Exploring A New Paradigm

A more sustainable Asia-Pacific order， a new approach to regional security and an unconventional conception of China-U.S. relations were some of the hotly debated topics at the Third World Peace Forum held in Beijing on June 21-22. The forum， hosted by Tsinghua University， featured a crop of high-profile political figures and scholars from around the world. Edited excerpts of their views follow：

Yukio Hatoyama （former Japanese Prime Minister）： Some academics think that even if it is possible to create a single community in Europe， it is impossible to do so in East Asia as this region has greater economic disparities than Europe， a variety of different religions and cultural differences—including historical and linguistic differences—and is also divided by oceans， making mobility more difficult. However， I think these very differences are the reason why there is significant value in creating such a community. It is because there are differences that we will be able to play mutually complementary roles.

The information revolution has eliminated the obstacles caused by the sea. Various global issues including severe global environmental problems mean that an East Asian community is now more essential than ever before. I think we need to go beyond the stage of discussing whether or not we can build an East Asian community and start to address the issue of how to build a community.

The related countries must begin by engaging in a sustainable effort to promote economic， social， educational， cultural and environmental cooperation and aim to create a community covering politics and national security. I am not advocating the creation of an exclusive East Asian community that brings together only countries that share similar values. Nor am I advocating the creation of an economic bloc that stands in opposition to other regions. Rather I believe that the community should be a flexible， open organization and that depending on the field of cooperation， countries such as the United States and Russia could also be involved. Even so， one of the core areas of the future East Asian community is ASEAN； the other area that should function as the core of the community is a three-nation partnership between Japan， China and South Korea. Therefore， building trusting relationships between those three nations is of utmost importance.

However， from the Naoto Kan administration through to the Shinzo Abe administration， bilateral trust between Japan and China and between Japan and South Korea has been greatly compromised and this is a source of extreme concern. I strongly hope that Japan， China and South Korea can cooperate toward a free trade agreement and through such partnerships play a leading role in the construction of the East Asian community. In order for this to be possible， the first step is for Japans leaders to have the courage to look squarely at history.endprint

Igor Ivanov （former Secretary of the Russian Federal Security Council）： First， many countries of the region deeply distrust one another， mostly due to remaining historical grievances and troubles. Second， the states of the Asia-Pacific region are extremely diverse in terms of political， social， economic and cultural systems. Third， nationalism is on the rise in most countries of the region， from Russia and Mongolia to Japan and Viet Nam. Nationalism is often an insurmountable obstacle to true multilateral cooperation. Finally， in the Asia-Pacific region we see a clear deficit of the civil society interaction compared to many other regions of the world. The system we have in our region is dominated by states， which makes it more fragile and vulnerable to potential crises.

Keeping these liabilities of our region in mind， it seems that we should move away from traditional patterns toward a new model of security cooperation. The new model can be tested in the Asia-Pacific region and if successful can be applied in the future to other regions of the world. The new model should be based not on physical reductions of particular types of weapons， but rather on practical steps leading to more predictability， transparency and more coordination of defense pushes of major players in the region. Trust generates security， not the other way round. To have more trust， we need to know more about each others security concerns， aspirations， intentions and decisions. Needless to say， this approach will require a lot of commitment and patience.

There are some cases where this model was tested in Asia and proved to be spectacularly successful. Let me refer to the Russian-Chinese border accommodation. Together with the Chairman of the World Peace Forum， Tang Jiaxuan （former Chinese State Councilor）， I was personally involved in negotiating the settlement. I tend to believe it is one of the most explicit manifestations of the new approach to international security and major-power relations. As we know， Russia and China did not negotiate particular numbers of troops， tanks， artillery pieces， combat aircraft or helicopters to be stationed on each side of their common border. Instead they focused their efforts on building confidence， resolving the remaining territorial issues， sharing defense information， launching joint military exercises， promoting cooperation in defense industries， etc. The ultimate result of all these activities is that today， as is stated in the joint declaration signed by President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping on May 20 in Shanghai， the relations between China and Russia have reached a new level of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.endprint

Henry Kissinger（former U.S. Secretary of State）： The United States and China must play a vital role， particularly in charting a constructive pattern of relations with each other. The history of great-power interactions offers a cautionary tale in which a rising power and an established power fell into a dynamic of confrontation. In our age， such a course would prove disastrous for both sides. It would polarize the international system and preclude progress on key issues. It would encourage other nations to try to exploit the rivalry between China and the United States.

President Xi and President Barack Obama have recognized these dangers and have affirmed the commitment to a visionary alternative first put forward by President Xi， which he called a “new type of major-power relations.” This would allow for a focus on common interests， a frank discussion of differences when they arise and a commitment to pursuing competition through political， economic and cultural avenues. It is a wise vision calling for concerted elaboration from both sides. Success will be a vital contribution to a peaceful 21st century. For all these reasons， I have strongly favored the evolution of a trans-Pacific partnership in which China and the United States cooperate with other nations for a truly global world order， in which every region is a full participant and in which each country can feel that its experiences and aspirations have been accounted for.

Ma Zhengang（Vice Chairman of the China Public Diplomacy Association）： China acknowledges the role the United States has played in keeping the Asia-Pacific region stable since the end of World War II， though some of its moves have had a negative impact on China. Under its “pivot-to-Asia” policy， the United States has taken a series of steps such as increasing military deployment， strengthening ties with its allies and making “new friends，”some of which are obviously designed to hedge Chinas rise. The Chinese Government， however， has not expressed strong opposition to this policy. In Chinas view， greater U.S. involvement in the Asia-Pacific region is understandable in light of the ongoing shift of the global political and economic center of gravity to the region. It is our hope that the United States can help promote regional peace and stability and engage in positive interactions with China.

Regretfully， we have noticed that some U.S. officials deeds are inconsistent with what they have told China. For instance， at the recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore， U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel accused China of taking provocative actions and destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region. These accusations are false. Take the Diaoyu Islands for instance. When the two countries normalized diplomatic relations in the 1970s， Chinese and Japanese leaders agreed to shelve disputes over the islands. In the more than 40 years that followed， no major clashes took place. Before Japan “nationalized” the islands in 2012， China repeatedly warned that the Chinese would react strongly against Japans attempts to change the status quo. Japan， however， refused to heed Chinas plea. Given Japans violation of the two countries consensus， I think China has reason to take measures to defend its sovereignty. The United States should have known this. Instead， it blamed China out of its own strategic needs.endprint

The United States also blames China for creating an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea “unilaterally.”Indeed， things might work out better if we had consulted with others. But it should be made clear that as a step taken by a sovereign country， Chinas creation of the zone should be free from other countriesinterference. Both the United States and Japan have long established such zones. The Chinese do not see why China cannot do the same. Moreover， provocations by Japan， the Philippines and Viet Nam against China have apparently intensified since Obamas visit to Asia in April. Thats why the Chinese suspect that the United States might have done something under the counter.

Some say China has become more assertive in recent years. The fact is that in the past the country was so weak that it was often unable to defend its territorial integrity. As a result， from the 1960s to the 1980s， many islands in the South China Sea were seized by other countries. Now that China has become stronger， it is more confident about safeguarding its own sovereignty and security and will no longer allow others to grab its territories.endprint