FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
November 2008
Affirming Democracy As An Asian Value
By Rana Siu Inboden
In Sept. 7, 2007, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Sydney, U.S. President George W. Bush called for the formation of a new regional organization in which "free nations will work together to support democratic values, strengthen democratic institutions, and assist those who are working to build and sustain free societies across the Asia Pacific region." Soon thereafter, Australia, Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, the United States and East Timor joined together to form the Asia Pacific Democracy Partnership (APDP), Asia's first regional democracy organization. While the APDP is still in its infancy, its existence creates uncomfortable questions for authoritarian rulers in the region who claim that democracy, human rights and rule of law are "Western values" that are irrelevant to Asia.
"The best thing that APDP can achieve is the further consolidation and spread of these norms as 'Asian values,'" notes Georgetown University professor, Michael Green, who as senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council played a role in establishing the APDP. Moreover, the APDP could influence not just values, but behavior as well. The maturing of democratic values in the region could shape the international conduct of Asia's democracies as countries increasingly align their actions with their democratic identity.
The spread of democratization in Asia, the geopolitics of the region, and remaining challenges to liberty underscore the value of an Asian caucus of nations anchored by democratic values. While Asia's economic dynamism is manifest, and while it has seen numerous democratic transitions in recent years, including South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines in the 1980s, and Mongolia and Indonesia more recently, for the region these successes exist alongside acute challenges. These include the relative weakness of multilateral institutions and regional architecture, the persistence of authoritarianism in several regimes, and efforts by nations such as China and Vietnam to forge a development model that delinks economic growth from political liberalization.
Meanwhile, Asia's democracies are beginning to put greater emphasis on democracy promotion. Several established democracies also began explicitly linking the expansion of democracy in the region with regional stability and their own national interests. According to a former U.S. government official who helped design the APDP, "Asia's democracies began to see that the most reliable neighbors on a range of issues, from economics to the environment, were likely to be those with accountable governments and democratic structures."
Alongside these positive trends in Asia, the formation of a caucus of regional democracies committed to democratic ideals has long been a U.S. foreign-policy goal. The Clinton administration discussed the idea of a Center for Asian Democracy with India. Even before assuming office, in 1999 Mr. Bush began envisioning such an organization.
Despite the trend of Asian nations embracing democracy promotion, getting the APDP off the ground required significant U.S. leadership. Throughout 2007, the U.S. quietly approached several Asian democracies to gauge interest and solicit ideas on how to shape the APDP. Initial reactions were mixed, ranging from enthusiasm to reticence. Most countries did not want to alienate China and voiced unease with any regional grouping that could be perceived as a power bloc targeted at China. India was ambivalent about how much of a strategic presence it wanted to maintain in East Asia. Several countries also stressed that they did not want the initiative to be seen as merely an instrument of the U.S. At the same time, all appreciated the value in Asian democracies organizing themselves on the basis of a common commitment to democratic ideals and actions.
The APDP gained momentum in, of all places, Mali. In November, 2007, Mali hosted the Community of Democracies Ministerial, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte convened a side meeting with delegates from Asia-Pacific democracies. Following up on Mr. Bush's APEC-speech two months earlier, Mr. Negroponte encouraged these nations to take the next steps in forming the APDP. They discussed a structure and action plan, and agreed that it should be set up as an informal partnership rather than a formal organization. As a result, member countries are not bound by legal obligations or agreements. Rather the APDP is action-oriented, based on shared values and common interests in promoting democracy through voluntary initiatives and specific programs. For example, the first formal APDP project was a joint mission to observe Mongolia's parliamentary elections in June 2008.
A governmental source close to the initiative reports that the future activities being considered by the APDP include observing other upcoming elections in the region, including Bangladesh, Fiji and Micronesia. And at the Senior Officials' Meeting in Seoul at the end of October, delegates addressed substantive and organization issues, such as mandate, structure, membership criteria and future activities. Future projects are likely to include conducting election-observations, offering election-related assistance, holding democracy-related workshops and training, and developing election-observation guidelines. The APDP is as much a resource for its own members as for nondemocracies.
Over time, many would like to see the APDP become a source of moral suasion for democratic values within the region, drawing semidemocracies closer to democratic ideals and convincing nondemocracies of the benefits of political reform. Although the partnership is a long way from voting as a bloc on United Nations human-rights resolutions, with maturation and time the APDP could speak with a united voice on democracy and human-rights issues in Asia.
Developing clear and meaningful membership criteria will be one of the partnership's first challenges. The APDP has not yet established clear guidelines to determine if a country qualifies as a democracy. The APDP could look to the guidelines used by the Community of Democracies and the European Union. Lack of rigorous membership criteria could hurt the APDP's credibility if soft authoritarian or semidemocratic countries are allowed to join. In some cases, membership decisions appear to be arbitrary. While both the Philippines and Singapore are rated as "partly free" by Freedom House, the Philippines was invited to join while Singapore was not. Rigorous membership criteria is important because APDP membership may itself be a democratizing force as countries that do not want to be kept out of the partnership undertake reforms in order to join the APDP.
Chee Soon Juan, an opposition figure and democracy activist in Singapore, notes that "as much as Singapore wants not to be pressured into political change, it craves the legitimacy in the eyes of the democratic world, if only for trade purposes," and that exclusion from the APDP could be an effective way to urge democratic change in the country. "Singapore, more than any other autocratic country in Asia, can make that successful transition to democracy because it has all the ingredients necessary. This can only happen if the international community supports local groups to achieve this goal."
A lack of rigorous criteria could also complicate determining when democratic backsliding warrants asking an APDP member to withdraw. For example, if the cycle of military coups and the use of extraconstitutional means to oust leaders continues, would Thailand be asked to leave the APDP? While the group seeks to restrict membership to democracies, it has tried to be inclusive by including some transitional countries to participate as observers. Thailand was only invited to join the partnership once it ended military rule and returned to elected government. Malaysia, also rated "partly free" by Freedom House, was invited to participate in a recent Senior Officials' Meeting in Seoul as an observer.
Then there is the question of Taiwan. Although Taiwan has become increasingly active in democracy promotion, including establishing the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, it has not yet been invited to join the APDP. The former U.S. official revealed that "there was a concern that bringing Taiwan into the partnership at the beginning would be perceived as hostile by China, cause the other participants to be squeamish, and kill the APDP in its infancy." Taiwan's use of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy and other democracy promotion activities to advance its own recognition agenda underscores the difficulty of involving Taiwan. However, given the APDP's purposes and loose organizational structure, Taiwan's eventual participation could materialize.
Despite the exclusion of Taiwan and efforts to present the APDP as nonthreatening, China is still wary of it. In comments to the media following the announcement of the APDP last year, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer tried to ease Chinese concerns, stressing that the APDP should not be seen as a security alliance and should not "cause any offense to China." According to a former U.S. government official, "China is quietly unhappy about the APDP and has tried to pressure other countries not to join." APDP members are likely to seek to assuage Chinese concerns by being transparent, including briefing China on its intentions and offering the group's resources in a nonthreatening way.
The success of the APDP will depend on many variables, including the political health of many of its own members. As Columbia University political scientist Andrew Nathan notes, "democracies throughout the region are suffering from low performance which is undermining public support." Unless Asia's existing democracies perform better they will not be successful catalysts for democratic change. Another important factor will be the extent to which APDP members increasingly define themselves and their foreign-policy interests in terms of democratic ideals.
The partnership's future also depends on APDP countries playing an active role and taking ownership of the organization. "If it is seen as an Asian initiative over time, that would be critical," notes Mr. Green. In particular, active participation and leadership from more established democracies, including Japan, South Korea and India will strengthen the APDP while the U.S., Australia and Canada play supporting roles. Finally, given the instrumental role that the Bush administration played in developing the APDP, a key question will be whether the administration of President-elect Barack Obama will continue to support it.
While the APDP itself originated during the Bush administration, its establishment is consistent with long-term U.S. interests in Asia, and the idea of a regional grouping anchored by democratic principles predates the Bush administration. Even if the next U.S. administration does not embrace the APDP, the ownership and leadership that Asian members have already displayed suggest that the APDP will survive.
A more immediate test for the APDP will be its ability to address Burma. The APDP could provide a platform for concerned countries to coordinate diplomatic approaches and bring collective political pressure to bear on the military junta. However, this will be a challenge as several members, in particular India and Thailand, are reluctant to pressure the Burmese junta.
Another useful role the APDP could play is to attract greater resources, attention, and funding for democracy consolidation in Asia. Some observers argue that insufficient resources and support for democracy consolidation in Asia are largely to blame for the lack of progress. "Because there was little attention paid, many new democracies have now backslided or made absolutely no progress Also, funds for training and advocacy for human rights ngos have also dried up leaving many initiatives and plans in the lurch," notes Dr. Chee. "Training of activists, election officials, political parties, lawyers, media personnel was taking place years ago but have been noticeably slowed down."
While the APDP is still defining itself, its formation signifies an important step toward democratic ideals being embraced as "Asian values" and democracy and human rights being seen as relevant to Asia. Mr. Green points out that "Asians helping Asians will be far more effective than Americans telling Asians what is good for them." Finally, the APDP makes it difficult for Asia's autocrats to hide behind the argument that human rights and democracy are not "Asian values." As Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong, notes "The development of democracy in other parts of Asia is bound to raise questions about why we can't have it. Look at Bhutan. If they can have democracy, why can't the people of Hong Kong?"
---
Ms. Inboden is an independent consultant for governance and rule of law projects. She previously worked on Asia policy at the U.S. State Department.
Bản lưu trên Viet-studies
http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/FEER_affirming_democracy_as_an_asian.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment