|
|
|
|
Map of Asia |
CIAO DATE: 12/02
Williamsburg Conference 2002
Michael G. Kulma
April 11-13, 2002, Kuala Lumpur
Contents
Session 1 - The War on Terrorism: Impact on Peace and Stability in Asia
Session 2 - The Economic Downturn: Prospects for Regional Economic Relations
Agenda
The Thirtieth Williamsburg Conference was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from April 11 to April 13, 2002. The conference, hosted by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute of Malaysia, was convened by Carla A. Hills of the United States, Tommy T.B. Koh of Singapore, and Minoru Murofushi of Japan.
Thursday, April 11
Opening Reception and Dinner
Keynote Speech:
Malaysia and Asia: Seeking a Balance Between Peace and Prosperity
The Hon. Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia
Friday, April 12
Session 1: The War on Terrorism: Impact on Peace and Stability in Asia
Chair
Nicholas Platt, President, Asia Society
Opening Discussants
P.R. Chari, Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Pan Guang, Director, Shanghai Center of International Studies
Javed Jabbar, Chairman, South Asian Media Association, MNJ Communications Ltd.
Noordin Sopiee, Chairman & CEO, Institute of Strategic and International Studies
Session 2: The Economic Downturn: Prospects for Regional Economic Relations
Chair
Minoru Murofushi, Chairman, ITOCHU Corporation
Opening Discussants
Motoshige Itoh, Professor of Economics, Tokyo University
Joseph Lian, Member, Central Policy Unit, The Government of Hong Kong, SAR
Karim Raslan, Partner, Raslan Loong
Saturday, April 13
Session 3: Malaysia and Southeast Asia
Chair
Tommy T. B. Koh, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Opening Discussants
Thanong Bidaya, Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister of Thailand
Karim Raslan, Partner, Raslan Loong
Michael Richardson, Senior Asia-Pacific Correspondent, International Herald Tribune
Jusuf Wanandi, Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Session 4: Role of the United States in the Region
Chair
Carla A. Hills, Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Opening Discussants
James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, U.S. Department of State
Timothy Ong, Executive Chairman, Asia-Inc.
Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Seiken Sugiura, Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Japan
Foreword
In April 2002 the Asia Society, in partnership with the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, brought together 51 leaders in government, business, academia, and journalism from 18 countries and economies on both sides of the Pacific for the Thirtieth Williamsburg Conference. Held in Kuala Lumpur at the Sunway Lagoon Resort Hotel, this was the first Williamsburg Conference to be convened in Malaysia since 1987.
This year's conference continued the tradition of transpacific dialogue on key issues in Asia. Deep in the heart of Southeast Asia, with a level of political and economic development surpassed by some and envied by others, Kuala Lumpur provided an excellent venue. Last year, in Okinawa, Japan, the Williamsburg Conference focused on the economics of the region, issues of information technology, the transition of power in the United States, and political and security prospects.
Much has changed. This year, participants were concerned with the global economic downturn, the prospects for a new generation of leaders in Asia, the role of the United States in the region, and-a major theme throughout-terrorism. The issue of terrorism, a topic that went largely unnoticed at last year's conference, has pervaded the conduct of global affairs since September 11. The possibility for rapid shifts in global interaction and the need to understand such change underline the importance of the annual Williamsburg Conference. In light of the new international environment, participants were encouraged to think outside the box in their discussions, both formal and informal. They proved up to the task.
Williamsburg coconvenors Carla A. Hills of the United States, Tommy T.B. Koh of Singapore, and Minoru "Jack" Murofushi of Japan enlisted a superb group of conference participants and set forth a sharply focused yet thorough agenda. They chaired their respective panels with great skill and impartiality. In addition, our local host, the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, ably led by Mirzan Mahathir and Michael Yeoh, went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that all of the conference arrangements were carried out graciously and masterfully. Karim Raslan, long a friend of the Asia Society, kindly hosted a dinner for participants, while still finding the time to present his thoughts in two of the four sessions. In addition, Francis Yeoh Sock Ping, represented by his brother Yeoh Seok Kian of the YTL Corporation Berhad, graciously hosted our closing dinner.
Following the conference, Carla A. Hills, Tommy T.B. Koh, Jack Murofushi, Nicholas Platt, Mirzan Mahathir, and Michael Yeoh undertook a number of efforts to ensure that the conference discussion reached a broader audience. First, they all took part in a press briefing immediately following discussions on the final day. Second, both Tommy Koh and Jack Murofushi published op-ed pieces, Tommy in the International Herald Tribune and Jack in the Japan Times. Finally, Nick Platt met with members of the Asia Society New York President's Circle to brief them on the conference. This report is intended to extend the reach of the Williamsburg discussions still further.
Special thanks go to the entire staff of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, led by Kenanga Simon and Jean Wong, for all of their excellent work. From the Asia Society, Hee Chung Kim, the heart and soul of Williamsburg, managed all the details with unwavering grace and skill. Elizabeth Lancaster, making her inaugural trip to the Williamsburg Conference, provided invaluable calm amidst the ever-changing conference details. Mike Kulma helped develop the agenda and lent a helping hand to the conference secretariat before donning his cap as conference rapporteur. Deborah Field Washburn, former Senior Editor at the Asia Society, deserves credit for her hard work in bringing this report to print, as does Lai Montesca for her work on its layout.
A special mention goes out to Marshall M. Bouton, President of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and former Executive Vice President of the Asia Society. In previous years, Marshall served as the force behind Williamsburg, as well as conference participant. This year marked his first as strictly a participant. The other participants at this year's conference expressed their appreciation for his dedication and commitment to the Williamsburg Conference, to the Asia Society, and to building better relationships between Americans and peoples of Asia. We should like to do the same here.
We and the coconvenors are most grateful to the conference funders, whose names are listed at the back of this report. Their support made the Thirtieth Williamsburg Conference possible.
Nicholas Platt
President
Asia Society
Robert W. Radtke
Vice President, Policy and Business Programs
Asia Society
Keynote Speech
Prime Minister,
The Honorable Dato Seri
Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad
Thirtieth Williamsburg Conference
Sunway Lagoon Resort Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
April 11, 2002
Malaysia and Asia: Seeking a Balance Between Peace and Prosperity
I am honored to be here today to speak at this distinguished gathering of American and Asian leaders from the business, government, and other sectors. I have been asked to speak on the subject "Malaysia and Asia: Seeking a Balance Between Peace and Prosperity."
The tourist people are fond of promoting Malaysia as being truly Asia. The reason is that in Malaysia you find the three major races of the Asian continent: the Malays, who are ethnically the same as the Indonesians, the Filipinos, the Thais, the Myanmarese, the Cambodians, and the Laotians; the peoples of Chinese origin; and the peoples from the Indian subcontinent.
One can even say that Malaysia represents Asia. And of course it has all the potential for instability that seems to plague a substantial portion of Asia. But it has not been quite stable, despite the incompatible mix of people who inhabit this country.
The incompatibility is due not just to ethnic origins but to the fact that the different races profess very different religions, cultures, and languages. The Malays are Muslims, the Chinese Buddhists or Taoists, and the Indians largely Hindus. The followers of these religions have never really gotten on together in other parts of the world, but in Malaysia they live, work, and play together.
Another factor that is believed to threaten peace and stability in Malaysia is the fact that the majority Malays are Muslims, and they dominate the politics and the government of the country. Muslims are believed to be incapable of living at peace with non-Muslims, of governing and developing their countries. But the 60 percent Muslims in Malaysia have been able to get along with the 40 percent non-Muslims, to work with them, to govern and develop the country together with them, and to maintain peace and comparative harmony.
Malaysia is obviously very Asian. It finds it easier to relate to Asia than to other continents. But it is with East Asia that Malaysia is more closely associated. About 20 years ago the international community was startled and shocked when Malaysia loudly announced that it would look east. Hitherto countries wishing to develop had always looked west, looked at Europe or North America. But Malaysia apparently believed that the eastern model was worth emulating. It was a time of vigorous growth for Japan and Korea and even Taiwan. They were industrializing, that is, progressing toward the European model. It would have been logical for Malaysia to just follow the European model, but Malaysia chose the indirect route, to develop by following the path taken by East Asian countries.
Japan and Korea, which were devastated by war, had applied certain techniques in order to develop fast. Since they had clearly succeeded, there must be something they did which was right.
There were other Asian models, of course. Some Asian countries decided to be socialistic, to close their markets and their economies to foreign participation. But these countries had not achieved the kind of progress that Japan and Korea had achieved. So Malaysia avoided socialism, although it was not averse to using socialist methods such as long-term planning and selected national enterprises that were expected to help the administrative and development process.
All the while, Malaysia had continued to watch the West and to use western methods where applicable. It was an altogether pragmatic approach bereft of the constraints of ideologies, which we believe have been the downfall of many countries.
Perhaps Malaysia's greatest achievement is the management of race relations. Here I would like to say that racial harmony is achieved in Malaysia because of Islam and because the majority of the people here are Muslims. This statement is perhaps a little bit hard to swallow. Islam and the Muslims are commonly associated with an inability to get along with peoples of other religions or races or even with Muslim peoples of different sects. They are said to be irrational, recalcitrant, unable to govern and develop their countries, and last but not least, given to violence and terrorism. Can the Muslims of Malaysia contribute to peace and harmony among peoples who are so racially and religiously incompatible?
The answer is that they can if they follow the fundamentals of Islam, the true teaching of Islam. It was Islam as preached by Prophet Mohammad which brought peace to the warring Arab tribes and molded them into a single ummah, or community of followers, later joined by other races, who eventually built the great Muslim civilization which lasted 1300 years, longer than the Roman civilization.
If today Islam and the Muslims seem incapable of living at peace with others and achieving progress, it is not because of the teachings of Islam but because many have deviated from the teachings and have made use of the devotion of the Muslims to their religion to promote their own agenda.
The situation among Muslims today (the 15th century of the Hijrah) is not unlike that of Christendom in the 15th and 16th centuries A.D. Christians then were very intolerant, carrying out pogroms against the Jews and inquisitions against suspected deviationists from accepted teachings. In Spain converts to Christianity from among the Jews and Muslims were often condemned for secretly adhering to their previous religions and were tortured and burnt at the stake. Intolerance of each other on the part of Catholics and Protestants resulted in the migration and eventual founding of the United States of America.
All these, the pogroms and the inquisitions, were not Christian. When people become too pious, there will be people who will abuse religious piety by bringing in their own politics to take advantage of the deep faith of the people, their gullibility.
The behavior of some Muslims of today, the 15th century of the Hijrah, differs little from that of the Christians of the 15th century A.D. Just as the behavior of the Christians was not due to Christian teachings, the behavior of these Muslims is not due to Islamic teachings, the true and fundamental teachings of Islam.
In Malaysia, the majority of the Malay Muslims try to adhere to the true fundamentals of Islam. Fundamentalism is not about being extreme. The fundamental teachings of Islam emphasize the brotherhood of all Muslims, the acceptance that in the human community there will be those who reject Islam, who will worship in their own way, for whom there will be their own religions that differ from Islam. Islam does not advocate enmity toward non-Muslims except when they attack Muslims. Even then if they sue for peace, Muslims must be willing to entertain their overtures.
The ignorant desert Arabs, upon embracing Islam, were able to provide good governments and to develop their lands, frequently working together or using the services of non-Muslims. In fact, Jews frequently worked as senior members of Muslim governments of Al-Andalus, as the Arabs called Spain. Such was the tolerance of Muslims for peoples of other faiths that many Jews elected to migrate to Muslim North Africa after the reconquest of Spain by the Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella. Similarly in Eastern Europe, the Slavic people gladly cooperated with the invading Turkish Muslims.
The majority Malay/Muslims in Malaysia prefer to adhere to the true and fundamental teachings of Islam, rather than past and present interpretations made by Muslims with political agendas. That is why we can claim that Islam is the reason for peace and harmony in Malaysia. Islam is also the reason for Malaysia's rapid development.
I have mentioned that Malaysia has looked to Asian countries for inspiration in its development. Asia is not homogeneous. Asia is a very big continent peopled by numerous ethnic groups. There is a great deal of difference between these ethnic groups, so much so that it is quite wrong to lump them together as Asians. They are divided not just by ethnicity but by culture, religion, and language. It is unrealistic to expect them to unite and do things together. They are most likely to be at odds with each other, to be actually at war with each other.
By contrast, the Europeans are more homogeneous even if they are Germanic, Latin, or Slavic people. Their cultures, including their value systems and their languages, even have a common origin and are linked to each other. For Europeans to be grouped together, to be united and take common stands, is easy. With the coming into being of the European Union, for practical purposes the Europeans have become one people belonging to one nation. Not so the heterogeneous, deeply divided Asians.
However, the Southeast Asians, consisting mainly of brown people, seem to set some store by their close proximity to each other in the Southeast Peninsula of Asia. Initially, however, they were less than friendly toward each other. Upon their liberation from the colonial yoke they confronted each other. But the need to resolve their early quarrels led to their forming an association comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines at first. The failure of Maphilindo did not discourage them. Eventually their association evolved into ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. This expanded until all the countries of Southeast Asia, ten in all, belong to the ASEAN group.
This is an association of largely weak countries with little clout, helpless to influence the affairs of the region, much less the world. They found themselves being forced to accept international policies formulated elsewhere, many of which are actually detrimental to their interest.
About a decade ago Malaysia proposed a link-up with other Asian countries, namely the vigorous economies of Northeast Asia. It was not an economic community or union like the European Economic Community. It was merely going to be a consultative forum, to identify and discuss common problems and to formulate common stands.
Although Europe was evolving into the European Union and the countries of North America had already formed NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Area, the East Asia countries, north and south, were told in no uncertain terms that they could not talk to each other except in the presence of countries from outside the region.
Of course this condition was not spelled out in so many words. But potential members from the Northeast were verbally informed that they could not join the East Asian Economic Group (EAEG). Some members of the Southeast Asian Association were also influenced, and they placed obstacles to prevent the formation of the EAEG. Even calling it East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) did not help.
However when Australia proposed the Asia Pacific Economic Conference, the initial reluctance of the Southeast Asian Countries, in particular Malaysia, to back the formation disappeared when the President of the United States called for a meeting of the Heads of Government in Seattle. It was obviously going to be a historic event. And so APEC came into being and completely eclipsed the proposed EAEC.
Malaysia cannot understand the suspicions toward Asian countries. When Asian countries can only talk to each other in the presence of representatives from non-Asian groups with whom Asians have to compete, particularly when the representative is powerful, it is obvious that open discussion would be impossible. Anything that is discussed which is not in the interest of the non-Asian groups would be subjected to opposition or would be watered down so as to be less meaningful.
But proposals for inclusion of members from competing groups inside any Asian grouping continue to be made and to be pushed. If Europeans can be exclusive and so can Americans, why cannot Asians have their very own group? The objection that Asians are anti-West or anti-European cannot be valid as the Europeans and Americans never consider the non-admission of Asians into their groupings as being anti-Asian.
Malaysia is not anti-West or anti-European. Almost immediately after independence Malaysia opened up the country to European investment. We never had any hang-ups about Europeans and their colonialist past. Even if there is nothing in common for Asians to justify an all-Asian organization, it is wrong in principle to object to their having their own organization when others have theirs. It smacks of double standards.
It is shameful that the countries of East Asia have to hide behind other names, like ASEAN plus three, in order to get together. As I said, Asians are heterogeneous and deeply divided. There is no way they can conspire to confront the Europeans or the West. Asians know they need the rich countries of Europe and America in order to grow and prosper.
Asians want to be democratic, to be equal and to be fair. But they do not see good examples of these qualities among the democrats who preach to them. It is undemocratic to use force, including economic pressures, in order to gain acceptance of a system or policy. But force is being used every time to gain Asian compliance. And many of the things that Asians have to accept are actually detrimental to their interests. It is because of this that Asians are leery of the good intentions expressed by the West over globalization. Their experience in the past does not help to convince them.
Malaysia is a democratic county, not liberal like western countries, but democratic nevertheless. We have had ten general elections in our 44 years of independence, elections in which opposition parties not only won numerous parliamentary seats but were able to form state governments in four Malaysian states. Today, two of the states are ruled by the opposition after free and fair elections.
We are not seeking a balance between peace and prosperity, as the title of this talk I was asked to give seems to suggest. We believe that only peace can bring about prosperity. So ever since independence, we have tried and we have largely succeeded in creating harmony among the races that make up the people of Malaysia. We have largely been able to maintain peace and stability in this multiracial country, despite our differences and the extreme disparities in our stages of development.
Malaysia believes in human rights for all. We respect the rights of individuals, but in the exercise of individual rights, the rights of the majority must not be denied. We regard it as wrong for individuals and minorities to exercise their rights in a disruptive way. The exercise of human rights must be accompanied by responsibility toward the community, toward maintaining stability and peace. If anyone shows a lack of responsibility, then he must forfeit his rights.
Malaysia does not apologize for our views, our attitudes toward a foreign value system that cares only for forms but not at all for substance. We have seen too many ideologies invented in the West failing and being discarded after millions of lives have been lost and much wealth destroyed.
Peace is a prerequisite for prosperity. In the maintenance of peace sacrifices must be made. We are prepared to make the sacrifices because we do not believe in being beholden to ideology to the point of destroying ourselves.
Malaysia picks and chooses with pragmatism. That is why we accept national planning for the future. Apart from 5-year plans we have a 30-year plan to become a developed country by 2020. That is because we have already demonstrated that our plans are not only implementable, but also have been implemented. Since independence 44 years ago, we have been implementing a series of 5-year plans within a number of longer term outline perspective plans. I believe we have acquired quite good experience in planning and implementing. So, we feel we can achieve our ambitious 2020 vision.
Of course, unexpected crises can derail our planned progress. The attack on our currency and the events of 11 September are examples of these. But we have also acquired some skills at crisis management. Our methods may be unconventional but we have been able to stabilize our multiracial country and our economy as well. Our unorthodox way of dealing with the currency crisis is not unusual for us.
If today Malaysia appears to be against globalization, it is not due to recalcitrance or just wanting to be difficult. We do believe we know the problems resulting from the current interpretation of globalization, and we think we have some ideas about how to make globalization less damaging to the poor countries while still benefiting the rich countries. All we say is that we should not rush into borderlessness, deregulations, and free capital flows without examining the many consequences of these vigorously promoted concepts of the rich and the famous.
It does not take a clever observer to note that the world today is richer than ever before and that most of the wealth is concentrated in Europe and America and some in Japan. The rest of the world, and that includes a huge chunk of Asia, is very, very poor. There is no equity in the distribution of wealth.
Yet while force is being used to ensure human rights are upheld, very, very little is done to help reduce poverty, which we should note accompanies most social ills including human rights abuses. It is not unreasonable to assume that the reduction of poverty would contribute toward reducing human rights abuses, for example.
In the immediate post World War II years, a commitment was made by the developed countries to give 0.7 percent of their GDP as aid to the poor countries. True, much of the money was misused, but that does not excuse the almost total stoppage of aid. If the recipient countries are unable to handle cash aid, other forms of aid can be given.
At one time the United States was the most popular country in the world because of the Peace Corps. Now there is no Peace Corps and no aid except when tied to the fulfillment of the policies of the donor. And the slightest breach of the tenets of the donors would result in painful sanctions and other punitive measures, which all contribute to more impoverishment. America has become ugly, and American embassies everywhere must be built behind high walls.
In the pursuit of ideological concepts, the original reasons and intentions of the ideology are always forgotten. Thus socialism and communism were intended to create an absolutely equitable society - socially, economically, and politically. But these ideologies were forced upon society through the deprivation of the rights of most members of society, through expropriation by dictatorial governments that never hesitated to incarcerate, torture, and kill in order to ensure that alternative ideologies were destroyed. The egalitarian society that socialism and communism were supposed to create was forgotten in the interest of upholding the ideologies at all cost.
Now we are seeing the same thing happening with liberal democracy and human rights. Be democratic and uphold human rights or else you will lose your rights. Is it democratic to go about promoting democracy this way? It would seem that democracy is more important than human rights and the well-being of the people. This does not seem democratic.
Malaysia is an Asian country. We do not reject all western values, but where we think Asian values are better we should be allowed to retain our values, if the proponents of democracy believe in democracy and human rights.
Malaysia wants peace and prosperity, and our people freely support our way of achieving these. Why should there be objections by others who are not really affected by our ways?
Asia and Malaysia have a right to do things our own way as long as the majority of our people approve of our way. We will follow what is good from Europe and America, but we must have the freedom to decide what we should copy. Those who believe in freedom, in human rights, and in democracy must allow us to manage the balance between peace and prosperity that we have achieved on our own.
Prime Minister's Office
PUTRAJAYA
Session 1 - The War on Terrorism: Impact on Peace and Stability in Asia
Meeting seven months after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., and six months after the beginning of the war on terrorism, Williamsburg Conference participants assessed the meaning of terrorism, its root causes, and possible cures for those causes; how well countries in the region and the world have worked together in the war on terrorism and the reasons for concern about achieving such cooperation; and the implications of the war on terrorism for Asia's "hotspots." The session concluded with participants still grappling with what comes next.
Terrorism: The Search for a Definition, Causes, and Cures
Conference participants could not agree on an overarching definition of terrorism, but made a number of suggestions to try and capture its meaning. Terrorism was variously described as:
Some participants quickly noted that terrorism went way beyond the September 11 events in the United States. In this vein, they suggested that terrorism had existed in many forms throughout Asia and the world for many years. While most agreed with the need to look broadly at the issue of terrorism, many of these adherents also believed that terrorism changed with the events of September 11, achieving a global reach and transnational character.
Participants felt that it was not enough to define terrorism or talk about how well countries worked together in the present war on terrorism. The discussion needed to go further, to search for the root causes of terrorism and then for the means to wipe it out at its source. Conference attendees suggested many and varied root causes, including: disparities in wealth and social standing; a lack of good governance; a perceived lack of options; poverty, illiteracy, and inequality; and a lack of education. As a possible counterpoint, one participant mentioned that intellectuals often led radical terrorist groups.
The suggested ways to eliminate terrorism, whatever its definition, revolved around education and democratic governance. Most thought that education, broadly defined, would serve a fundamental role in addressing the root causes of terrorism. More specifically, a well-rounded and international education would make for increased understanding and appreciation of different ways of life and different ways of thinking-the basis for a tolerant worldview. In addition, attendees believed that children needed to be provided with specialized skills to deal with conflict and conflict resolution, such as peace education. While education might provide the basis for developing good global citizens, conference participants also called for democratic systems of governance with functioning institutions, in societies where people could share their grievances and ideas.
Working Together in the War on Terrorism
While still grappling with the definition and causes of terrorism and the solutions to it, participants moved on to analyze how countries in the region were cooperating in the war on terrorism. Most of this discussion focused on how well countries in Asia were working with the United States in this war, as opposed to how well they were working with each other. Participants said many positive things about the way in which relations with the United States have progressed. However, some saw the potential for divisiveness, depending on the future path of U.S. policy.
On the positive side, the United States and Asian nations have worked well together in the first stages of the war on terror. This cooperation was acknowledged not only by traditional allies of the United States, but also by those with whom relations are on less steady ground. For example, Japan has made both financial and strategic contributions. Strategically, it has sent ships to help support U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and financially, it has been stalwart in planning for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In addition to the efforts of allies, countries such as China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, to name a few, have condemned the events of September 11 and pledged their support for efforts to root out terrorism, each in its own way. The reaction to 9/11, in fact, resulted in an overall improvement in relations between the United States and the nations of Asia.
Participants identified two other areas for optimism. First, they saw Asian countries working more intensely among themselves to address the issue of terrorism. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including China, Russia, and the countries of Central Asia, is an important case in point. Second, many believed that cooperation in the war on terrorism creates the opportunity for countries to work together on other multilateral issues. Areas for possible future transnational cooperation include narcotics, AIDS, and international crime. Regional organizations like APEC need to do more to provide focus in combating these shared problems.
On the other side of the coin, in addition to a sense of global anxiety that did not exist before 9/11, conference participants expressed a growing concern about a perceived U.S. unilateralism in foreign policy, as exemplified by the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty and the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush's State of the Union reference to the "Axis of Evil" only added to these worries.
President Bush's comment caused more than normal concern as the events of 9/11 polarized Muslim communities throughout Asia, sparking grass-roots debates between moderates advocating cooperation against terrorism and militants who want nothing to do with the non-Muslim world. This division has become a factor in the domestic politics of Asian nations with large Muslim populations, complicating the acceptance of advice and assistance from the United States. Furthermore, U.S. policy in the Middle East-particularly a perception of bias in favor of Israel-has led to a surge in registration for militant groups in Southeast Asia, making it harder for Asian governments to deal with their own peoples as they continue to side with the United States. Participants from Asian countries with large Muslim populations stressed that the conflict in the Middle East cannot be overestimated as an influence on moderate Muslim opinion in Asia. Asian Muslims identify with the Palestinians on a number of different levels, first and foremost as a people with whom they share a religion. In addition, for those Asian Muslims who experienced colonialism at the hands of various Western powers there exists compassion and understanding for the plight of the Palestinians, perceived as under siege by Israel. These feelings of association, coupled with the perception that U.S. domestic policies single out Muslim men for questioning and detention, have helped to create the impression in Asia that the war on terrorism is really a war on Islam. This is a potentially volatile mix.
Still others voiced concerns that the United States seemed to be concentrating less on democratic values and more on doing whatever it takes to achieve its strategic objectives. For example, attendees expressed some hesitation over the strategic relationships the U.S. has forged with non-democratic Pakistan and virtual dictatorships such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Along these lines of both espousing and actively promoting democratic values, some local participants expressed concern that Asian governments might be using the war on terrorism as a pretext for cracking down on long-term opponents. They gave no specific examples.
Implications for Asia's Hotspots
The discussion of the implications of the war on terrorism for Asia's "hotspots" was limited, focusing almost exclusively on the Korean Peninsula. Participants believed that 9/11 did not greatly affect the situation on the Korean Peninsula until President Bush invoked the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address. This comment created tension between the two Koreas and in North Korea's relations with other countries. This tension has eased somewhat with the recent resumption of talks between North and South Korea, but participants emphasized the need to get North Korea involved in the region, specifically in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).
The issue of China-Taiwan relations also came up in this context, with the suggestion that the war on terrorism had no direct impact on them.
New Questions Raised
In addition to those questions raised in the agenda, and partly in response to the suggestion that participants think "outside the box," many new questions arose during discussions. Among them:
What Next?
The overwhelming majority of conference participants agreed that whatever the next step in the war on terrorism, the United States should not go it alone. The next move requires a coordinated international response. The U.S. must seize this opportunity to work with a united international community while it still has the countries of Asia firmly behind it.
Furthermore, there were strong recommendations that the United States remain engaged in Central Asia and the Northern Indian Ocean in order to: stabilize the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan; serve the U.S. interests of non-proliferation in the region; help stem the tide of refugees from one country to another; stabilize India-Pakistan relations; and help control transnational crime and the transit of illegal goods throughout the region. Attendees felt strongly that, while remaining engaged and continuing its efforts in the war on terrorism, the U.S. must consider the complexities of individual Asian countries in assessing their cooperation in this war. Asian participants stressed that the governments and peoples of Asia overwhelmingly side with efforts to combat terrorism. The United States must appreciate these feelings and realize that domestic considerations may allow some countries to be more actively engaged in their support, while others might be equally supportive, but through less aggressive means.
Panelists believed that the countries of Asia, individually and as a group, need to find ways to work together better. For Muslim countries in the region, some suggested a need for democratization, adjusted to local circumstances, and the promotion of an enlightened Islam. Together, participants suggested, Asian nations and the United States can work for a more peaceful and cooperative future. Together, they need to address the political, economic, and social issues that cause terrorism. If they fail to do so, many feared that the U.S. and its partners might win the battle, only to lose the war. Some people spoke of a "Marshall Plan" for Central Asia or to help address the disparities between North and South, while others advocated a marked increase in people-to-people contacts through mechanisms and institutions such as Fulbright scholarships, the Ford Foundation, Asia Society, and Asia Foundation. Still others suggested that countries in the region need to encourage the rule of law and good governance in Muslim countries. Finally, participants called upon the U.S. and Asian nations to stress that the enemy in this war is not Islam, but rather terrorism. To prove this point, some mentioned that rising radicalism in the name of religion is not unique to Islam.
Session 2 - The Economic Downturn: Prospects for Regional Economic Relations
This panel was devoted equally to discussions of Japan, China, and South and Southeast Asia, in the context of prospects for regional economies and relations between these economies.
Japan
There were three overarching categories of thought in the discussion of the Japanese economy. Some participants were short-term pessimists and long-term optimists. This group saw crisis in the short run, but believed that Japan was on the right path for the future. Others professed short-term optimism and long-term pessimism. This group saw Japanese banks doing better and business confidence on the rise, but also saw government debts, non-performing loans, and demand shortage problems as causes for grave future concern. Still others were optimistic no matter the time frame. This group saw hope in the slow but steady growth in institutional change over time, the increase in Japanese free trade agreements with other countries (recently with Singapore and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]), and signs of growth and change below the national level.
While attendees actively debated which mode of thought best fits the Japanese experience, they agreed that Japanese companies have been undertaking efforts to help themselves and the economy grow. Companies have been eliminating sectionalism, creating a more concentrated and focused management strategy, and attempting to create a new mindset (toward individuality and creativity) among employees.
In addition to specific thoughts on the state and direction of the Japanese economy, and with the conference held in the heart of Southeast Asia, participants exhibited a marked concern over Japan's involvement in Southeast and East Asia. Some showed interest in Japan's view on investment in Indonesia, while others looked for a more coherent Asia strategy from Japan. In response a number of the participants from Japan, pointing out that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi had recently addressed both of these issues, expressed Japan's commitment to work more closely with ASEAN and acknowledged that Japanese Overseas Development Assistance went largely to China and Indonesia, with healthy portions going to other ASEAN nations as well. Finally, still others hoped that recent agreements between Japan and Singapore could be adapted and implemented by other countries in the region as a way to spur investment and growth and possibly to create a regionwide free trade area.
Greater China
The discussion of Greater China was predominantly about two members of that entity. First, participants laid out the causes and consequences of the recent economic difficulties in Hong Kong. Second, they thoroughly debated the nature of economic relations between China and its neighbors, both now and in the years to come.
Regarding the causes of the current economic problems in Hong Kong, participants focused on three different areas. First, they saw an incomplete recovery from 1997. At least partly due to the existence of negative equity for many of those touched by the bursting of the real estate bubble, there was less borrowing by small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs). In addition, and for reasons not fully made clear, the government continued to delay much-needed tax reforms. Second, participants pointed to structural change due to globalization as a second reason for Hong Kong's current economic woes. The opening of mainland China pulled many jobs and billions of dollars of foreign direct investment (FDI) into China. As a result, Hong Kong lost manufacturing jobs, then service sector jobs, and now retail and low-end professional jobs. Finally, the continued underperformance of the Japanese and U.S. economies dragged on Hong Kong's growth, as on the growth of other countries in the region.
What were the consequences for Hong Kong's economy? First, Hong Kong is in a deflationary period, which may go on for some time. Second, there has been steadily rising unemployment and the underuse of capital. The problem of unemployment in particular gave rise to concerns over how to employ workers, perhaps in new fields. Third, Hong Kong has recently experienced severe government fiscal problems. For example, this year alone the budget deficit will approach 2 to 3 percent of GDP. Some suggested that these fiscal woes were the direct result of the taxation issues mentioned earlier, as it has been politically difficult for Hong Kong to implement new taxes. Finally, the economic downturn has resulted in increased social ills. These social issues include cross-border problems such as crime and growing disparities in income distribution. In the end, no one asserted that Hong Kong was either making its way out of the malaise or digging itself further in.
Regarding China's role and impact on the region, participants were of two minds. Some saw China as the 10,000-pound gorilla on the back of other Asian economies. Generally speaking, these individuals expressed a number of different concerns. For example, some panelists believed that recent Chinese purchases of Indonesian natural resource companies represented an effort by China simply to export these goods back home to feed the ever-growing domestic engine. Harking back to similar arguments made about the United States toward Latin America by the dependency theorists, these panelists saw China as attempting to take everything out without necessarily providing anything to the local economy. Others voiced concerns that China sucked up all of the investment dollars that might otherwise go to Southeast Asia. This concentration of FDI in China puzzled these participants, as returns on FDI are traditionally higher in Southeast Asia than in China. Nonetheless, a few conference goers went so far as to suggest that Southeast Asia could not hope to compete with China for investment dollars.
Others dismissed the notion of China as a threat or giant gorilla. This group generally held that even with a strong and growing Chinese economy there existed the opportunity for situations in which all sides would win, instead of the zero-sum possibilities mentioned above. For example, a growing China offers more opportunities for companies in the region to forge strategic partnerships and collaborative relationships. Also, the fact that Chinese companies hold a comparative advantage in certain areas does not mean that companies from other countries cannot either find areas where they hold comparative advantage or innovate to compete with the Chinese. In support of the former point, participants suggested that China cannot possibly dominate every market, so there exist many opportunities for Southeast Asian countries to grow in niche markets or even mainstream financial markets, given their comparative advantage in understanding these areas. In support of innovation, Japanese companies have fought back in certain areas and regained market share. Finally, attendees pointed out that the United States and Japan have traditionally invested more FDI in Southeast Asian nations (combined) than in China. They expected this pattern to continue.
Southeast and South Asia
Participants believed that we were seeing an economic recovery in Southeast Asia, but that the depth of this recovery remained far from clear. However, some stated that Southeast Asia had disappeared from the mental map of U.S. business people over the last few years. While the depth of recovery remained unclear and participants debated the region's "disappearance," it was obvious that the attendees believed that countries in the region should focus on the bigger picture of how to promote sustained growth and investment. For growth and investment countries need political stability, personal safety, orderliness and peace, and consistency of policy. Most also agreed that countries should devote more time and effort to better corporate governance. This problem with corporate governance marked a continued hindrance to the attraction of FDI, as foreign businesses still see investing in Southeast Asia as risky.
Who is to blame for these economic woes? Most participants from Southeast Asian nations believed that they needed to start at home, rather than blame the outside world and the forces of globalization. Take for example Indonesia, where the economic reforms of the 1980s were not accompanied by political reforms. This at least partially led to both the political and the economic problems found in Indonesia today. Interestingly, on the issue of how human rights might be protected during the push for rapid economic development, one participant bluntly said that democracy and human rights were not relevant to business investors; instead, growth attracts investment.
Those who spoke on the economic prospects for South Asian countries focused exclusively on Pakistan and India and on the many reasons for hope and the few causes for concern. In Pakistan, these conference-goers suggested, the economy is on the mend. For example, Pakistan now holds over $5.5 billion in reserves, which while miniscule to some countries is a boon to Pakistan. Furthermore, in light of the war on terrorism and Pakistan's contributions, lenders rescheduled its debt, thus easing the economic burden on an already beleaguered people. In addition, with internal institutional changes implemented and recently ratified agreements with the Internal Monetary Fund in place, the government should now be in a better position to provide for the people during these troubled times. However, not everything appeared so rosy. Without providing full details, attendees stated their belief that lower exports, higher insurance rates, drought conditions, and a lack of dynamism and job creation at the grass-roots level were indications of vexing problems facing Pakistan's economy.
Participants briefly discussed India. On the positive side, India experienced 5 percent growth per year during the 1990s. On the negative side, the Indian government appeared to be slowing reform and privatization, while failing to address fiscal deficits.
Other Economic Matters
Although not discussed at great length, a number of other economic matters arose. These included:
Session 3 - Malaysia and Southeast Asia
While Southeast Asia and regional organizations such as ASEAN are topics of discussion at all Williamsburg Conferences, this year's participants, sitting in the heart of Southeast Asia, took the discussion deeper than in past years. Panelists focused country-specific comments on Malaysia, the conference host country, and Indonesia, the largest country in the region. Regionally, there was a full discussion of ASEAN and related issues. This session included continued discussion of the war on terrorism in relation to Southeast Asia. Finally, participants broached the subject of what lies ahead for countries in the region.
Malaysia
The discussion on Malaysia focused on the politics of the country and the impact of September 11 and the war on terrorism. According to participants, Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad currently holds a position of unprecedented power, with little to no opposition on the horizon. This has allowed him to move forward with his domestic and international agendas, both of which seem to be working quite well at present. Attendees voiced concern that there was no equal to the prime minister within view who might take over once he decides to step down. This worried some participants because of Dr. Mahathir's advancing age. Some were apprehensive that the next leader of Malaysia might not be up to the task of moving the country along the continued path of growth, keeping all ethnic and religious groups living together in harmony in a secular society, and providing a strong voice for Malaysia in the international arena.
While the prime minister's position seems unassailable, important to his hold on power has been the Chinese vote in Malaysian politics. Since the opposition party, Parti Islam Semalaysia (PAS), cannot win elections in an area with less than an 80 percent Malay majority, Chinese voters have an important say in 42 percent of the provinces in Malaysia. As a result, keeping this segment of the population happy and engaged is of the utmost importance to Prime Minister Mahathir's ability to maintain his grip on power. In fact, the Malaysian government is currently worried that some Chinese might be thinking of moving abroad, as they fear that any future leader might be unable to stem the rise of radical Islam in Malaysia.
Speaking of the rise of Islam in Malaysia, particularly the segments of the Islamic movement that would like to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state, participants suggested that the events of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism have derailed PAS's efforts to mainstream its message. This setback was mainly due to PAS's call for an anti-American jihad following the events of September 11, an impulse not shared by the overwhelming majority of the Malaysian population. The prime minister, whose response has been more tempered and moderate, has gained the moral high ground. This has further emboldened Dr. Mahathir, who was already cracking down on terrorists prior to September 11.
Indonesia
Indonesia is still reeling from and dealing with the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis and the transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. Participants suggested that two lessons could be learned from the Indonesian economic crisis, which are not specific to Indonesia alone but might also provide guidance to other developing countries. First, economic development cannot proceed in purely linear fashion. Prudence and long-term policy-making are required. Second, political development and economic development need to go hand in hand. The legacy of the lack of political development during the Suharto years has been twofold. First, Indonesia experienced widespread corruption, which has become endemic to society. Second, during these years no preparation was made to groom a successor generation, with the result that leaders since the fall of the Suharto regime have been weak or ill prepared. In addition to these fundamental problems, participants mentioned many other causes for more immediate concern: high budget deficits; enormous loan debts; no hope for greater tax revenues; weak rule of law; human rights abuses; the necessity for the Indonesian economy to grow 6 percent annually to absorb new job seekers; and the need for orderly decentralization of power from the central to the local governments.
But some attendees expressed optimism about Indonesia's future. Politically, regional conflicts within Indonesia have subsided. Economically, the government recently reported that the economy is growing at about 3.8 percent, while the Indonesian rupiah has strengthened and stabilized. On the social front, despite the relative lack of economic progress of the last five years, Indonesians have gained access to better levels of education than they had ten years before, and non-governmental organization are vibrant and thriving.
The issue of Indonesia and the war on terrorism came up briefly during this session, with participants noting that the United States must improve its understanding of the domestic politics of this large and diverse country. This being the case, participants perceived a need for the U.S. to use more than one model of cooperation with countries in the war on terrorism. This issue was covered in greater depth in Session I.
ASEAN
With so many participants from Southeast Asia, the future of ASEAN was a lively topic of discussion. The commentary generally fell into one of two categories, criticism or positive assessment. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those who spoke negatively about ASEAN, or who saw a great need for change, were from ASEAN countries. In contrast, attendees from countries outside of ASEAN reminded all how far ASEAN had come and expressed their optimism about its future.
Before discussing the needs of ASEAN, participants looked to lessons from the past. These lessons were threefold: first, that growth without stability had proved detrimental to the health of ASEAN economies; second, that overreliance on foreign capital had created overwhelming risk, which led to underwhelming performance and financial crisis; finally, that unbalanced growth had created undesirable social problems such as poverty, crime, and corruption, to name but a few.
Panelist suggestions for steps that ASEAN needed to take were many and varied, involving both individual and group actions. Participants did not necessarily agree on all of these ideas. They included the need to:
In addition to the above points, there were numerous suggestions from participants from ASEAN member countries to the effect that the ASEAN Secretariat needed to be strengthened. Some suggested that in order to do this, countries must first put their own houses in order, while others pointed to the need to provide Secretariat workers with salaries commensurate with their work, as they are now vastly underpaid. Such strengthening of the Secretariat would mark a major move toward a more fully functioning international organization.
A minority of participants believed that because of all of the underlying problems and needs mentioned, ASEAN would experience another crisis in the next few years.
Discussion of ASEAN also had a lighter and more positive tone, mainly set by those from outside of ASEAN, who reminded the group how far ASEAN had progressed over the last 35 years. Generally speaking, participants were encouraged, because when ASEAN came into being in 1967, the developed countries took no notice of it. Since that time ASEAN has grown step-by-step, facing many challenges and surviving them all. It has few parallels in the world today. ASEAN was described as cohesive, moderate, and forward looking. In testament to the association's importance, all people and countries in the region live in relative peace, despite major religious and racial divides. Also, at the last summit there were more than 50 different proposals on how ASEAN should proceed or what changes needed to be made. Participants offered this as a sign of ASEAN's commitment to improving coordination and cooperation. On the economic front, attendees mentioned a number of different positive assessments. First, while there was overcapacity going into 1997, this has diminished. Second, AFTA is on or ahead of schedule, with the year 2002 set for its completion. Finally, ASEAN is working with other countries to improve conditions for member countries: for example, it is working with the United States to strengthen relations, as the recent tour in Southeast Asia of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick suggests. It has been helpful in planning the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha and the new round of trade negotiations. It works as an equal partner with Japan. And it is working with South Asian nations, which view ASEAN as very successful and worthy of emulation.
Southeast Asia, 9/11, and the War on Terrorism
Participants, particularly those from Southeast Asia, believed that the events of September 11 and the war on terrorism had raised the profile of Southeast Asia and its relevance to U.S. foreign policy. Southeast Asia is back on the radar screen. The question now is whether the light is green or red. The challenge for Muslim countries in the region or countries with large Muslim populations is to develop democratic frameworks. To do this, attendees suggested that civil society must play an important role, with women's groups at the forefront. Countries also need good governance to protect against radicalism. If the governments of Southeast Asian nations could win the struggle for the soul of Islam, this would be their biggest contribution to the war on terrorism.
The Challenges Ahead
In addition to all the needs already mentioned, participants suggested a number of other challenges facing the countries of Southeast Asia in the years to come. Countries in the region would continue to feel the pinch from the economic doldrums of Japan, a former source for growth, and from the disproportionate share of foreign direct investment still going to China. Regarding leadership and leadership transitions, participants perceived a need to recruit young people, many of whom believe that working in the government is not important. Countries need to restore prestige to such employment through better public relations, increased wages, and the identification of positive role models. Finally, participants reminded each other of the past, present, and future needs of East Timor and the reality that Southeast Asia would soon have a newly independent state in the region.
Session 4 - Role of the United States in the Region
Most participants believed that the events of September 11 marked the start of a new era in international relations. While it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the overall impact of these events and the war on terrorism, attendees already saw positive changes in U.S. relations with many Asian nations, including Russia, China, Pakistan, and India.
U.S. Policy in the Region: Major Tenets
Some suggested that prior to September 11, the United States was very close to presenting a cohesive Asia policy. In fact, President Bush canceled two policy speeches scheduled for just after September 11. The administration now plans to deliver a policy speech in June 2002 to the Asia Society. [On June 10 Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered this speech in New York.]
Since September 11, the United States has sought to build on and solidify its alliances and relationships in the region with Japan, Thailand, Korea, the Philippines, and China. Recognizing the importance of China in the region, the U.S. is seeking to build a relationship that is cooperative, constructive, and candid. In addition, the United States is working with interested parties to improve India-Pakistan relations, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and cross-strait relations.
Significantly, the president met with 20 Asian leaders at the APEC meeting in Shanghai, and as of April 13 he had held more meetings in Washington with visiting senior leaders than any president in history.
With respect to the war on terrorism, participants suggested that the United States greatly appreciated the positive response from Asian nations in this effort. With regard to concerns over the president's "Axis of Evil" comment, some believed that we must put this in the context of an overall policy and not simply look at it in isolation. In addition, the U.S. has worked bilaterally and multilaterally with the leaders of Asian countries, trying to make its policies country-specific in order to respond more effectively to the needs of different countries with different domestic constituencies. This was a concern expressly mentioned in two of the preceding three panels. Finally, in a brief discussion of missile defense, participants mentioned many of the standard pros and cons. Those against missile defense warned of the possibility of an arms race and the potential for instability in the international system as a result. Those in favor suggested that the world did not come unglued when the U.S. said it would abrogate the ABM treaty. In addition, proponents of national missile defense believed that talks with the Russia and China, the two countries most affected by a U.S. pullout, were going well. They argued that the U.S. wanted to complicate the picture for those thinking of attacking, and that developing a missile defense would do just that.
The Region's View of U.S. Policy
Most believed that a U.S. presence in the region remains vital for peace and stability in the region. With that said, they suggested that to keep the United States optimally engaged, countries in the regions should maintain and expand dialogue with each other and the U.S. That requires including the U.S. in regional organizations. While there was concern expressed about the U.S. and missile defense, countries in the region hoped that the U.S. would at least engage in serious consultation as it moves forward.
Statesmanship-wisely balancing its own needs with the needs of Asia-was seen as the principal challenge for U.S. diplomacy. To successfully accomplish this, the U.S. needs to distinguish between things that generate rapid change (e.g., Asian financial crisis and 9/11) and things that take time to change (e.g., some perceptions of the U.S.) and adjust its policy accordingly. Along the lines of seeking a peaceful balance of needs, some participants expressed concern over the possible impact of U.S. "soft power" on indigenous cultures.
Participants had much to say about perceptions of U.S. policy in the post-9/11 world. Some believed that the world had changed dramatically as a result of 9/11. Others expressed Asian pragmatism and an Asian sense of history, stating that not everything had changed. Some expressed concern over possible U.S. unilateralism, along with worry that the war on terrorism may be a moral crusade based on revenge or a crusade against religious extremism. Still others reiterated their concern regarding the impact of U.S. Middle East policy on Muslim countries in the region. Some delegates pointed to a dichotomy between U.S. democracy and human rights at home and the lack of support for such values abroad as the United States conducts the war on terrorism. Several delegates expressed the view that President Bush's "Axis of Evil" comment was detrimental to ongoing efforts toward reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. Several voiced the hope, expressed in previous sessions, that the U.S. would more carefully tailor its policies to different countries as it proceeds with the war on terrorism, recognizing that each country in the region has its own particular domestic political situation.
Furthermore, some delegates suggested that Asian nations themselves should look for creative ways to address the concerns raised by the war on terrorism, rather than simply defer to the United States. Others suggested that regional attempts were bound to fail if the U.S. was not included.
U.S. Domestic Politics, Mid-Term Elections, and the Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. domestic politics affects U.S. foreign policy. The two major political parties have never been more evenly balanced. The 2000 presidential election was the closest in history, and the narrow margins in Congress (a 6-vote Republican plurality in the House and a tie in the Senate) have set a record. All of this reflects a nation very closely divided politically. This means that the potential for change in policy is a matter of a few votes here or there in Congress or a few percentage points in public opinion.
Two major events have changed the U.S. political landscape since the last Williamsburg Conference and demonstrated the fragility of one party's hold on policy. Last year, Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an Independent, thus giving control of the Senate's agenda to the Democrats. This forced the president to select his priorities more carefully than he might when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Second, the September 11 attacks occurred. Some participants suggested that prior to 9/11 the president had searched for greater cohesion in his foreign policy and waited for Senate confirmation of his appointees (few with Asia experience were confirmed in the early days of his administration). After 9/11, participants saw a president transformed as a result of his clear and decisive response to the tragedy. For several months the partisan issues that had existed before 9/11 disappeared, and many hoped for a new and prolonged bipartisanship. The president's approval rating soared, and it remains very high. Since 9/11 the administration has had a much more international focus than previously, although domestic issues have recently begun to move back onto the political agenda.
In November of this year, the U.S. holds its mid-term elections. A sharp ideological divide exists in the body politic, and Republicans and Democrats remain far apart on both foreign and domestic policy issues. As a result, a change in party control in the House or Senate could result in a meaningful shift in policy-creating a tension for the president, who needs to be seen as above the fray of domestic politics in his conduct of the war on terrorism.
Although there is a deep political rift between political parties on National Missile Defense/Theater Missile Defense, it has not created a problem in dealing with Russia. Ancillary benefits of the research on NMD/TMD have already been recognized in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan in the form of precision weapons. However, some suggested that a policy shift from the creation of a land-based system to one based in the sea and air would create more consternation and be seen as a much greater threat by China.
Finally, on the Middle East, support for Israel in the U.S. body politic is stronger today than before 9/11, but it has always been strong. This is attributable to: historical support going back to 1948; the fact that Israel is a democracy surrounded by non-democracies; and extensive and effective lobbying. It should also be noted that in the course of shaping U.S. policy toward the Middle East, President Bush had negative dealings with Yasir Arafat. Generally, the upcoming House and Senate races should not be greatly affected by the Middle East crisis. However, the presidential race in 2004 could be, as Florida (with a substantial Jewish population) will be key. Other constituencies, such as the large Arab population in Michigan, might also be important.
Conclusion
While the Williamsburg Conference holds no formal concluding panel, a number of ideas can be gleaned from discussions throughout. First, terrorism and the war on terrorism will continue to be major topics of consideration until we meet again. Of overarching concern to any discussion of international politics and foreign policy in the foreseeable future will be the search for definitions, causes, and cures of terrorism, the capacity of countries to work together in the war on terrorism, and the question of how countries should address these issues. Second, while participants debated the hopes for Japan's return to sustained growth and discussed the hindrance or hope that the Chinese economy represents for other economies in the region, they agreed that overall the economies of Asia appear to be on the rebound from the recent downturn in the global economy. This said, countries still need to focus on the basics to improve domestic and international incentives for growth and investment. Third, Malaysia, Indonesia, and ASEAN were seen as overwhelmingly important to the future of Southeast Asia. Taking place in mainly Muslim Malaysia, the conference included a healthy discussion of local politics, the war on terrorism, and the fight for the soul of Islam. The struggle over Islam was also prominent in the dialogue on Indonesia, as was a discussion of Indonesia's economic situation. While ASEAN still has a long way to go, participants saw reason for raised expectations. Finally, the role of the United States in the region remains crucial. While dealing with its domestic political situation, the U.S. must remain vigilant to the specific needs of individual countries, particularly as the war on terrorism proceeds.
Participants
AUSTRALIA
Anthony Milner, Dean of Asian Studies, Australian National University
Michael Richardson, Senior Asia-Pacific Correspondent, International Herald Tribune
Merle C. Ricklefs, Dean, Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages & Societies, University of Melbourne
Richard A. Woolcott, Founding Director, AustralAsia Center of the Asia Society
BRUNEI
Lim Jock Seng. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Timothy Ong, Executive Chairman, Asia-Inc.
CANADA
Paul M. Evans, Institute of Asian Research and Liu Center for the Study of Global Issues, University of British Columbia
CHINA
Pan Guang, Director, Shanghai Center of International Studies
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Kim Yong Song, Desk Officer, Department of U.S. Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Pak Myong Guk, Office Director, Department of U.S. Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
HONG KONG
Joseph Lian, Member, Central Policy Unit, The Government of Hong Kong, SAR
INDIA
Pajamanabha R. Chari, Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
INDONESIA
George S. Tahija, President Director, PT. Austindo Nusantra Jaya
Jusuf Wanandi, Member, Board of Trustees, Centre for Strategic and International Studies
Sofjan Wanandi, Chairman, The Gemala Group
JAPAN
Ichiro Araki, Director of Research, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry
Akiko Fukushima, Director, Policy Studies and Senior Fellow, National Institute for Research Advancement
Kazutoshi Hasegawa, Senior Advisor, ITOCHU Corporation
Motoshige Itoh, Professor of Economics, University of Tokyo
Masaki Miyaji, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Corporate Strategy & Research Department, Mitsubishi Corporation
Minoru Murofushi, Chairman, ITOCHU Corporation
Yoshio Okawara, President, Institute for International Policy Studies
Seiken Sugiura, Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Fujita Satoshi, Senior Vice President, NTT Communications Corporation
MALAYSIA
Zainah Anwar, Executive Director, Sisters in Islam
Mirzan Mahathir, President, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute Karim Raslan, Partner, Raslan Loong
Noordin Sopiee, Chairman & CEO, Institute of Strategic and International Studies
Michael Yeoh, Chief Executive Officer, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
NEW ZEALAND
Dryden Spring, Chairman, Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand
PAKISTAN
Javed Jabbar, Chairman, South Asian Media Association
PHILIPPINES
Doris M. Ho, Chairman of the Board, Magsaysay Maritime Corporation Washington SyCip, Founder, The SGV Group
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Kim Sangwoo, Ambassador for International and Strategic Affairs, Republic of Korea
Noh Kyu-Duk, Deputy Director, North America Division II, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
SINGAPORE
Melissa Aratani-Kwee, Director, Project Access (PAX)
Manu Bhaskaran, Partner and Member of the Board, Centennial Group Inc.
Tommy T.B. Koh, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Arun Mahizhnan, Deputy Director, Institute of Policy Studies
Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs
TAIWAN
Tsai Ing-wen, Chairperson, Mainland Affairs Council
THAILAND
Thanong Bidaya, Vice Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors to the Prime Minister, Thailand
Kantathi Suphamongkhon, Trade Representative, Government of Thailand
Pote Videt, Managing Director, Equity Research, Lombard Investments
UNITED STATES
Marshall M. Bouton, President, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
Carla A. Hills, Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Marie T. Huhtala, U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia, U.S. Embassy in Malaysia
Sidney Jones, Director, Indonesia Project, International Crisis Group (Indonesia)
James A. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Nicholas Platt, President, Asia Society
OBSERVERS
Mazwin Meor Ahmad, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
Datuk Yalya Baba, General Manager, National Biotechnology Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment
Justin Brown, Assistant to the Chairman, ITOCHU Management Consulting, Ltd.
Chang-Hsieng-Hwei, Personal Assistant, Mainland Affairs Council
June Cheah, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
Caroline Cheong, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
Serman Chow, Assistant to the Chairman, ITOCHU Management Consulting, Ltd.
Carol P. Herring, Vice President, External Affairs, Asia Society
Ann Honarvar, Deputy Director, Asia Society Hong Kong Center
Akio Hotta, President, NTT MSC
Huang Yen-Chao, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office
Shinji Ishii, Assistant to the Chairman, ITOCHU Corporation
Hee Chung Kim, Program Assistant, Williamsburg Conference, Policy and Business Programs, Asia Society
Elizabeth Lancaster, Executive Associate, Asia Society
Gary C. Larsen, President, Agincourt Financial Group
Frances Lee, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office
Lee Poh Ping, Professor, University of Kebangsaan Malaysia
Lim Chai Mee, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
Michael Lu, Director of Corporate, M&E (China), Inc.
Tsuneichiro Massaki, CEO, ITOCHU Corporation Malaysia Branches
Robin K. McClellan, Economic Counselor, U.S. Embassy in Malaysia
Aamir Nordin, National Biotechnology Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment
Robert W. Radtke, Vice President, Policy and Business Programs, Asia Society
Toshihiko Saito, Director of General Affairs, NTT MSC
Freda Wang, Representative, Asia Society Shanghai Representative Office
Jean Wong, Chief Operating Officer, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute
Email this citation