September 14, 2009By Kavi Chongkittavorn
The NationTHANKS TO former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's effort in the 1990s, East Asia has become a distinctive geographical entity, often drawing wrath from within and abroad. Previously, East Asia was known as the region of newly industrialised countries - of China, Japan, Korea and occasionally Taiwan and Hong Kong.
These so-called "East Asian" countries were perceived as a region with great economic potential as they worked hard and were growth-oriented. However, too much bickering among China, Japan and Korea, became a problem. If they could only stick and act together as a group like other countries, their economic as well as political and security bargaining power would increase greatly.
Two decades later, East Asia is in vogue again with better cooperation and mutual trust. Fortunately, this time it is less focused on race - something that used to dominate the debate on East Asians working together. When proposed by Malaysia, focus was often on the most suitable forms of regional architecture. The ongoing global financial crisis and increased interdependence has opened up the minds of leaders and economists throughout the region - to the conclusion that only through inclusiveness, unhindered trade, investment and shared economic planning and strategies can they overcome future challenges together.
Thailand is one such country, struggling to fit into the fast-changing global and regional environment. When the country was the darling of the world's economic miracle in the 1980's with more than two digit growth, the Bangkok elite thought Thailand would be the key economic catalyst in the 21st century in this part of the world. A decade later, the 'tom yum disease' had all but crippled the country's economy and social well-being. Residue of economic catastrophe can still be seen throughout the metropolitan area.
When the idea of East Asian economic cooperation was debated through the 1990s, Thailand, as an economic high performer, took a laid-back position. Only the voices of Singapore and Indonesia were frequently heard.
Singapore, as a free-trade nation, would reject any idea suggesting exclusivity as it would raise the eyebrows of key trading partners such as the US or Europe. Washington was on a warpath against this idea, dragging Japan to its side. Like Singapore, Indonesia shared a similar sentiment on top of Jakarta's usual scepticism for any proposal coming from Kuala Lumpur. These templates - but better camouflaged - remain today.
Situated in the centre of the Asian continent, Thailand views itself as a land-bridge between South Asia and Northeast Asia, linking the region's greatest economies and land mass. For decades, Thai policy and decision-makers were content to be in this position. They failed to reach out to all. Instead, they looked towards the North (China) and the East (Japan).
In late 1987, Thailand was among the first Asean countries to tap India's economic potential, but it was done in superficial ways. So while India has risen in recent years, Thailand is still a drop in the bucket.
When former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in early 2001, the country's economy and diplomacy were quickly transformed and based almost entirely on his idiosyncratic leadership. He envisaged Thailand as a key regional player and did all the public relations stunts himself. The overly ambitious Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) was launched with fanfare shortly after. This new pan-Asia talk-shop covers more than half the world's population from the east of Suez to the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Thaksin viewed himself as a new Asian leader not the Asean one, who could unite Asia and its strength. Apparently, he overlooked Asean at his own peril. But within Asean he still managed to forge close ties with the leaders of Singapore and Cambodia.
As Thailand's international image inflated out of proportion, Thaksin prematurely declared in 2003 a Thai candidate to compete for the UN top post to succeed Kofi Annan. He saw the move as a way to shore up the country's international profile and his leadership. The failed attempt cost Thai tax-payers tonnes of money, coupled with unfulfilled diplomatic commitments pledged around the world.
Thailand's attention to East Asian and Pacific cooperation has been further marred by unsettling domestic turmoil since 2006. The aborted Asean+3 and Asean+6 summits dented Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's youthful and untested leadership.
The Thai role in Asean was also greatly affected. Thai democratic development - once Asean's pride and the beacon of regional democracy - was lampooned.
Following the successful Phuket meeting in July and prevailing political calmness, the Asean chair has seized the opportunity to apply full attention to all pending issues, especially those that would feature in the upcoming Cha-am summit in late October.
One is the future direction of the East Asia community and beyond. Abhisit has yet to express his views on this crucial issue.
Thailand believes there is no single economic cooperative structure that can care for and fulfil the objectives of this vast and diverse region. Therefore, the idea of inclusiveness and openness is an attractive one. Additional multi-layer forms of cooperation, without sacrificing the existing framework, could be a way out.
While Bangkok supports openness and inclusiveness, other Asean members are more cautious - fearing too many players would diminish the Asean profile. Some sort of selective inclusiveness could be in the offing.
As an Asean member, Thailand values Asean centrality. Its four-decade Asean experience taught the Thais one valuable lesson - that Asean centrality can only be maintained when Asean stays engaged. Whenever the grouping faces an imminent crisis, such as the one in Cambodia during 1978-1992, Asean centrality is unquestionable.
In constructing the future regional framework in East Asia and Pacific, which includes Asean+6 (China, Japan, Korea, Australia, India and New Zealand), Thailand would like to see more input from concerned countries.
At this juncture, the modus operandi seems to be the Asean+3 process, considered the model since its inception in 1997 as key to East Asian community building. Other regional-building organisations have yet to challenge this long-held process as the most suitable design.
Recently Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed an Asia Pacific Community (APC), which has stirred up a hornets' nest inside Asean. After talks among leaders and senior officials in Asean, resistance has somewhat subsided.
But many questions linger as to what is the exact role of Asean in this new regional architecture. Each Asean member has its own mind when it comes to a clear role of Asean. Rudd will have ample time to explain at the Asean summit and Apec leaders meeting.
Rudd and Abhisit will share the same panel on this topic in November, at the Apec CEO summit, Singapore.
