WHAT is there in a name? Commonplace indeed is the old poser, laced with a silent belief that elegance or its absence in a name does not enhance or devalue its real worth. And, this is precisely what the advocates of security-related cooperation among the competing powers in geopolitical East Asia will exclaim. The context is the formation of a new forum called the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus).
With 18 countries in its fold, the ADMM-Plus forum was launched in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, on October 12. The 10-member ASEAN forms the physical nucleus of this forum. The other eight ADMM-Plus members Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea (as South Korea is known), Russia, and the United States are expected to add political value.
Vietnam, famous for its struggle against U.S. imperialism during the Cold War era, hosted the first-ever ADMM-Plus conference. Such a political nicety was possible because Vietnam is the present Chair of ASEAN. No less significant was the topical reality that the meeting brought together Defence Ministers from the U.S. and China, now seen to be drifting apart on a range of issues, including peace and stability in East Asia. A relevant question is why ADMM-Plus should be known by this complicated name. More appropriate will be a name with an Asia-Pacific or East Asian adjective. However, the Pacific nations, with the sole exception of the U.S, are not players with direct relevance to peace and stability in East Asia. Moreover, ASEAN has invited New Delhi for its perceived importance to a future global order, although India does not fit into East Asia or the Pacific Rim as a geographical entity.
The complicated nomenclature issue reflects the complexity of geopolitical East Asia, where the U.S. has consistently portrayed itself as a resident power. Unsurprisingly, the inaugural ADMM-Plus conference was suffused with general commitments to peace and security rather than a doable plan of action.
During the Cold War, the U.S.-led West and the Soviet bloc tried to contain each other, without either Washington or Moscow seeking a visible role inside the other's camp. Each bloc was wary of infiltration and subversion by the other side. But Washington was not an accredited member of Moscow's club and vice versa. The U.S. and the Soviet Union practised an essentially external containment of each other.
In striking contrast, there is a perception in East Asia that the U.S. is now trying to checkmate the rise of China in its immediate neighbourhood too. This can be seen as a form of internal containment. China does not belong to or preside over a bloc in the same way that the U.S. and the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. However, the Chinese authorities do regard East Asia as their natural home. To this extent, China is suspicious of the claims that the U.S. is a resident power in East Asia.
Beijing's view, after a meeting between Defence Minister Liang Guanglie and his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates in Hanoi on October 11, is reflected, as follows, in the circles of the ruling Communist Party of China: China is pledged to rise peacefully; perhaps the U.S. can make a similar peaceful declaration.
New Delhi sees the ADMM-Plus process as a confidence-building exercise that covers all the major state-players relevant to peace and stability in India's extended neighbourhood. Defence Minister A. K. Antony, representing India at the Hanoi conference, expressed India's support for ASEAN's new security initiative. And, in the process, India sought to spread its wings in East Asia by firming up new links of defence cooperation with Vietnam.
P.S. Suryanarayana in SingaporeCOMMents
COMMents
SHARE