• Argentina and the Asia-Pacific Region: 1990-1997, Sergio M. Cesarin
• The Regional ASEAN Forum as a Cooperative Security System in South East Asia, Martín Pérez Le-Fort
• The XXXI Meeting of the PBEC in Chile, Andrés Angulo Farmer

Sergio M. Cesarin, Director, Centro de Estudios Asiáticos del Instituto

del Servicio Exterior de la Nación (ISEN), Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores,

Comercio Internacional y Culto de la República Argentina.

In Argentina, the analysis of the dinamic political and economic situation in the Asia-Pacific region has become one of the most important study issues in recent years. This is because, in addition to the leading role played by Japan -an acknowledged "economic superpower"- one must consider the changes experienced by the newly industrialized Asian economies (NICs), the deregulation and modernization policies implemented by the People's Republic of China from 1978 onwards, and the growing speed of regional economic cooperation processes.
 
 

According to the debate that is still underway, "shared values", concepts, beliefs, and behaviors that are prevalent among Asian societies, individuals and Asian political elites, form the basic framework for the success of the "economic growth models". This is the outcome of an "Asian route" to development which is characterized by its inclusive spirit and which was handled as a collective experience. In this scheme, the state was allowed to play a prominent role in coordinating sectoral interests and in providing "strategic guidance" for the initiatives adopted. This major domestic transformation is also linked to the external projection of bilateral and multilateral political and economic links in the context of simultaneous processes involving opening up the countries, introducing liberalization and enhancing international trade, finances, and technical and scientific exchanges.
 
 

Based especially on the political changes that have taken place after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Asia-Pacific region has diversified its deregulation, projecting its renovated political and economic capacities along two levels: an intra-regional level which materializes in efforts aimed at expanding existing levels of cooperation and economic integration, and an extra-regional level, i.e. the tendency to supplement growing economic inter-dependency with more extensive external links as a way to respond to emerging initiatives aimed at cooperation and economic integration in different parts of the world . Both dimensions, rather than being mutually exclusive, are mutually supplementary.
 
 

The multi-dimensional aspect described above was presented to the rest of the world from the standpoint of the strength of the Asian models and it provided an exceptional opportunity for Latin America in general --and Argentina in particular-- as an instrument to reinforce international projection capabilities and as an important factor for Argentinean foreign policy to diversify its foreign affairs by including "non-traditional areas". This allowed Argentina to enhance its opportunities to play an active and dynamic role on the international scene. The latter process cannot be viewed separately from the changes that took place in the early nineties on the world scene after the end of the Cold War.
 
 

In this sense, the fact of understanding the new map of world relationships, the beginning of a process to restructure the national economy , and the opening up of the Argentinean economy to international trade and investment flows early in the current decade also helped to enhance political and economic links with the Asia-Pacific region. In this process, Argentina perceived a potential double benefit: i) one related to its commercial involvement thanks to the dynamism of the domestic markets of Asian economies and ii) another involving the opportunities that Asia-Pacific countries themselves offered as "exporters of investment capital" needed by Argentina to support a major overhaul of its production system .
 
 

Specifically, in the early nineties, the development of new areas on which to project national political and economic interests was not initially conceived in a "contextual vacuum". Rather, the emphasis was on a historical perspective of rapprochement . In other words, to a great extent, this was also the outcome of the assumption, by Argentina, that in the course of their respective "histories", Argentina and the Asian countries had employed similar approaches to their political, economic and social ideas, which were expressed through coincidences that, among other initiatives, allowed adopting a common approach to world power and world order, and the need to foster equitable economic development on a world-wide level and encourage cooperation among nations that had less relative power. The foregoing actions are proof of the convergence of their interests in the course of almost half a century of history .
 
 

They also gave sense to the need to strengthen Argentina's involvement in Asia through the existing "mutual views". Looking at these from the "mutually exemplary role" that each sub-region exercises with regard to its counterpart , these were also part of the basic fabric of ideas that guided the design of a strategy for special relationships between Argentina and the Asian countries. Asia-Pacific, for example, provided us with a series of attributes (behavioral and attitudinal variables) capable of setting an example for Argentina, such as: i) self-confidence in its own ability to instigate economic and social development, ii) the existing domestic order which was functional for the rapid processes of capital accumulation, iii) the use of a broad base of human resources and the social capital available even despite a relative shortage of natural resources, iv) broad margins for selective government "strategy-oriented" intervention, in the context of development models based on "national capitalism", v) a strong coordination between national business circles and government agencies in general (part of the virtuous circle of economic growth), vi) the emphasis on intellectual development based on inter-generational thinking and, vii) the "tension" over fair distribution of the national income translated into economic policies aiming to build "more equitable" societies.
 
 

In view of these characteristics, Latin America in general --and Argentina in particular- shared a similar history with the Asian peoples by reason of having been subject to "colonial rule", and experiencing the "imposed" condition of economic underdevelopment, the perception regarding the articulation of their external interests according to a "dependence matrix" with the hegemonic powers, as opposed to the deficiencies of Asian economies, the appeal generated by their natural resource endowment and economic potential, their highly qualified professional and intellectual classes, the stabilization of domestic political conflicts, the decrease in levels of international conflict expected in the long term (as opposed to Asia where conflicts might increase) and, primarily, a history of "construction of consensus" on a regional level enriched by the establishment of inter-government regional associations dedicated to negotiating and solving conflicts, an arena in which Argentina has historically played a leading role .
 
 

Evidently, despite the added advantage that these ideas implied for designing a policy of specific relationships between Argentina and Asian countries, the challenges set forth were not minor ones in terms of analytical thought, considering the initial resources and capacities. However, based on the assumption that the benefits would exceed the costs of these initiatives and understanding that the effort of this multiple insertion would make it easier to spread out the political and economic risk for Argentina, a new strategy was designed for relationships with Asian and Pacific States early in the decade.
 
 

Therefore, designing a foreign policy aimed specifically at helping Argentina strengthen its links with the Asia-Pacific region should include speeding up the analytical process on this issue based on a tactical matrix that includes deepening political links and a strategic approach based on possible "future scenarios" that contemplate the materialization of a new world order and regional power in Asia including patterns of influence and prestige which are not the same as the ones that prevailed during the Cold War.

Back to this issue´s index

In the process of redefinition of strategic balances linked to the end of the Cold War, one issue that bears evaluation is the role played by cooperative security systems. They arose from the need to replace the security systems that were in place during the Cold War for multilateral structures with the following features: they must be aimed at trust rather than deterrence; at best, they must replace or at least coexist with bilateral alliances and, finally, they must promote military and non-military security.
 
 

The characteristic feature of cooperative security is its gradual approach to the development of multilateral structures. It is a flexible concept that acknowledges the value of bilateral approaches or those involving a balance of power as a way to foster and maintain regional security. At the same time it is intended to give way to a multilateral approach to enable the development of a more flexible, informal and ad-hoc process until circumstances allow it to become part of the institutional framework. Developing "dialogue patterns" is an essential operative element in cooperative security as is moving toward comprehensive participation. This needs to be supplemented by extensive exchanges on issues of common interest in the sphere of government, non-government, private, and academic matters which do not require a formal organization. This process acknowledges an essential and frequently misinterpreted issue, namely, the supremacy of the interests of states and its obvious consequence: competition, conflict of interest and the like.
 
 

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has managed to realize its implicit potential since its establishment in 1967, specifically by creating an environment in which the survival of each individual state should be ensured by fostering regional stability and by limiting competition between the countries. Although this goal has never been formally stated, it is probably one of the underlying political elements of ASEAN. This "political" basis allowed the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to develop. The ARF, together with ASEAN-ISIS (ASEAN-Institutes of Strategic and International Studies) and CSCAP (the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific) form an important regional security structure.
 
 

The initial and implicit objectives sought by ASEAN in terms of security were to regulate internal conflicts in the area so as to prevent the involvement of non-regional powers, which were a typical feature of the Cold War. These goals translated into the Declaration on the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in 1971 (ZOPFAN) and in the intermediate goal of creating the South East Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (expressed through the SEANWFZ in 1984) intending to restrict the nuclear options available to the world powers in the area. The Friendship and Cooperation Treaty of 1976 created the legal bases for the ZOPFAN and, together with the Concord Declaration of ASEAN, also issued in 1984, provided the instruments to manage the regional order.
 
 

The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978, reflecting the larger conflict between the interests of China and the Soviet Union, created tension in the region and rendered the implementation of ZOPFAN impracticable. However, this was no obstacle to a series of measures and meetings aimed at enhancing cooperation and avoiding conflict. This intense dialogue gave rise to a feeling of shared common interests and values in addition to individual national interests. Despite persisting territorial conflicts, the member countries did not contemplate resorting to force to solve their problems, and this gave rise to a basis for trust. The Cambodian conflict was the first threat to peace in the region. ASEAN opted for enhancing cooperation with external actors through a series of political, economic, diplomatic and military instruments. The solution to the Cambodian issue in 1991 thanks to the Paris Agreement followed the ASEAN formula, namely: full withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia, self-determination for the Cambodian people and an independent and neutral Cambodia. This success gave rise to confidence in a practice that permitted exploring new possibilities for dialogue on regional security, although the solution to this conflict can also be viewed as the outcome of the major global changes which occurred during this period (the most noteworthy of which was the disintegration of the Soviet Union).
 
 

Two factors contributed to keeping the dialogue on security between governments under the auspices of ASEAN: One was the idea of sharing the burden of the United States military presence in the area, which gave rise to discussions on what ASEAN wanted in terms of its security, and the other was the goal of several Asian-Pacific countries that wanted to develop new regional security multilateral structures to replace the structures of alliances between the super powers generated in the course of the Cold War.
 
 

The idea of the ASEAN Regional Forum was launched in 1990 in speeches delivered by the then Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans, who referred to the idea of a common security based on the model of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Initially, the idea appeared to be meant to create similar structures in the region but this only resulted in the establishment of a forum on security in the Asia-Pacific region. The post-ministerial ASEAN conferences were used for this purpose. An announcement was made at the 1991 ASEAN-PMC stating that discussions on security could take place there. In July 1993, ASEAN announced the establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) formed by 19 countries including China and the United States. The first working meeting of the ARF took place in Bangkok in May 1994.
 
 

The debate on the Spratly Islands (Nansha) in the South China Sea was the first test for the ARF. The ARF (which includes non-claimants and foreign powers) expressed its concern over the conflict, promoting the development of confidence measures to reduce the conflict. The proposal made suggested that the ARF should only operate as a consultative forum in order to ensure the participation of all the actors involved. The goal of the process was to establish cooperation along a broad spectrum in the South China Sea so as to develop measures of mutual trust and encourage multilateral cooperation over the Spratly Islands, in addition to quelling the aggressive behavior of the claimants. This proved to be an innovative and successful strategy.
 
 

The difficulties involved in taking disputes to a formal multilateral level does not imply that non-formal working groups are incapable of helping to ease the tension in times of crisis. Maintaining a dialogue makes it harder for the more belligerent actors to abruptly abandon the process. The crucial feature in this case is that, through a far-reaching process of evolution, all the actors involved in the dispute over the Spratlys have been able to participate in a multilateral dialogue which has increasingly limited the possibility of a military confrontation. We may therefore infer that cooperative security systems play an essential role in aiding stabilization in the course of redefining strategic balances in the post Cold War era since they allow enough flexibility to avoid definitive breakdowns among the actors involved.

Back to this issue´s index

The XXXI Meeting of the Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC) was held in Santiago on May 22-27. The main theme of the meeting was "Prosperity in the Pacific: Sustaining the Momentum into the XXI Century".

 

The conclusions of this meeting will be delivered to APEC and they are expected to possibly influence the decisions to be adopted by each of the members.

 

Some of the issues examined at the Meeting were:

 

Identify the basic principles for the development of electronic trade.

 

Calling on APEC to implement the Voluntary Sectoral Deregulation Agreement prior to the Ministers' meeting in late June.

 

Study the effect of direct foreign investment, and disseminating policies for the deregulation of telecommunications in the region.

 

PBEC established standards on the principles of transparency in the relationship between entrepreneurs and the government, emphasizing efforts aimed at fighting corruption.

 

The outcome of the meeting of Pacific Basin entrepreneurs should be reflected in the actions undertaken by the governments in the process of integration, wherein PBEC members are intent on increasing trade in products and investment, on opening up new markets, and on reducing trade barriers.

 

The Meeting was attended, among others, by the President of Chile ?Mr. Eduardo Frei-, the Vice-Presidents of Argentina, Ecuador, and Peru, the United States Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of Industria Automotriz Honda. Also present were business leaders and delegates from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela. They were invited as observers to become acquainted with the different trade opportunities offered by Latin America and to establish contacts, as the title of the meeting states, on the threshold of the 21st century to consolidate trade in the region. A noteworthy fact is that PBEC members conduct business in excess of four trillion dollars and provide jobs for over 10 million people.

 

The current situation in the Asia Pacific region as a consequence of the economic crisis was the dominant issue at the meeting. Although this prevented some officials from attending, it allowed for a closer understanding of the situation in that area.

 

In the course of the Meeting, Mr. Helmut Sohmen took office as Chairman of the PBEC, replacing Mr. Gary Tooker.

 

Hosting the meeting proved to be a particularly significant event for Chile. Last year, Chile hosted the Twelfth Meeting of the PECC and a new visit from members of the Asia Pacific emphasizes its situation as a member of this system and positions Chile as an important agent in relationships in the Pacific Basin. Chile has been uninterruptedly involved in this region and, despite current problems in the region, the actions of business people and of government and institutions such as APEC will help to consolidate this area as the focal point of business for the 21st century.