Pomegranatefor Fair Skin

China, ASEAN, East Asia: changing times ...

An analysis of Charles Hudon

"The establishment of the ASEAN wants a disguised form of military encirclement ... the fruit most lamentable of imperialism anti-Chinese ".

People's Daily August 12, 1967

Just over two weeks after the arrival of the new year, nothing had changed in southern China. The price of a kilo of oranges still hovered around 3 RMB (about 50 cents) a kilo of tomatoes is always sold about 4 RMB ... Everything seemed normal, merchants do not seem particularly concerned. Even if they had been, would it really change anything?

The January 1, 2010 marked the entry into force of a wide free trade zone uniting China from now to the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The agreement would allow China to further secure its access to natural resources of this region while facilitating the export of its manufacturing. In the southern provinces by cons, there are concerns about impacts that, in the short term, the creation of this new zone on the local economy. Facilitating the import of agricultural products from Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Burma, the agreement may have adverse effects on small producers, which still represent a significant proportion of the total population in provinces like Yunnan and Guangxi.



The agreement has already been amply covered, it will not matter here in detail the length and breadth. I propose rather to discuss a broader vision towards which could one day lead to the Agreement: regional integration, the creation of an East Asian community. Bound by a growing network of trade and finance, the South East Asia is looking for a common identity that would allow it to transform its economic success, influence policy on the international stage. The creation of the Free Trade Area ASEAN-China part of this long process of convergence. Successful economic integration would be a step closer to creating an East Asian community.

East Asian Community

Since the end of the Cold War, two contradictory trends tug at the nation-state: its fragmentation into ethnic groups or its dissolution in favor of larger regional groupings. In East Asia and South-east, the first part of the statement is present. Moro secessionist pressures in the Philippines those of the Uyghurs and Tibetans in China and those from Muslim factions in the south of Thailand demonstrated. On the other hand, the process will confirm the validity of the second part of it has already started. While political union remains a distant hypothesis, the financial crisis, stating the dangers of excessive dependence on U.S. and European markets, Asian elites could lead to a further leap in that direction. Last year, in full Japanese election race is in this light qu'Yukio Hatoyama made regional integration a central theme of his campaign. Now the prime minister, Hatoyama used the full weight of his office to promote the idea.

A matter of trust

Establish a reasonable level of trust between actors is the main challenge that lies on the road to integration. For many, the idea of an East Asian community back bad memories. Indeed, there are more than 60 years, with weapons that the Japanese tried to force the creation of "co-prosperity sphere of the Greater East Asia. After the end of the Second World War, the idea naturally disappeared from radar screens in Asia.

must wait until 1990 to see the project re-surface concrete. At the time , Prime Minister of Malaysia was promoting an East Asian economic community, a proposal that did very little waves. A few years later, the Asian crisis led the country in the region to reconsider the project. The crisis made Asian countries aware of the regional reality that united them. This phenomenon became particularly evident during discussions dealing with the creation of a possible common market that would unite South Korea, China, Japan and ASEAN countries. The idea of establishing an Asian common currency was even raised. The months that followed the crisis brought about the creation of the first summit ASEAN +3 (China, Japan, South Korea), which led to the signing of numerous bilateral agreements to promote regional collaboration in the long term. Since then, the idea kept on rising. Optimistic, ASEAN has set itself the target of the East Asian community be created at the turn of 2015.

time having largely dispelled fears about the hegemonic Japanese, all eyes are now turning to China. The threat is a new form. China does not officially supports more guerrillas armed Southeast Asia since 1978, but now its economic and political weight that threatens to overshadow the smaller regional players. In the South, the problem of asymmetry increasing concern.

China has never been too warm to the idea to cede some sovereignty to a supranational entity. With a population of more than 65% of that of the proposed East Asian community and an area covering 68% of its total area, why should she submit to anyone? Although the size of the economies of China and Japan are comparable, the reality differs: Japan ends up stagnating for several years while China has hardly been affected by the global economic crisis. With economic growth remains above 8% in 2009, China now serves as a lifeline to save the entire region. For China, the proposed community should be incorporated only the ASEAN +3. In decision-making perspective, it is of course not matter to proceed under the logic of a country, one vote. This approach would assure Beijing that any union of Asian economies places China at its center.

Faced with the growing strength of this power requires a redefinition of the balance of power, theories of international relations generally propose two solutions:

"Alone or combined with others, players can endeavor to ensure their security by seeking balance with the emerging power, the return or, if necessary, go to war with her to win. Instead, they can ally with her, agree with it and adopt a secondary or subordinate position vis-à-vis her in the hope of seeing their key interests protected. "

In view of this major dilemma, it seems that the countries of East Asia and South-East have opted for a solution of their own. The game of alliance and containment will be within a cooperative framework. This situation leads to an arm of iron which seeks to determine what form the leadership exercised within the proposed area. The mistrust
...
Japan

For Japan, the East Asian community should not be limited to the ASEAN +3, but should include the ASEAN +3 +3 (which includes the name of the country ASEAN +3, adding Australia, New Zealand and India). Having apparently abandoned the idea of playing a hegemonic role in the future region, Japan tries to dilute China's influence. The addition of India and Australia would create a dynamic of multipolarity in which unilateral claims could easily be reversed by simple sets of alliances. In doing so, the weight of second-class players, such as Laos and Cambodia, would be valued, partly resolving the problems of asymmetric feared by many.

Japan is however a prisoner of his past. Since 1945, on foreign policy, diplomacy and defense, Japan is heavily dependent on U.S. policy towards it. For many years Japan has benefited greatly from this alliance. This, however, it is less and less profitable. Just days after taking power, Hatoyama said it wanted to renegotiate the terms of the agreement which binds to United States to orchestrate a reconciliation with Asia. Seeing how zealously Hatoyama busy promoting this organization exclusively Asian, the U.S. reportedly gave the order to their Japanese partner. It was after these events qu'Hatoyama reportedly said, half-word, he did not exclude the possibility of inviting the U.S. to join the organization.

On this statement to America that Beijing spends more energy to show the inadmissibility of the Japanese proposal. Bad faith or reading wrong, the arguments are difficult to balance the Chinese repeated commitments made by qu'Hatoyama result in many Asian official forums where he repeated his desire to see the creation of an East Asian community among ASEAN +3 + 3. Other indications suggest that Japan is now trying to get out of the U.S. orbit, a situation that should lead China to reconsider its case if it wants to counter the Japanese project of ASEAN +3 +3.

For example, last October, Hatoyama announced that his country would end in the Indian Ocean, its resupply missions of U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan. A few weeks later, Tokyo formalized its intentions to force the 8000 American soldiers stationed in Okinawa to leave the island. The claim was taken very seriously by the White House, who declared that such actions would seriously undermine the alliance between the two countries.

These efforts tend to demonstrate a genuine desire to distance itself against the American power. Of course, if Japan moves away from the United States, not to meet again by another vassal power. China should understand Japanese attempts to counterbalance its power in the future East Asian Community are not a gesture from a servant of the Empire, but rather a country trying to regain a degree of neutrality and independence. Beijing's interest to develop bonds of trust with its former enemy to try to attract the maximum in its orbit rather than playing the card of distrust, which can only indirectly encourage the United States.

ASEAN

Perhaps the most surprising in this war of influence that engages members the future East Asian Community has finally Singapore. On November 3, Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore President and founding father of the Nation, surprised everyone with About bold. As part of a speech during celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the creation of "États-Unis/ASEAN Business Council, Lee took everyone by surprise by strongly encouraging the U.S. to remain militarily engaged in Asia to to counterbalance Chinese influence. Whichever is more than one sees as one of the most influential politicians in South Asia-is it would be increasingly difficult to believe that the deployment of the Chinese navy at sea that only China is facing Taiwan. Lee pointed out, for example, that the Chinese fleet could easily be used to seize by force and Paracel Islands Spartly. To make oneself understood, Lee warned the U.S. that they could lose their position as world leader if they do not remain engaged in Asia to balance the military and economic power of China. In a fit of honesty rarely seen in international diplomacy, Lee asserted that "the size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India to counterbalance weight for at least 20 to 30 years. So we need America to redress the balance. "

The importance of such comments should not be taken lightly. Far from representing the views of a single individual, these words should rather be regarded as reflecting aloud fears that several member countries of ASEAN to maintain a low voice. The price for expressing such concerns are too high for many small countries in the region, we can assume these statements are fairly representative of the general mood of the group.

Despite the fact that about Lee not primarily emphasize that military concerns, this does not mean that the economic level, there is harmony. The Southeast Asia is concerned to see its low value added jobs disappear in favor of Chinese factories and on this table, the U.S. can not do anything (or very little). While ideologies are dying, the friends bought, which should eventually greatly benefit China.

Those who feel anxious about the idea of see this new integrated entity would do well to remember history the European Union. Before taking the form we know today, Europe has been through nearly 60 years of turmoil, and his story is far from over. In East Asia, differences in terms of political system, level of economic development and many outstanding historical animosities should make the task even more difficult.

Signs incentives to positivism, however, are numerous. On November 24, Chen Deming, Commerce Minister of China, announced its desire to push the talks for the establishment of a free trade China-Japan-Korea. In 2008, Japan and ASEAN agreed on the creation of a future free trade zone that would unite them, then it's already a done deal between ASEAN and South Korea. As economic integration will intensify in the region, the distance and difficulties that will separate them from the political integration will drop.

Across the Pacific, it is likely that Uncle Sam will try to interfere with the best of his ability in this integration process. Although the U.S. is actually losing influence in the region, they can always count on free trade agreements they have with Korea and Singapore and the early conclusion of the same kind of agreement with Malaysia and Thailand. In addition, the U.S. military ties with Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia and quietly resumed contacts with Indonesia. Finally, APEC and the Trilateral Commission could also help him. But do not forget that before wanting to try to help its partners in Asia, America must first improve its financial situation because it happen to convince anyone if it does not afford.

Charles Hudon, Kunming

Best Pakistani Make Up Artist In Usa

Authority responsible: It's really Chinese!

An analysis of Charles Hudon

On 21 December the Telegraph of London ran a headline: "We need China to act in 'Power Manager'. "Responsible Authority" ... this is a promising concept for the future of international relations. In retrospect, we soon came to wonder about the ins and outs of such an idea. Who defines the criteria to qualify as such? Are there, in the world, a country that does not feel responsible? I guess it is matter of perspective and priority.

In relation to China, speaking of responsibility did not start yesterday. The idea was apparently first brought in December 1994 by the Minister of Defense under the Clinton Administration. Conference at the Defense University of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the man was then observed that the greatest challenge facing the United States and China in Asia Pacific was to ensure that the region remains prosperous and stable. To this end, the two giants should "demonstrate a deep sense of responsibility."



Today, two schools of thought are competing for the international future of China. The first is that China will use its rising power to forge a place at the expense of weaker nations. The other, however, believes that China's development will lead to the integration of major international institutions are playing a legitimate and constructive role. The latter school of thought emphasizes the need and relevance to welcome China as a new important actor on the international scene, in exchange for China should behave responsibly.

While the Bush administration had avoided taking a clear decision in favor of either of these theories, the Obama team has been much more explicit. If more could have doubts about the position was going to adopt his administration following his swearing, his recent trip to Asia was able to definitively clarify this issue. Central theme during his visit to China, Obama reiterated his desire to see China play a growing role on the international scene, acting as a responsible power. According to strategists in the White House, it would take fewer than 30 years to see China play a leadership role within the international system, however, was mainly created by the United States. This realization led America to believe that China would have the responsibility to protect that system, not to confront in order to weaken it.

The concept of "Power Manager" interested in China. Since the Korean War, which was followed by putting forward a strategy of containment of communism in Asia, China has a bad press in the West. More recently, the tragic events in Tiananmen Square and the Taiwan missile crisis of 1995-1996 have not helped the situation. More isolated structures such as the Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington, in which he introduced the Confucian culture as a natural enemy of the West, or other works alarmists, such as Dragon awakening , have only put oil on the fire. Crowned by a new fear of an invasion of "Made in China", these designs are now negative aspects of one whole, the "China Threat Theory", a term which China would like to discard.

Master slogans in politics Internally, however, Beijing is having trouble finding one that would be useful in the long term on the international stage. One of the latest discoveries was the concept of 和平 崛起 ( heping jueqi , "peaceful rise" or "peaceful rise"). Very popular for a few months, a professor of diplomacy at the University of Yunnan, however, confessed that the government had recently issued a memorandum that recommended professionals to abandon the use of this slogan. Although combined with peaceful 崛起 the term ("up") would tend to frighten rather has comfort. The

和平 崛起 being obsolete, the "Responsible Authority" may well come fill this new gap in the international public relations in China. The name has many qualities. At first, it confirms China as a power, which does not fail to flatter the egos of China. Second, by stressing its "responsible," the term could help China to do more listening and respect in the conduct of its affairs.

Ideal, is not it?

Not necessarily. This new term is facing Beijing a major dilemma. China dream for many years to see its status elevated to world power. This title is in some way to confirm this new reality. Beijing should be pleased, but rather concerned that the theory of China is responsible for a theory "Made in U.S.". China would like to see "China Head" is limited to a public relations campaign designed to project its influence internationally. This would retrieve the word in the emptying of its content, have your cake and eat it too. China is however aware that, for Washington, the granting of a flatterer also does not come without a number of concessions.

For Washington, will be considered "responsible" one that will support a number of responsibilities. Not just that. For the ideologues in the White House, responsible leadership should:

-Economically: Open market, liberalize the economy, float its currency in order to review the trade surplus it enjoys with the United States,

- Politically: Accelerating reforms to democratize its political system as the U.S. model, grant more rights to its population, protect intellectual property rights and work together to resolve issues of common interest such as environment,

-Diplomatically: Take a stand against rogue states (North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Burma),

-Militarily: Minimize expenses while showing greater transparency.

The sight of these criteria suggests that, under the guise of an attractive name, the idea of a "China Head" is actually a strategy for modeling, control, direct and constrain the development of the China according to the wishes of Washington. The Chinese are aware, but do not seem so far determined to abandon the concept. In rebuttal, Beijing is working to divide it.

Locally : With nearly a fifth of the world's population living on its territory, China emphasizes that its responsibilities "international" in fact begin at the local level. According to the World Bank in 1991, 66% of mainland Chinese lived below $ 1 a day. At the same time, only 40% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa shared the same fate. Since 2004, less than 10% of Chinese are in this situation. In Africa, for cons, the ratio remains unchanged. While the Millennium planned precisely to address the problems of poverty in Africa, one might be tempted to believe that the West is stagnating where China has increased dramatically. Responsible? Simple matter of point of view. Despite these results, in Washington, it always complains that the development with Chinese characteristics is still as pure and simple development, not sustainable development.

Regionally : If more responsibilities must be taken, they should be limited to the circle of direct Chinese influence. China is ready to accept the title of "Power Manager," but puts caveats about the extent of his power. Faced with many internal problems that it faces, the scale of its responsibilities should be limited as much as possible, at regional level. As the economic engine of the region, this redefinition of the concept gives beautiful game in Beijing. In a highly questionable, China may well argue that what is good for her, is actually for the entire region. Use his influence to secure military zone in order to provide a stable environment conducive to sustainable economic maximized becomes a kind of responsibility that China must take charge.

In the West, however, the legitimate objective to work to maintain a zone of peace is seen rather as an attempt to counter Washington's influence in Asia. These maneuvers may threaten to destabilize the balance of power on a global scale, a result inconsistent with the objective of maintaining stable international system.

Internationally: Internationally, China is even more shy. Aware that in the near future, the title of "Leader of the Third World" may quickly become "the leading developed countries," China is reluctant to put in motion the reforms sustainable democratization in the international system. Its operations will remain very selective and that Beijing does not get involved only when it wants to. A golden rule remains: when in doubt, abstain. It is now much easier for China to do nothing than to embark on the tasks it would be unable to complete. This lack of initiative does not mean to as long as China does not consider itself internationally responsible.

At the height of the Cold War, for example, while most countries chose to ally with the United States or the Soviet Union, China preferred to stay neutral. Ideological differences as well as cultural prevented from coming too close to these two superpowers. In fact, they were rather regarded as potential enemies. From the perspective of Beijing, the non-alignment seemed then the most responsible choice to make internationally. Even today, China sticks to this principle and refuses joining alliances that oppose openly to one or other of the superpowers.

To be honest, the whole of Chinese foreign policy is considered responsible by Beijing. The "five principles of peaceful coexistence" would guarantee that noble spirit. The guidelines, put forward by Zhou Enlai and Indian leaders and Burmese in 1953, are summarized by mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in the affairs other countries' internal, by a principle of equality and mutual benefit and as peaceful coexistence. On paper, in fact, it seems difficult to find more responsible. Across the Pacific, however, we regret that China adheres to these principles when it is convenient and ignore them when deemed necessary.

More recently, acquisition by China extraction rights to one of the largest copper mines in the world, located in Afghanistan, sparked heated debate in the colors "responsible." Many analysts stressed that, while the West was paying with his blood the price of world security, China pocketed.

Again, China other eye sees a responsibility in Afghanistan. If China refused to take part in the war effort in Afghanistan, because its national policy forbids him to get involved militarily outside its borders in other ways than the participation of forces of peacekeeping. For China, safety is rather by trade. In acquiring right of extraction of Afghan mine Aynak, Beijing has found injecting the largest amount of money ever invested in Afghan history, becoming the largest tax payer in the country . Beijing promised to create thousands of new jobs for the people of Afghanistan in addition to a commitment to build a power plant, an oil refinery and a railway. If one accepts the premise that there is no single definition for responsibility (the U.S. definition), the Chinese point of view wins once more credibility.

At the heart of this war of terminology, it is clear that the usefulness of the concept of "Responsible Authority" is very limited. Beyond the rhetoric, one thing is certain. China will prove more capable of accumulating in her success, more we require to show it internationally. At present, although located at the antipodes of the Western definition of the concept, the Chinese version of "Power Manager" defends itself. This finding suggests that the West must, sooner or later, stop acting so patronizing towards China while trying to dictate what she should and should not do. He must accept Beijing's agenda may differ from his.

The uproar caused by that Chinese responsibility highlights the fact that the world is presently in a transition period. A world unipolar, where the interests of the dominant group representing the interests of all, the world looks today towards multipolarity. Mode of trial and error, the international community attempts to establish new standards that would enable it to manage the arrival of this new player who bothers.

The "Power Manager" should have little impact, however, and a limited lifetime. Put forward by a world that refuses to take its own responsibilities, this concept might too easily be turned against him. It would not be surprising to see one day China require that countries such as Canada, is behave responsibly internationally. The Copenhagen summit has once again demonstrated that while Canada talks, China, she acts. Although he refused to join treaties binding, China has already done more to reduce emissions than any other country in the world. She has already made a dramatic advance in wind, solar and replacing its old coal-fired power plants cleaner at a breakneck pace. As already become an economic powerhouse, China is now making real efforts to green up this power. Who says better?

Whatever the future of the concept of "Power Manager," it seems clear that as China grows and gain confidence in the international arena, the areas where its interests diverge with those of the United States will more numerous. Remains whether it will be for the better ... or worse.

Charles Hudon, Kunming