism. Although it is in Chinese, it refers to a lot of authoritative western scholars’ research and experience. I would like to regard it as quite neutral. You can find it at
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!_4qwYw6ZGQQ0SgBMthp8sw--/article?mid=2358&prev=2359&next=2357.
If you cannot read Chinese, I hope that you can try to read several books:
1. Tucci, Giuseppi, Tibetan Painted Scrolls, Libreria dello Sta to, Rome, 1949
2. Petech, Luciano, China and Tibet in the Early XVIIIth Century: History of the Establishment of Chinese Protectorate in Tibet, 2nd Ed. T'oung Pao Monographie I,E.J.Brill, Leiden 1972
3. Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet,University of California 1989
Do remember to turn to history before you speak.
09 December, 2007
The Emerging Power of Pragmatism and Promise on Development (Update 1)
The ROK president election is on the corner. It is reported that Mr. Lee Myung-bak, candidate from Grand National Party is leading the run with obvious advantages. The legend of the president candidate seems to give us many fruits of thoughts.
Mr. Lee comes from the bottom of society. He worked as a garbage collector to support his life and studies. After his graduation, he worked very hard and got the nickname of “bulldozer”. He became the CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction at the age of 36.
Mr. Lee is a pragmatic person and he calls himself a “can-do” leader which will make him the right person to take command of the South Korean economy. He really has shown his strong ability to transform a dream into reality. As an elected mayor of Seoul in 2002, he managed to accomplish the project to the buried Cheonggyecheon stream under the great pressure from all walks of life. He communicated with different groups and tried to persuade people into finding the beauty of future life after the project was finished. Finally he realized his dream with 1% possibility of success and brought a safe and beautiful natural stream and the traditional culture back to the citizens in Seoul. The success of the project shows Mr. Lee’s pragmatism and brings him much support from the grass-root society.
Promise on development also becomes an explanation for Mr. Lee’s high support. In contrast to the other two major candidates, Mr. Lee Hoi-chang and Chung Dong-young, Mr. Lee Myung-bak conveys the information for a better future for the somewhat stagnant nation under the disappointed leadership of current president Roh Moo-hyun. His engagement policy towards North Korea also based on the perspective that if North Korea can keep following the direction of No Nuclear and Opening-up, in ten years, South Korea can help their north brothers and sisters to reach the goal of US$3000 per capita income. The brilliant future presented by Mr. Lee surely brings him large support.
The preference showed from the Korean people brings a piece of vital information to today’s politicians: pragmatism and promise on development possess strong appeal and power. Compared to Mr. Lee Myun-bak, another candidate Mr. Lee Hoi-chang represents the old politicians who uphold strong ideology to insist a containment policy towards DPRK, while Mr. Chung dong-young seems to be lack of pragmatism. Neither of them can bring a signal of future development for the nation.
When people are voting for their president, they are not merely voting for the guy, but their life in a foreseeable future. It is not something easily interpreted as a trick of politicians. Although politicians can use different ways to make themselves quite appealing, the civil society will always try to pick out the one who is thinking about the life of the ordinary people and will act in the interest of the nation.
There are people complaining that people are always not selecting the best, but just eliminating the worst in the election. I should say that is due to the little differentiation between the candidates. If one candidate is obviously showing his/her true love for society rather his/her devotion to one stubborn ideology, he/she is bound to win. However, it is always the case that the candidates are too “political” to make them appealing to the voters even though they may be proud of their delicate decorations prepared for a long time.
Mr. Lee comes from the bottom of society. He worked as a garbage collector to support his life and studies. After his graduation, he worked very hard and got the nickname of “bulldozer”. He became the CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction at the age of 36.
Mr. Lee is a pragmatic person and he calls himself a “can-do” leader which will make him the right person to take command of the South Korean economy. He really has shown his strong ability to transform a dream into reality. As an elected mayor of Seoul in 2002, he managed to accomplish the project to the buried Cheonggyecheon stream under the great pressure from all walks of life. He communicated with different groups and tried to persuade people into finding the beauty of future life after the project was finished. Finally he realized his dream with 1% possibility of success and brought a safe and beautiful natural stream and the traditional culture back to the citizens in Seoul. The success of the project shows Mr. Lee’s pragmatism and brings him much support from the grass-root society.
Promise on development also becomes an explanation for Mr. Lee’s high support. In contrast to the other two major candidates, Mr. Lee Hoi-chang and Chung Dong-young, Mr. Lee Myung-bak conveys the information for a better future for the somewhat stagnant nation under the disappointed leadership of current president Roh Moo-hyun. His engagement policy towards North Korea also based on the perspective that if North Korea can keep following the direction of No Nuclear and Opening-up, in ten years, South Korea can help their north brothers and sisters to reach the goal of US$3000 per capita income. The brilliant future presented by Mr. Lee surely brings him large support.
The preference showed from the Korean people brings a piece of vital information to today’s politicians: pragmatism and promise on development possess strong appeal and power. Compared to Mr. Lee Myun-bak, another candidate Mr. Lee Hoi-chang represents the old politicians who uphold strong ideology to insist a containment policy towards DPRK, while Mr. Chung dong-young seems to be lack of pragmatism. Neither of them can bring a signal of future development for the nation.
When people are voting for their president, they are not merely voting for the guy, but their life in a foreseeable future. It is not something easily interpreted as a trick of politicians. Although politicians can use different ways to make themselves quite appealing, the civil society will always try to pick out the one who is thinking about the life of the ordinary people and will act in the interest of the nation.
There are people complaining that people are always not selecting the best, but just eliminating the worst in the election. I should say that is due to the little differentiation between the candidates. If one candidate is obviously showing his/her true love for society rather his/her devotion to one stubborn ideology, he/she is bound to win. However, it is always the case that the candidates are too “political” to make them appealing to the voters even though they may be proud of their delicate decorations prepared for a long time.
24 November, 2007
The Witness of Two Solutions: Discussion on future economic development of East Asia
I. Introduction
In the modern history, the development of global political pattern is led by the western world, especially by the United States. The omnipresence of the US, to a large extent, has shaped the contemporary power distribution in Asia ever since the Second World War. The penetration of the US influence was first achieved by the bilateral relationships between the US and its Asian partners. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the US became more active in Asia through the promotion of the multilateral relationships of some institutions under the name of Asia-Pacific region which is designed to lead Asian countries to the way of globalization. However, with the recent rise of nationalism, the failure of the international help for the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) and some other factors, more and more Asian countries are trying to find the other way to supplement the deficiency of global solution. That way is Asians-only economic regionalism, i.e. to exclude the United States as a member of the institution. The most well-known institution established to achieve that goal is ASEAN Plus Three (APT) which includes most countries in East Asia.
Is Asians-only economic regionalism a feasible and desirable way for the future of Asia? Are the United States and those international institutions losing their influence in Asia? The article first examines Asia’s economic development before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. It then describes the economic regionalism after the AFC. The article concludes with a possible prospect of the future economic development of East Asia.
II. Asia’s economic development before the Asian Financial Crisis
Before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Asia’s economic development always seeks help from the western world. There are many reasons for this kind of dependence on the US and US-supported international institutions.
For the region itself, East Asian nations are not under something which is obviously quite common, making it difficult to promote regionalization. In terms of geography, the size of territory and the reserve of natural resources are of great variety. The various degree and institutional form of democracy and non-democracy in the region makes interactions between countries more difficult than those with similar political structure. Sharp contrast can also be found in economic development level. This region includes the world’s second strongest economy, Japan, one of the world’s most vigorous economy, China, and the world’s poorest countries as Myanmar as well. This kind of diversity in nature gives rise to the disparity and unbalance of power in the region and makes relative power gains matter a lot. This may cause perennial struggle for power and plenty and make it difficult to form sincere cooperation among East Asian nations.[1] As a result, the Asians-only economic regionalism lacks common grounds and seems not quite favorable to many East Asian politicians.
Asians-only economic regionalism has also been hindered by strong nationalism among regional members. After the Second World War, Japan develops under a burden of history. Perception that Japan is by nature a militaristic and aggressive society is widely spread among victim countries in East Asia. Any behaviors or signs towards establishing stronger military forces, denial of history or visiting the Yasukuni Shrine may trigger waves of condemnation and protests.[2] The strongest reaction towards Japan’s potential provocation in the region comes from China and South Korea. Both countries have important roles in East Asia, and China’s influence in the region is sufficient to call for a different approach when Japan proposes an unfavorable suggestion for future regionalization.
In the past years, Sino-Japan relations always face conflicts and frictions. Territory dispute on the Diaoyu Islands/the Senkaku persists while recent disputes on the border line between the two countries in East China Sea due to its abundant natural resources add to rising tensions. Japan’s support to jointly research on and develop the regional TMD system despite strenuous Chinese objections also worsens the bilateral relations. Although the fastening of mutual trade partnerships have counterweighed some negative factors in the Sino-Japan relations, 50 percent of Chinese respondents in a 2002 poll indicating that they disliked Japan while pressure on the Japanese government from the grass roots to reduce the amount of foreign aid to China increased.[3]
The sophisticated economic diversity and political rivalry make it difficult for attempts to cooperate without outside forces. To fuel economic development, East Asian countries have gradually learned to seek for global solution with years of help from the US and the US-supported international institutions.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, the US has established strong bilateral relationships with almost all the important players located in the East Asia. Under the strong support of its political, economic and military power, the US becomes a very important factor which not only influences the political development in these countries, but also fuels and stabilizes the economic development in the region.
The US established partnership with Japan under the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951, which enshrined America’s efforts to integrate Japan into a network of US Pacific alliances through a non-vindictive peace. Under this system, Japan and the US become “bilateral, highly asymmetric US security alliances”; Japan also gets huge economic benefits from the US under the “asymmetrical economic arrangements” through which Japan gets an open American market while it can protect its national industries by putting restrictions on foreign firms.[4] It was these favourable terms that created the miracle of the economic giant, especially in the 1980s.
With a quite similar background as Japan-US relationships, South Korea depends on the US a lot on its national security and economic development as well. The presence of the US military forces in South Korea balances the military threat from the North Korea, and the strong economic tie between South Korea and the US is a strong support for ROK’s economy. In 2005, the United States was Korea’s third-largest trading partner, second-largest export market, third-largest source of imports, and its largest supplier of foreign direct investment.[5] The most important achievement in the economic field between the two countries is the reach of the world’s largest bilateral free trade agreement on April 2nd, 2007.[6]
As the largest country in the region, China also has its important place in the US diplomatic strategic plan. Generally speaking, Sino-American relations have largely relied on burgeoning economic ties against tensions on political and security issues. China is especially dependent on the US as an exporter market. Trade with the US represented 23.7 percent of total trade for China in 2002. The US ranks as China’s top trading partner. The US is also China’s leading partner as a source of foreign direct investment (FDI). It contributes to 9.5 percent of China’s inward FDI grew in 2001.[7]
Under the influence of the US promotion of free trade and globalization, especially after 1980s, East Asian countries began to understand more about globalization. The 1980s and 1990s witness their entries into international institutions and cooperation with global players.
In 1989, APEC was established in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific economies and to the need to advance Asia-Pacific economic dynamism and sense of community. Many East Asian countries become the founding members of the APEC forum, such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and so on.[8]
Even China gradually opens its door and finds its place in the international institutions after years of close. Chinese politicians have formed some kind of belief in globalization that it will benefit China a lot through participation in the international institutions. This participation will help China share the achievement of the world economic development and raise the recognition of China from other countries and international institutions. The entry of APEC in 1991, WTO in 2001 all shows China’s willingness to obey the international rules and behave as a responsible member of the international community.
To give an overall view, before the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, East Asia seeks global solutions to fuel its economic growth. The US and US-supported international institutions play very important role in this course.
III. The Development of Economic Regionalism
However, the AFC serves as a turning point of the approach for East Asia to promote and stabilize its economic development. Politicians in East Asian countries find that the globalization brings not only economic booming in East Asia, but high risk of financial attack as well. “National economic security cannot always be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally; in some cases, it may require de facto multilateral coordination or even formal cooperation.”[9] What’s more, the interest of East Asia in the global economy is not fairly and well represented in the existing international institutions. The feelings were proved when western countries in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) deeply intervened the economic policymaking of the region’s crisis-hit countries. As a result, AFC gives birth to ASEAN Plus Three (APT) which becomes one way out for the purpose of counterweighing the global solutions to economic development in East Asia.[10]
For East Asian countries, global solution has brought them tremendous benefit. Interdependence between east world and western world makes countries one economy. However, liberalism cannot fully illustrate the picture of the crisis. When in danger, the international institutions as representatives of the western world will provide help only on strict terms and will easily take over the control of the national economy to protect their own interest. This may even be practiced at the cost of the victim county’s whole social system to just stabilize the currency. Thus the role of APT is not an institution to make East Asia become totally independent, but as a measure to promote the regional cooperation and work as a backup and supplement for the region in case of the fail of the global solution to Asia’s economic development. As a result, the policies made by APT are characterized by its tentative and gradual integration and various latent links to the international institutions.
Two economic and financial cooperation measures can be used to illustrate these two characteristics: the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) and Asian Bond Fund Initiative (ABFI).
“The CMI is designed to provide liquidity support for member countries that experience short-run balance-of-payment deficits, with the purpose of preventing an extreme crisis or systemic failure in a country and subsequent regional contagion.”[11] Started from 2000, the initial amounts involved under CMI were only $36.5 billion for a total of 16 bilateral currency swap arrangements concluded among APT. This number is quite insufficient compared to the amount of assistance required by Thailand alone was $17.2 billion. This arrangement will necessarily lead to the supplement from the IMF or other international financial institutions. In the May 2006, the amount of CMI is raised to $75 billion. The gradual raise of the CMI amount is due to the increase of mutual trust between member countries and strengthen its ability to reduce the dependence on an IMF or the US-determined solution to financial crisis in the region.[12]
However, the CMI does not mean an Asians-only solution. The initial CMI required its member countries drawing more than 10 percent from the funds in the CMI to accept an IMF conditionality. Even after the review of the IMF linkage with the CMI, IMF conditionality will still need to be accepted at 20 percent level. This linkage is especially supported by China and Japan despite some member countries’ opposition.[13] Those important players in the region know well that without the support from the well-established international institutions, the CMI will become fragile whenever there are conflicts between member countries. The loss of US support on a CMI excluding the US influence may also have negative impact on the bilateral relations between these countries and the US.
Asian Bond Fund Initiative (ABFI) is another example. Up to present, the size of the initiative increases from $1 billion initially to $2 billion and the investment has shifted from a basket of dollar denominated bonds issued by Asian sovereign or quasi-sovereign issuers in EMEAP economies to local-currency bonds. For this initiative, Asian leaders have placed their emphasis on the Asian-Bond-Eurobond linkage. Senior ranking financial officers both from Asia and Europe had their meeting in Singapore to discuss the interests and consolidated relations between EMEAP and the EURO-system.[14]
IV. Possible Prospect of the Future Economic Development of East Asia
The precious discussion gives a general view on the background and present development of Asian regionalism. As East Asian countries benefit a lot through globalization in the past, it will not immediately give up the attempt to be involved to share the global achievement even after the Asian Financial Crisis. However, the AFC do ask the Asian politicians to make a second thought on how to develop a healthier and more stable financial market for the benefit of the region, and the world as well. The supplementary measure adopted is economic regionalism.
Asians-only economic regionalism may not be a good direction without globalization at the same time since Asia faces challenges of economic diversity and political rivalry. However, it is also not safe to have global solution only to the future of Asia’s economic development. As a result, the 21st century witnesses the use of both solutions to fuel the economic growth in East Asia. For liberalists, they will be happy to see that the globalization and regionalization helps to deepen the interdependence between countries. But they cannot illustrate the disparity in the international institutions. For realists, their prediction of the power acquisition will still be considered even within the regional economic institution. However, cooperation has been and will be seen between East Asian countries. Hopefully, East Asia will march towards a more open and cooperative future under the help of both global and regional solutions.
Reference
[1]Kim, S. S. (2004). Northeast Asia in the Local-Regional-Global Nexus. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.4-19). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[2]Berger, T. (2004). Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.139). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[3]Berger, T. (2004). Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.154-155). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[4]Calder, K. E. (2004). U.S. Foreign Policy in Northeast Asia. In S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp. 226-227). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[5]Manyin, M. E (2006). South Korea-U.S. Economic Relations: Cooperation, Friction, and Prospects for a
Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://keia.org/4-Current/CRSFTA.pdf?sort=01&seq=20060124142516.
[6]Choe, S. H. (April 2nd, 2007). U.S. and South Korea reach free trade agreement. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/02/asia/fta.php.
[7]Moore, T. G. (2004). China’s International Relations: The Economic Dimension. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.115). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[8]A Brief History of APEC. Canada. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-apec/media/history-en.asp.
[9]Moore, T. G. (2004). China’s International Relations: The Economic Dimension. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.126). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[10]-[14]Sohn, I. (2007). East Asia’s Counterweight Strategy: Asian Financial Cooperation and Evolving International Monetary Order. Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development.
In the modern history, the development of global political pattern is led by the western world, especially by the United States. The omnipresence of the US, to a large extent, has shaped the contemporary power distribution in Asia ever since the Second World War. The penetration of the US influence was first achieved by the bilateral relationships between the US and its Asian partners. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the US became more active in Asia through the promotion of the multilateral relationships of some institutions under the name of Asia-Pacific region which is designed to lead Asian countries to the way of globalization. However, with the recent rise of nationalism, the failure of the international help for the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC) and some other factors, more and more Asian countries are trying to find the other way to supplement the deficiency of global solution. That way is Asians-only economic regionalism, i.e. to exclude the United States as a member of the institution. The most well-known institution established to achieve that goal is ASEAN Plus Three (APT) which includes most countries in East Asia.
Is Asians-only economic regionalism a feasible and desirable way for the future of Asia? Are the United States and those international institutions losing their influence in Asia? The article first examines Asia’s economic development before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. It then describes the economic regionalism after the AFC. The article concludes with a possible prospect of the future economic development of East Asia.
II. Asia’s economic development before the Asian Financial Crisis
Before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Asia’s economic development always seeks help from the western world. There are many reasons for this kind of dependence on the US and US-supported international institutions.
For the region itself, East Asian nations are not under something which is obviously quite common, making it difficult to promote regionalization. In terms of geography, the size of territory and the reserve of natural resources are of great variety. The various degree and institutional form of democracy and non-democracy in the region makes interactions between countries more difficult than those with similar political structure. Sharp contrast can also be found in economic development level. This region includes the world’s second strongest economy, Japan, one of the world’s most vigorous economy, China, and the world’s poorest countries as Myanmar as well. This kind of diversity in nature gives rise to the disparity and unbalance of power in the region and makes relative power gains matter a lot. This may cause perennial struggle for power and plenty and make it difficult to form sincere cooperation among East Asian nations.[1] As a result, the Asians-only economic regionalism lacks common grounds and seems not quite favorable to many East Asian politicians.
Asians-only economic regionalism has also been hindered by strong nationalism among regional members. After the Second World War, Japan develops under a burden of history. Perception that Japan is by nature a militaristic and aggressive society is widely spread among victim countries in East Asia. Any behaviors or signs towards establishing stronger military forces, denial of history or visiting the Yasukuni Shrine may trigger waves of condemnation and protests.[2] The strongest reaction towards Japan’s potential provocation in the region comes from China and South Korea. Both countries have important roles in East Asia, and China’s influence in the region is sufficient to call for a different approach when Japan proposes an unfavorable suggestion for future regionalization.
In the past years, Sino-Japan relations always face conflicts and frictions. Territory dispute on the Diaoyu Islands/the Senkaku persists while recent disputes on the border line between the two countries in East China Sea due to its abundant natural resources add to rising tensions. Japan’s support to jointly research on and develop the regional TMD system despite strenuous Chinese objections also worsens the bilateral relations. Although the fastening of mutual trade partnerships have counterweighed some negative factors in the Sino-Japan relations, 50 percent of Chinese respondents in a 2002 poll indicating that they disliked Japan while pressure on the Japanese government from the grass roots to reduce the amount of foreign aid to China increased.[3]
The sophisticated economic diversity and political rivalry make it difficult for attempts to cooperate without outside forces. To fuel economic development, East Asian countries have gradually learned to seek for global solution with years of help from the US and the US-supported international institutions.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, the US has established strong bilateral relationships with almost all the important players located in the East Asia. Under the strong support of its political, economic and military power, the US becomes a very important factor which not only influences the political development in these countries, but also fuels and stabilizes the economic development in the region.
The US established partnership with Japan under the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951, which enshrined America’s efforts to integrate Japan into a network of US Pacific alliances through a non-vindictive peace. Under this system, Japan and the US become “bilateral, highly asymmetric US security alliances”; Japan also gets huge economic benefits from the US under the “asymmetrical economic arrangements” through which Japan gets an open American market while it can protect its national industries by putting restrictions on foreign firms.[4] It was these favourable terms that created the miracle of the economic giant, especially in the 1980s.
With a quite similar background as Japan-US relationships, South Korea depends on the US a lot on its national security and economic development as well. The presence of the US military forces in South Korea balances the military threat from the North Korea, and the strong economic tie between South Korea and the US is a strong support for ROK’s economy. In 2005, the United States was Korea’s third-largest trading partner, second-largest export market, third-largest source of imports, and its largest supplier of foreign direct investment.[5] The most important achievement in the economic field between the two countries is the reach of the world’s largest bilateral free trade agreement on April 2nd, 2007.[6]
As the largest country in the region, China also has its important place in the US diplomatic strategic plan. Generally speaking, Sino-American relations have largely relied on burgeoning economic ties against tensions on political and security issues. China is especially dependent on the US as an exporter market. Trade with the US represented 23.7 percent of total trade for China in 2002. The US ranks as China’s top trading partner. The US is also China’s leading partner as a source of foreign direct investment (FDI). It contributes to 9.5 percent of China’s inward FDI grew in 2001.[7]
Under the influence of the US promotion of free trade and globalization, especially after 1980s, East Asian countries began to understand more about globalization. The 1980s and 1990s witness their entries into international institutions and cooperation with global players.
In 1989, APEC was established in response to the growing interdependence among Asia-Pacific economies and to the need to advance Asia-Pacific economic dynamism and sense of community. Many East Asian countries become the founding members of the APEC forum, such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and so on.[8]
Even China gradually opens its door and finds its place in the international institutions after years of close. Chinese politicians have formed some kind of belief in globalization that it will benefit China a lot through participation in the international institutions. This participation will help China share the achievement of the world economic development and raise the recognition of China from other countries and international institutions. The entry of APEC in 1991, WTO in 2001 all shows China’s willingness to obey the international rules and behave as a responsible member of the international community.
To give an overall view, before the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, East Asia seeks global solutions to fuel its economic growth. The US and US-supported international institutions play very important role in this course.
III. The Development of Economic Regionalism
However, the AFC serves as a turning point of the approach for East Asia to promote and stabilize its economic development. Politicians in East Asian countries find that the globalization brings not only economic booming in East Asia, but high risk of financial attack as well. “National economic security cannot always be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally; in some cases, it may require de facto multilateral coordination or even formal cooperation.”[9] What’s more, the interest of East Asia in the global economy is not fairly and well represented in the existing international institutions. The feelings were proved when western countries in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) deeply intervened the economic policymaking of the region’s crisis-hit countries. As a result, AFC gives birth to ASEAN Plus Three (APT) which becomes one way out for the purpose of counterweighing the global solutions to economic development in East Asia.[10]
For East Asian countries, global solution has brought them tremendous benefit. Interdependence between east world and western world makes countries one economy. However, liberalism cannot fully illustrate the picture of the crisis. When in danger, the international institutions as representatives of the western world will provide help only on strict terms and will easily take over the control of the national economy to protect their own interest. This may even be practiced at the cost of the victim county’s whole social system to just stabilize the currency. Thus the role of APT is not an institution to make East Asia become totally independent, but as a measure to promote the regional cooperation and work as a backup and supplement for the region in case of the fail of the global solution to Asia’s economic development. As a result, the policies made by APT are characterized by its tentative and gradual integration and various latent links to the international institutions.
Two economic and financial cooperation measures can be used to illustrate these two characteristics: the Chiang Mai Initiative (CMI) and Asian Bond Fund Initiative (ABFI).
“The CMI is designed to provide liquidity support for member countries that experience short-run balance-of-payment deficits, with the purpose of preventing an extreme crisis or systemic failure in a country and subsequent regional contagion.”[11] Started from 2000, the initial amounts involved under CMI were only $36.5 billion for a total of 16 bilateral currency swap arrangements concluded among APT. This number is quite insufficient compared to the amount of assistance required by Thailand alone was $17.2 billion. This arrangement will necessarily lead to the supplement from the IMF or other international financial institutions. In the May 2006, the amount of CMI is raised to $75 billion. The gradual raise of the CMI amount is due to the increase of mutual trust between member countries and strengthen its ability to reduce the dependence on an IMF or the US-determined solution to financial crisis in the region.[12]
However, the CMI does not mean an Asians-only solution. The initial CMI required its member countries drawing more than 10 percent from the funds in the CMI to accept an IMF conditionality. Even after the review of the IMF linkage with the CMI, IMF conditionality will still need to be accepted at 20 percent level. This linkage is especially supported by China and Japan despite some member countries’ opposition.[13] Those important players in the region know well that without the support from the well-established international institutions, the CMI will become fragile whenever there are conflicts between member countries. The loss of US support on a CMI excluding the US influence may also have negative impact on the bilateral relations between these countries and the US.
Asian Bond Fund Initiative (ABFI) is another example. Up to present, the size of the initiative increases from $1 billion initially to $2 billion and the investment has shifted from a basket of dollar denominated bonds issued by Asian sovereign or quasi-sovereign issuers in EMEAP economies to local-currency bonds. For this initiative, Asian leaders have placed their emphasis on the Asian-Bond-Eurobond linkage. Senior ranking financial officers both from Asia and Europe had their meeting in Singapore to discuss the interests and consolidated relations between EMEAP and the EURO-system.[14]
IV. Possible Prospect of the Future Economic Development of East Asia
The precious discussion gives a general view on the background and present development of Asian regionalism. As East Asian countries benefit a lot through globalization in the past, it will not immediately give up the attempt to be involved to share the global achievement even after the Asian Financial Crisis. However, the AFC do ask the Asian politicians to make a second thought on how to develop a healthier and more stable financial market for the benefit of the region, and the world as well. The supplementary measure adopted is economic regionalism.
Asians-only economic regionalism may not be a good direction without globalization at the same time since Asia faces challenges of economic diversity and political rivalry. However, it is also not safe to have global solution only to the future of Asia’s economic development. As a result, the 21st century witnesses the use of both solutions to fuel the economic growth in East Asia. For liberalists, they will be happy to see that the globalization and regionalization helps to deepen the interdependence between countries. But they cannot illustrate the disparity in the international institutions. For realists, their prediction of the power acquisition will still be considered even within the regional economic institution. However, cooperation has been and will be seen between East Asian countries. Hopefully, East Asia will march towards a more open and cooperative future under the help of both global and regional solutions.
Reference
[1]Kim, S. S. (2004). Northeast Asia in the Local-Regional-Global Nexus. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.4-19). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[2]Berger, T. (2004). Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.139). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[3]Berger, T. (2004). Japan’s International Relations: The Political and Security Dimensions. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.154-155). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[4]Calder, K. E. (2004). U.S. Foreign Policy in Northeast Asia. In S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp. 226-227). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[5]Manyin, M. E (2006). South Korea-U.S. Economic Relations: Cooperation, Friction, and Prospects for a
Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://keia.org/4-Current/CRSFTA.pdf?sort=01&seq=20060124142516.
[6]Choe, S. H. (April 2nd, 2007). U.S. and South Korea reach free trade agreement. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/02/asia/fta.php.
[7]Moore, T. G. (2004). China’s International Relations: The Economic Dimension. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.115). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[8]A Brief History of APEC. Canada. Retrieved Nov. 17th, 2007, from http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-apec/media/history-en.asp.
[9]Moore, T. G. (2004). China’s International Relations: The Economic Dimension. S. S. Kim (Ed.), The International Relations of Northeast Asia (pp.126). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[10]-[14]Sohn, I. (2007). East Asia’s Counterweight Strategy: Asian Financial Cooperation and Evolving International Monetary Order. Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development.
19 September, 2007
Is North Korea Gambling?
North Korea is the focus of East Asia security for years. From many western people’s viewpoint, DPRK is always gambling on its nuclear programme. Many western people still cannot understand the logic of DPRK. One United States exchange student commented on yesterday’s International Relations of East Asia that he totally Kim Jung-il in DPRK does not use the money funding military programmes to fuel economic development.
However, what are the choices from which North Korea is able to choose? If you try to check the list of the bundles, not much can be used. But before that, a good estimation of the goal of DPRK should be made. Superficially, DPRK is to seek national security. Nevertheless, under the individual leadership of Kim Jung-il and the history of ruling labour party, it is not difficult to conclude that the North Korea authority wishes to keep the ruling of the communist regime.
If this is the goal, then what are the steps that DPRK can take?
Economic interdependence: Since DPRK is too small on the economic sense, even if it opens up, it is difficult for them to play a vital role in the international economic chain so as to sustain the function of the country.
International recognition: DPRK has not much leverage to win the international recognition. The present rivalry position towards the US makes it more difficult for other countries to build up normal relationship with it.
Military building (including trying to possess nuclear weapons): It seems to be the only way out. However, the possession of nuclear weapons for DPRK is just a way to deter the attempt to overthrow the communist regime of other countries, especially of the US. As a result, DPRK is balancing its way on the nuclear programme. It needs to go very carefully in order not to be destructed before its possession of the nuclear weapons.
However, what are the choices from which North Korea is able to choose? If you try to check the list of the bundles, not much can be used. But before that, a good estimation of the goal of DPRK should be made. Superficially, DPRK is to seek national security. Nevertheless, under the individual leadership of Kim Jung-il and the history of ruling labour party, it is not difficult to conclude that the North Korea authority wishes to keep the ruling of the communist regime.
If this is the goal, then what are the steps that DPRK can take?
Economic interdependence: Since DPRK is too small on the economic sense, even if it opens up, it is difficult for them to play a vital role in the international economic chain so as to sustain the function of the country.
International recognition: DPRK has not much leverage to win the international recognition. The present rivalry position towards the US makes it more difficult for other countries to build up normal relationship with it.
Military building (including trying to possess nuclear weapons): It seems to be the only way out. However, the possession of nuclear weapons for DPRK is just a way to deter the attempt to overthrow the communist regime of other countries, especially of the US. As a result, DPRK is balancing its way on the nuclear programme. It needs to go very carefully in order not to be destructed before its possession of the nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
