Making Asian summits count

Simply turning up shows that America is, indeed, making the effort to continue its rebalance to the region. But after the pomp and ceremony dies down, will Asia be satisfied with what America has to offer the region? And will Obama judge his time here well spent?

There has always been some debate about how to define the region – whether Asia should be paired with the US and others on the far side of the Pacific, or be a region unto itself. This week’s Apec and EAS summits are two key meetings in the jumbled and partly overlapping arrangements that result. Apec includes 21 members from both sides of the Pacific, and sometimes seems too sprawling. 

In contrast, the EAS membership remains more limited. Hosted by Asean, the summit has gone beyond China, Japan and South Korea to include the US, Australia, New Zealand, India and Russia. But a moratorium has been called on including more countries and the EAS currently seems to meet a kind of “Goldilocks” test – neither too small to matter nor so large that it is unwieldy. Hosting the summit is a major part of Asean’s claim to “centrality” in a region of rising powers.  

The EAS is, however, neither without critics nor potential rivals. There is rising discord between the major powers, with many points of contention between the US and China, and between China and Japan. 

Different major powers are taking different and competing initiatives. The Obama administration’s centrepiece for trade and economic ties, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), includes its ally Japan but just four out of 10 Asean member states – Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. China, moreover, is notably excluded. 

On its part, China is upping engagement with the region in a number of ways. The most recent and juiciest carrot dangled by President Xi Jinping is the newly launched Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Supported by some 21 countries to date, the AIIB has a US$100-billion kitty to fund the region’s infrastructure needs. The US has pointedly pushed against this Chinese initiative and compelled its allies – Australia, Japan, South Korea – to also stay out.

Unless US-China or Sino-Japanese ties improve, there are risks for the region’s stability and progress. Expectations arise therefore for the EAS Summit to reduce tensions and increase trust. Otherwise, the old adage about buffaloes fighting and grass getting crushed applies. 

The EAS is helmed by Asean, comprising just 10 smaller and middle-sized countries. But there are limits to what can be done. Thus the focus this week is on US-China ties and a meeting between Obama and Xi on the summit sidelines. 

Since their first meeting in California in June 2013, the Chinese have sought a “major powers” dialogue with the US. Held privately and informally, the meeting was aimed at building personal rapport between the two leaders, and improving bilateral ties amid their global interdependence. The relationship – coloured by contentious issues ranging from cyber security to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea – is far from cuddly.

But the leaders are likely to seek a reassuring baseline and some positive news to report. Cooperation on energy and climate change could be one such item – given the US’ embrace of shale gas as a source of lower-carbon energy, and China’s own efforts to redress its emissions. 

Sino-Japanese relations have been even worse, with the two leaders declining to meet since coming into office. This goes beyond the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute and is influenced by fervently held nationalistic views on both sides. Yet Beijing and Tokyo are beginning to recognise their economic interdependence and the need to return to a working relationship that is somewhat isolated from their intractable political and historical differences. 

The Sino-Japanese and US-China relations will be determined by these major powers bilaterally, and not by any larger summit – whether Apec, EAS or any other acronym. But Asean can assist with its EAS summit, in which all three participate. This is especially so if the aims for the summit are reinforced and its process given more focus. 

With its 10th anniversary next year and major power competition in the region, Asean senior officials are taking stock of the summit. This is timely as there is some question whether the EAS is truly effective. The Singapore Institute of International Affairs’ recent policy brief outlines key issues to keep the Asean-led summit relevant.

We believe the EAS has the potential to be the apex multilateral summit of the region, bringing leaders of major and contesting powers together in the same room to discuss political, security and economic issues affecting the region. The EAS should continue to be led by leaders and be kept informal, rather than having a larger, bureaucratic structure. 

But more focus and better preparation are needed. For this, Asean and other EAS stakeholders should adopt the “Sherpa” system – governments’ emissaries taking the lead in preparing the summit – akin to that used in the G7 meetings. There is no need to take over or control other regional meetings, but the EAS as a summit among leaders should receive input from other regional forums, such as Apec and the Asean Regional Forum. 

Further, for Asean to serve as an effective host for much larger powers, the group needs not only to be economically dynamic but also politically cohesive and strategically coherent. Positions taken by Asean among the major powers must, moreover, not be biased towards one side or another.  

Members can participate in initiatives that include some but not all Asean members – like the US-led TPP and China’s AIIB mentioned above. But they should be alert against these straining intra-Asean unity, and work to speak increasingly with a common voice on key issues, with balance and based on norms of international law and regional practices.

Asia is witnessing significant shifts in power and much will depend on what the major powers do, both separately and in relation to each other. Without economic clout or military strength, Asean should not be complacent about the EAS and its claims to centrality. The group must work together and with other stakeholders to earn the right to shape the regional agenda; otherwise it faces the prospect of being dictated to. 

 

Associate Professor Simon Tay and Cheryl Tan are, respectively, chairman and assistant director of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs. Both are currently in Nay Pyi Taw to observe the Asean Summit meetings. The SIIA policy brief titled “Rethinking the East Asia Summit: Purpose, Processes and Agenda” is at http://siiaonline.org/page/publication/