Globalizing Asia or Asian Globalization?

Kishore Mahbubani's welcome remarks
1. why gpp education conference is necessary. 2. Why theme of asia globalization

Public Policy education is still a new enterprise. Unlike business schools, PP education is finding its way. We know what to expect when a graduate comes with an MBA, but do we know what to expect from an MPA ?

He quotes Graham Allison describing fierce resistance of Harvard faculty to establishing the Kennedy school. 2/3 thought it was a bad idea. Economists believed if there was anything important, they already knew how to teach it, and didn't need another entity. This was reinforced by the arts & sciences view that the Kennedy school was just a trade school.

Have not reached consensus. Have we successfully integrated all the elements of a PP education? Do our students leave confused or enlightened after a multi-disciplinary education?

Paul Volcker says in most countries, public administration education has not received the attention it deserves.

Second point. The theme of this conference was obvious. Globalization is the single biggest force. Rise of asia is going to transform the world.

Personal prediction is we will see the asianization of globalization.

Intro George Yeo, Singapore's Minister of Foreign Affairs

George Yeo
Last year visited pearl river delta. Transformation is dramatic. Guangdong major metropolis. Near beach at Humen where Qing commissioner destroyed opium shipments in 1841, beautiful new bridge. Whole area become one large urban landscape. From there to Shenzhen. No longer just a jungle of skyscrapers. Shenzhen now lush, tropical vegetation. Mayor was in Singapore recently, observing our ways. This new citiy has become attractive habitat. Across the ferry to Macau, has grown so fast has already overtaken las vegas. Building 20,000 hotel rooms. In hong kong, economy is revving, fuelled by tourism flow from china. Shops running out of rolex watches. Pearl river delta major growth pole in asia, and just one of many.

Yangtze delta even larger phenomenon. Bohai gulf is abuzz with development. Inland, chengdu, chongqing, xian all exploding. And not only china. Vietnam will soon break into a gallop. India beginning to look very interesting. Poles of development centered on major cities. Despite poor infrastructure and complicated politics, india’s growth easily 8-9 percent. Gulf states flush with moneys from oil and gas. Growth of asia keeping oil prices high.

Between these growth poles are countries and regions that lag behind because of politics or culture. Sooner or later they will be dragged along. I don’t think they can drag us down, but can’t be too sure.

India’s growth puts pressure on other countries like Pakistan to adopt similar policies. Middle east may have problems that cannot be overcome. Iran should be center of growth but has become source of instability. Problems of iran iraq Palestine so great must be solved simultaneously.

Can be optimistic about prospects for north and east asia. Not so sure about west asia.

North korea and Taiwan … will not go into problems. Sino u.s. relations are key. Can never be very good, but will not go bad. Interdependence is too great. Apec must remain most important regional organization for us.

Problem of Myanmar. Western embargo won’t work until large neighbors like china go along. Asean has moral influence but little economic leverage. Coming east asian summit, leaders will be discussing how we can support un envoy in his mission. East asia summit also important because brings china and India together.

If we are divided, region will be balkanized. If not united, major powers will interfere in our affairs for their own interests. So expelling Myanmar is not an option.

Major milestone will be asean charter.

What is europe’s role? Stronger role is welcome. ASEM was started to create closer links. Unfortunately, Europe preoccupied with its own integration. Europe’s interest in us tends to be interest-based. On Myanmar there is an idealism which we admire, but cannot afford. Hope that coming asean eu summit will begin the process for more cooperation.

If large parts of asia enter first world, it will become a very different world. Good public policy an important part of the challenge. Need to improve existing international institutions to govern global affairs, to address problems like terrorism, environment, pandemic.

Thank you.
----------------------------


Plenary session begins:
Kishore Mahbubani, Surin Pitsuwan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Pratap Bahnu Mehta

Kishore intro: need to improve existing institutions and create new ones. I believe rise of asia will change everything. Will come up with new book: new asian hemisphere. How to prepare for these changes. Distinguished panel to addess this. Intro panelists.

Surin Pitsuwan (soon to become new sec-gen of asean)

Surin:
Asia pacific grown enormously. Heat and energy created by that growth from India to s.e. asia to china and n.e. asia. Heat and dynamism have put enormous pressure on governance of international arena. Asia’s econ performance have been much less than political and security influence in the world. Last 20 years a lot of demand for reforms, adjustments, accommodation of some of asian powers into structure of the world. UN security council under pressure to reform. When financial crisis came to asia, we found out that financial architecture that was set up after the war was not performing. Partly because asia growing too fast, partly because asia did not submit to norms and values that were set up to enforce the order. IMF had to look for reform. Something called g-20 set up to look for room for adjustment. Asia was growing fast, and so formed apec. But not quite comfortable with the pace apec is moving. In the beginning it was only for trade and econ cooperation. I remember in 1999 when e. timor was burning, kim dae jung said I will bring up e. timor. Jiang zemin said if you do, I will walk out. Because were not supposed to bring up political issues at apec. Now have east asia summit. Try to establish own supreme forum of east asia community in asia pacific. Question is whether asean plus 3 (china japan s. korea) or should be open to outsiders? Nz , Australia, India. Discrepancy of opinions.

What is emerging in the region is a sense of regionalism. Based on the way Asians do things, which outsiders don’t always understand. We tend to do things incrementally, in small framework. N.e. asia came up with 6-party talks. Not comfortable opening to outside forces. I have a feeling that sense of regionalism will be us for some time. If we don’t handle it well, could become a neo-containment policy approach. Outsiders don’t interfere. That could be a development in this area.

Second observation: in trade agreements, spagetti bowl… lines crisscrossing between bilateral agreements. Will try to resolve problems in our own neighborhood with less involvement from outside. Based on this observation, would say Myanmar will not be managed by larger global community. Will have to be by regional, neighborhood community. There is now a formula that would involve perm 5 plus India, Norway, japan,, asean – precisely because people don’t want to internationalize the issues, don’t want to open up to outside. In the end Myanmar must be handled by regional countries and powers. Thai pm said emulate 6-party talks. I could see china, India, asean and Myanmar government themselves. Whatever the world is thinking now, must be aware that Asians are pretty jealous of own turf, and not comfortable opening region to outside participation. Would like to see it internal. Small neighborhood network.

This kind of small scale regional approaches will have to be accepted by the outside world for a few years to come. Cannot accept regimes, norms, institutions that were established long long time ago. Because problems in the region have become complex and based on working experiences that we together have had trying to solve regional problems. So I hope whatever efforts we make to international arena, there will be adjustments made for necessity for asia to see our own place in the supreme architecture of the world.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

Question before us is whether world is globalizing asia, or asia is driving globalization. As a professor I would say asia is driving globalization. In terms of, not just economic growith, but institutional forms. 10 years ago, I wrote “real new world order”, I argued that future of global governance depended on developing intermediate infrastructure of networks of govt officials all across the board. Those networks would be between international institutions and national government. That intermediate layer was vital to our ability to build a world order for the 20th century. This argument was not received well in the u.s., especially because I pointed to asia and e.u. as examples of building those networks. E.u. has treaty, is homogenous, is model for the world but is sui generis. Asia was pioneering this model in much more diverse environment. Not only heads of state, but ministers. Outside of apec, g-20, meeting of finance ministers, many of whom were asian. Asean is not formalized institution. Much looser set of non-legalized networks of people who come together to solve problems. Apec, asean, asian regional forum, if put together they are networks of government officials. Those networks will become all the more important because the problems we face in 21st century are not all, but in large part, problems that cannot be solved by groups of ambassadors, groups of leaders. They are problems that arise within individual countries: terrorism, health epidemics, environmental. Those problems must be addressed by individual officials on the ground, and have to be implemented through networks of national government officials who collaborative, distill knowledge, socialize one another. Those networks exist already and will become all the more important because they are our tools. Not writing off UN, but those institutions won’t work without these networks.

Asia is in the forefront of institutional globalization. BUT

I have been properly humbled. I am an American but george yeo just spoke 20 minutes and did not mention the u.s. . We have get used to that. I wouldn’t count out the u.s just yet. I think we have 10-20 years left. Kishore’s last book, end of age of innocence is wonderful analysis of loss of American influence even before george bush. At the end of that book, says u.s. has to make key decisions. Has to decide that it wants the world order, update it, lead through international institutions, has to put its house in order. Those 4 decisions sound like the democratic platform. Candidates all start with idea that u.s. has lost face. Must rebuild at home. Play active role in reforming institutions. Bulk of candidates say that in 2009 will once again have a u.s. active in rebuilding these institutions.

If you take a very different u.s. and recognize it still has a tremendous amount of power. There is a dimension to globalization that Yeo touched upon. Yeo said assuming we keep the peace, no reason asia can’t be center of globalization. Look at history, we had 2 cataclysms. No way ordained that we will contine to sail on this globalization without politics getting in the way. Think about 6-party talks… much harder to reach conclusion if u.s. not there. Need u.s. there to soften some of those tensions. U.s. role in asean very important. How does u.s. help the powers in the region make those choices. If u.s. not there to hold balance on Taiwan, it could be an even more frightening situation. Even Russia and Europe, things not so smooth.

Finally, middle east. We have not been a peacemaker. We have been a war bringer. Americans understand how essential it is to reach genuine Palestinian settlement. If not u.s., who else would? In political sphere that must maintain peace for other regions to grow, it is still the u.s. that must play a key role.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta Centre for Policy research

Question I’m going to ask follows on anne-marie claim. Given that there is a shift of power toward asia, why not translate into new global governance architecture for the world.

No doubt rise of asia is truly epochal event, not only because of hope it brings to billions of people, lifting out of poverty. New cultural self-confidence. Will have impact on the world.

Architecture: seeing shift away from old global governance architecture. Seeing array of crisscrossing alliances. Any kind of organization is being articulated in institutional form. Perhaps the future of world order is not centered on a single architecture, but on lots of sophisticated interactions, power brokering, alliance building. Shape of these not clear to us yet. Form of these might be in summitry, maybe g-8 evolve into g-14. But question need to ask is will power brokering lead to regularity in international order. Perhaps there is reason to be skeptical. While power brokering may create certain kind of stability, it will be far from a just architercture. Think of characteristics that major powers bring to their brokering. What is it they have in common? All have sense of entitlement about their role in world affairs. All also believe in great power exceptionalism. Institutions are a projection of international powers. Act globally but think locally. That is the approach to team making. Won’t get constitutionalized regimen with harmony.

Second point of skepticism is the term "asia". Is it geographical? Yeo talked about regional integration, whether asean. But even though there is economic integration, major powers are deeply divided by history and geography. If take china, India and japan, have found ways to mitigate their conflicts. But have not entirely overcome burdens of their histories. Domestic politics may not allow them to confront historical difference and work together for new order. So long as those histories are not overcome, it is difficult to see asia emerging as political referent.

Another reason to be skeptical is last time talks of asia was anti-colonial movement. Ambition then, which is lacking now, is the sense that if asia is going to be different it must bring a new set of values to the world that other world powers haven’t done. One of the things that unites Asians is anti-universalism. Success of asia has been success of improvisation. None of the countries followed a single model.. they have innovated. There isn’t a single template, not a single bedrock of universal principles around which other things must be constructed. Beyond that, is there anything different that asia brings to the table that is different from west? Go down the list of principal global deadlocks.: nuclear proliferation. Global warming. Trade. Human rights. On all these issues there is a profound ideological deficit in asia. Most positions are defensive. Looking out for national interests. China and India have nuclear weapons. Have serious challenges to overcome if emerge as leaders in issues like environmental. Will we bring something different or will we repeat the same patterns as existing powers?

Role of asian countries will depend on internal capacity to manage national functions. Still works in progress. And because of that their approach to the external world is inhibited by a sense that international transformation is not impacted by the stance they take in international arena. E.g. India's stance on Myanmar. Because these are rising powers that are not fully transformed, you might say their approach to the world will be driven by domestic politics.

Terms of discourse in asia will still be set by u.s. I don’t mean that u.s. wil forever be significant player in asia, or even a necessary player. But whenever there is a shift in global politics and new powers arise, they take their terms of reference from powers that currently dominate world scene. One of the worries in aisa is that because of the u.s. record in creating conditions where investment in military technology can continue, that risk can escalate. 2 things in asia: circle in economic development. Development of diplomacy. But also will see significant military expansion. So long as great power politics goes on this path this whole military competition can escalate. We hope economic integration will make military competition a sideshow, but for now this is just a hope. We need to do a lot more to make it a reality.

Kishore: amazed at level of consensus about rise of asia changing everything. First question to panelists: if had same discussion in the u.s., anne-marie, would you have the same consensus about asia changing everything?

Anne-Marie: I can’t speak for all u.s. but in every policy discussion I've been involved in in the past 2 years, there is tremendous consensus that one of principal challenges is accommodating the rise of India and china. With sharp awareness that if we get this wrong it will be disastrous. History is not good on this front. Tremendous awareness that this is a huge issue and a great deal of concern about iraq is that we are tied down and all energies going into the middle east and we’re missing this huge part of the world that we need to focus on.

Surin: yes asia is rising, enormous growth, but how are we going to help. So many problems, so many flash points. Areas of tremendous sensitivity between partners involved. U.s. must be more careful than in the past. Complexity of asia pacific plus experience in middle east and iraq has made u.s. more thoughtful and more reluctant to get involved. E.g. Myanmar, u.s. more careful about involving more players into formula.

Pratap: debate in u.s. is remarkable. 2 points of division: should u.s. aim at maintaining primacy, or give up the game. Most people believe the u.s. can maintain. the 2nd point is as the debate perculates down, we might see abacklash.

Anne-Marie: one way of reading the difference between democrats and repuiblicans is that republicans are more focused on maintaining primacy.. among the democrats there is much more recognition that we are in a multipolar world. You won’t hear that in speeches. But the substance is that primacy won’t get us anywhere.

q. from Columbia u. – I would challenge the consensus. From the economic side it appears the  u.s. has been disengaged. There was a time when at a grouping proposed by Malaysia, the Secretary of State james baker said the u.s. must be deeply involved. But now the u.s. seems to be disengaged.

Surin. Sense of community in east asia would not have come without the financial crisis. Mahathir's idea did not come to fruition without experiences that we in east asia had helping each other. The U.s. was standing aside. Europe not involved. We tried to come together and rescue each other. That experience has led to a higher sense of community and regionalism. It showed that we could manage our own affairs. Outsiders' first reaction is maybe they can live without us. Maybe better for them to create institutions that they can take care of themselves. E. asia is moving along and world is watching with some admiration and some concern. There will have to be adjustment.

Anne-Marie:  It's a  hard question for American foreign policy experts. What is the right balance? 2 weeks ago we were talking about e. asian architecture. One American said we must be there. But it’s a balance. We also want asia to be able to take care of themselves. U.s. is not going to go in militarily. It’s the region that has to solve it. Yes we have to be at some meetings, but other things Asians can solve by themselves.

Pratap. In some sense the u.s. is disengaged. But moving in a direction where you can get different levels of engagement. But a lot is managed offstage bilaterally. That feeds into the processes.

q. pat. U.s. is very much engaged. Very strong military to military activities. We have strong security ties. We have free trade agreement with spore. We have trade and investment framework with asean . we have day to day activities that speak to fact that we are engaged in this region. Middle east does not mean that we have lost interest in se asia and we will not.

q. from france. Ask panel about eu asian dialog. Europe was mentioned as region to region partner. When look at asian European dialog see shortfalls, not very dynamic relation. Asia important factor, but not on discussion of globalization order. Businesses in Europe are concerned and have asian perspective, because more and more asian companies are buying them. Don’t see that at a political elvel. A number of countries have established bilateral dialoges, but technical, not political. Europe not prepared.

Pratap: probably a good thing that dialog is on technical level. Because if raise to higher level, would find a lot of contention. Democracy promotion, human rights. Lot of European sanctimoniousness.

Surin. When going full steam, Europe was interested in asia.. asem formla set up. After crisis, Europe lost interest. Now coming back. You very much engaged in own internal issues. Expansion, solidify own structure. I remember one asem meeting, Europe was very much engaged in own constitutional discussion. Only one dep minister came to talk to full minister of east asia. That was quite a letdown. The inequality of representation of interests, or focus on own interests, difficult for us to relate to agenda of Europe as one. Gives impression that not much is going on. Nothing seems to be moving. Now engaged in free trade arrangement. Don’t know how long that will take.

Kishore. Completely agree with surin. Personally participated in meetings in mid-1990s tremendous interest in asia because of economies. But everything crashed after financial crisis. Amazing how short-term European perspective. It has taken 10 years for Europe ro realize something big is happening. Whose mental maps are aligned with new world order, in America there is greater realization that rise of asia will change things fundamentally than in Europe.

a-m. one of the reasons this is true in u.s. is huge number of asian-americans. Biggest change in my classrooms is increase in asian-american students.

q. fu jun. peking university. I see economic rise of china and wondering what is principal driver of that rise? Is it because china has been defying global order, or becoming more accepting of international orgs? My answer is we are more accepting. If there is a key principale drivier it is that we are accepting marketing principles. Not because using something unique abougt china. My sense is we need both. Globalizing of asia and asian globazliation. U.s. will continue to have very important role to play.

Pratap: asia has largely accepted market principles, and that is sustainging globalization. Can tell that about most of asia. Reason we ask this question is when think of governance institutions, one argument would go that over time, other forms of relating to the world will matter. But we’re not there yet. What will be drivers of other dimensions of relating to the world, not driven by market principles.

Surin. China has acdpted international norms, but also playing cleverly with those norms. If accept completely, wouldn’t be talk about pressure for china ro recondiser value of yuan. That is not market forces. That is driven by impact of devaluing other currencies. China is not jst accpeintg, but trying to play with those norms in order to maintain own interests. In international areas, willingness to open up on issues like Darfur, can see some movement roward dynamic involvement in Myanmar. And leading role on n. korea. China is accepting norms, but at the same time pick and choose when and where to contribute.

a-m jury still out on how asia will contribute to international norms. I explain eu will not be united states of Europe but that does’t mean it doesn’t count. Eu is a different model. Assumes homogeneity of regime type. My question si whether asia will pioneer a different kind of regional entity that is more diverse. A model for other regions to look at.

Kishore. I think it’s timing. At this stage, china is such a huge beneficiary of current global order that it doesn’t serve chinas interests to rock the boat. Mismatch between econ and political space it occupies in real terms and space it occupies in groupings. When that contradiction becomes very big the change will come. In due course, change will come.

q. French ambassador to Singapore.
Highly impressed for minister’s plea for burma to be resolved by regional powers. But how do reconcile this plea with fact that after 10 years of constructive engagement by asean, burma has switched to reverse gear?

Surin. I think in the past issue of Myanmar has been aseanized by admission of burma to asean. We are talking now about regional mechanism. China and India also, not just asean 9. My argument is if there is an argument in sec council that Myanmar is domestic problem. If perm 5 going to be involved, plus other countries, that’s going to be more than internationalization. There will be definite resistance. Look at way we tried to solve korea. E. timor, aceh. Began in framework of regional players. Later on others coiuld come in as others who want to help. If open up too far too big in beginning, it will be too complicated and there will be remendous reisstance.

q. peter cheung hku. A-m raised important issue of rise of international networks. Seems to be are already international orgs deal with those issues. So how will new patterns emerge? 2nd, we talk about asian way of dealing with things. How will impact on new networks?

q. from japan. Challenge and question to surin. He says financial crisis strengthened sense of community in asia. But most arrangements are bilateral. But most currencies are against the u.s. dollar. Except between china and japan, all other arrangements are against u.s. dollar because in times of cirisi need u.s. dollar to save country. So if think strengthen community without main player, not sure can call this community. All investors know nobody will believe swap arrantement if odn’t take dollarinto account.

Take Europe… common currency. Nobody agree about asia. You are talking about arrangements without major financial infrastructure which is based in u.s. system.

a-m when I published 10 years ago, I thought didn’t need un. 5 years later more humble. Believe we do need these institutions but they need major reform. There are some decisions that need to be taken on level of formal international institutions. But when decisions are taken there is no implementation. See networks in both directions. Implementing what is decided… and bringing issues to higher institutions… help nations converge in a way that make formal treaty possible.

What role will asia play? Does asean work with respect to more heterogeneous states. If lok at other continents, see diverse states. I argue that these networks are a way to deal with diverse states. Asia has to prove that, but looking pretty good.

Surin. I didn’t say community is already here. I am saying sense of community is growing. If no financial crisis, would not have that now. Talk about asian currency is not there yet. We are still so diverse. Sense of community building, but mechanisms and constitutions still remain to be worked out. Japan leading, china trying to build community. Not there yet, but growing. World is watching. Think they will adjust to it rather than derail.

q. lky student. Surprised that so far no mention of word democracy. Will globalization bring benefits to asia in absence of democracy?

q. Imelda. Student in Jakarta. Asean secretariat has no power to reach consensus among member countries. How overcome?

Pratap. Any society needs a way of managing disagreements with minimal coercion and minimal cost. I think you are going to see challenges rising in asian societies that don’t have those mechanisms. One or two may break down. But that requires delicate political judemtn.

Should democracy promotion become political norm? that is big mistake. I don’t think your promote democracy by elevating it to a norm in international system.

Surin. Secretariat is instrument of leaders. They will set decisions, policies. Secreatariat will have to implement. Diversity is enormous. Lower pci in 205. Highest is 50. Anything we want to move, have to consider pace that would be comfortable to all, and that will be slow pace. Role of persuasion, power to engage and guide will heolp us move along toward integration. I don’t think trade agremenets between member and outsiders will obstruct our internal relations. We have seen economic community. We have to make use of spaghetti lines, but thorugh those lines the rest of asean will become more of an integrated market. i.e. relations between u.s. and Singapore has benefited parts of Indonesia. Hope will achieve one market, but pace is incremental.

a-m democracy is international norm. the real question is how do you support democracy. Not how you promote it, but how to support democracy.

q. many international institutions provide global public goods. How do you see affecting design of instutitons to provide public goods and truth telling about these issues? 2nd q. given theme of conference, is there an asian view on these issues which is distinct.

q. mpa paris. Why talk about asian globazliation? Why not talk about china and India globalization? Will china be a leader of asia? Will other asian countries accept this? What is potential for intra asian conflict?

q. from moscow. We are too polite. I remember how enthusiastic we are about globalization until 9.11 nobody has mentioned impact of asian globzalitaion on the world. Seems might provoke major redistribution of energy supply.

Pratap: too premature to talk about asian globalization. Have to think harder about what asia means. Certainly non-western. But enough tensions within asia for one to be optimistic about that.

Surin. Continent of asia has put enormous pressure on existing institutions supervising globalization. I think asean approach would be let us serve as fulcrum of power plays, particularly between 2 giants. rather than give it to India or china or japan. That’s why asean processes have been popular. I think we have begun to put our own imprint on process of globalization. I think many institutions of the past have to adjust. This is a transitional period.

a-m answer is whether it can be seen as asia, and not individual countries. Ikenberry in foreign affairs should stop thinking about American and china, but china and the west. Broaden it out, it looks different thatn just 2 powers facing each other. Regional framework can dissolve great power rivalries. That’s the promise. It may not happen. Even if it does happen, what about thos countries that are not part of the regional entity? That’s a new political geography.

Kishore. Good news. There is actually an asia. What once seemed to be a success story confined to japan, china, India is spreading across asia. Is among Asians a storng realization that this is our moment. If we focus on what we need to do, we can take off. Massive learning process taking place among Asians has happened under radar screen. Not been notices. How did Vietnam, after 40 years of fighting, become new econ tigetr? Brough home idea that we can do it.

Conceivable that could have seen dividison, tensions, rivalries rising. There are tneisons, but they are diminishing. Now see higher level of dilalog. Asean capacity to get china and japan to talk to each other. China and India to talk to each other. It is an asian globazliation story. Will never reach consensus. But have consensus that this issue should be addressed.