PACIFIC BASIN ECONOMIC COUNCIL
MAIN PAGE | SPEECHES & EDITORIALS | 2001 | REGION AWAITS GESTURE FROM BUSH

Region awaits gesture from Bush Dr. Eric Teo The Bangkok Post July 31, 2001 GEORGE W. BUSH has been to Europe and met with Vladimir Putin. His secretary of state has now been to some Asian states but the best relations can only arise from face to face meetings with the president. US President George W. Bush made a highly successful first visit to Europe in early June to meet European leaders and smooth out some of the misunderstandings that had surfaced in European-US relations since he took office. He met key European allies in Brussels at the Nato summit and in Gothenburg at the European Union summit, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time in Slovenia. President Bush's National Security Adviser Condeleeza Rice wrote an important article in Global Outlook (published in the Bangkok Post on June 17) at about the same time, refuting claims and the popular belief that European-US relations had deteriorated. She specifically dismissed the "values gap" and "strategic split", which seemed to exist between Washington and Europe, and stressed that the intrinsic core values of the United States and Europe were now in the ascendancy. She eloquently highlighted the important economic and security ties that bind Europe and the United States. She also emphasised that it was crucial for the United States and Europe to stand together and to continue to promote open societies and open economies, freedom and respect, economic and political liberties, and the "talents of the individual", which inevitably contribute to personal happiness and benefits for society. The United States and Europe have "family" ties that go back a long way. Besides important, continuing, common economic and security interests, their core values have clear historical roots that constitute a firm foundation for their bilateral relations. The joint promotion of these core values around the globe follows an intrinsic logic. But on the other side of the globe, Asia also needs to settle into an established working relationship with the Bush administration. In fact, the two binding themes emphasised by Ms Rice, economic/trade and security ties, also have bound the United States to Asia historically. US economic and security interests in Asia can be traced back at least 120 years. This may only be half as long as European-US relations, but Washington's interests in Asia cannot be downplayed. After all, the United States has fought major wars on Asian soil, with mixed results, and let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton who pushed for the setting up of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum at the start of his presidency. Obviously, there is a marked difference and even some divergence when we address the societal or "core" values linking the United States and Asia. Unlike the basically Judeo-Christian Europe, Asia has a variety of religious faiths and its values also may not converge historically with those of the United States. Traditions and civilisation have deep roots in Asia, and mutual understanding on both sides will take more effort and time to achieve. But with globalisation, even Asian societies are changing. As democracy takes roots here, Asians have and will become even more open to the outside world. The United States and the West must thus try to better understand Asia and the tremendous changes and transformations which globalisation is currently bringing about in the region. Changes made here have to be progressive and qualitative. They must merge into Asia's evolving civilisations so as to ensure their continuation, otherwise counter-reactionary forces could thwart these changes and create social upheavals and political instability. Patience is needed, not confrontation. In fact, Asia is already facing sweeping and traumatic changes in terms of democratic transition, openness and the rise of civil society. As these societies become more affluent, they will inexorably also become more open and freer. The United States thus should take ample cognisance of this fundamental change, while re-assessing its values outlook on Asia, and hence its future relationship with this region. It is therefore in the United States' fundamental interest to discreetly encourage political reforms and not create avenues for reactionary forces within Asia's traditional societies to challenge them. The future core values in Asia will probably never be an exact copy of what the United States and Europe have arrived at over the past 300 to 400 years. Certain basic principles, as highlighted by Ms Rice, are universal, but Asia would probably have variations in its approach, while accepting the basic principles. These variations would have to be flexibly understood by the United States. However, they should not fundamentally denigrate the overall debate on core values between Asia and America. It is thus with fervent hope that the United States will re-assess its relationship with Asia, and hopefully see President Bush and his key advisers meet with Asian leaders soon. There is a need for a forum, for an exchange of views between President Bush and Asian leaders so that some mutual understanding can be reached and trust established. The Shanghai Apec leaders meeting in October could be such an occasion, although unfortunately India and the sub-continent will not be present. Mr Putin has already established an excellent working relationship with Chinese President Jiang Zemin and has co-founded with China the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. It is essential now for US leaders to also reach out and talk to Chinese leaders, especially with China fast emerging as the regional and international economic, political and military powerhouse. An American understanding with China must be reached despite differences for the sake of regional and international security and stability, especially when important domestic political changes are due to take place next year in Beijing. As Asian leaders try to feel the new administration out, it would be perceived as a significant gesture if President Bush also reached out to Asian leaders in the coming months. The recent meetings of Mr Bush with Japanese Prime Minister Juichiro Koizumi and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in the US were good starters, as was Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit at the weekend to China. Important mutual economic and security interests, as well as a closing gap in values should strongly militate for this gesture. Eric Teo Chu Cheow is an independent corporate consultant, director-general of Pacific Basin Economic Council-Singapore and council secretary of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.