THE 7th IISS ASIA SECURITY SUMMIT
SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE
Singapore
Friday 30 May 2008
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, Singapore
Lee-Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, Singapore
Professor Francois Heisbourg, Chairman of the IISS, Dr John Chipman, Director of IISS, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Singapore and to the 7th Shangri-La Dialogue. Since our last meeting, we have had an eventful year of turbulence and rising global challenges.
The Middle East remains a source of tension and instability affecting the whole world. Iran is pressing on with its nuclear programme, against the objections of the international community. This is shifting the balance of power in the region, and raising the risk of proliferation and conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process remains deadlocked with little prospect of progress. In Iraq, the troop surge has improved security, although a more enduring resolution of the intra-Iraq contending factions remains elusive. In Afghanistan, the security outlook has been marred with continuing violence. Efforts to support nation building and to stabilise the whole region will continue to test the political will of the peoples of America and the NATO countries.
In Asia too, there have been significant security developments, but the overall strategic environment remains benign. In North Korea, the Six Party Talks to contain the nuclear situation have achieved some results. Realistically, progress will be slow because Pyongyang believes that this is the deterrent capability which ensures its continued existence, and which is the only way for the world, particularly America, to take them seriously. However, the situation is manageable even if definitive solutions are hard to come by in the short term.
Within the region, relations between the key powers – China, Japan and India – remain stable and constructive. China is playing an increasingly crucial role in both regional and global affairs. It has made progress with its political renewal. It held its 17th Party Congress last October, and elected a new leadership team, including potential successors. However, there has been no change in China’s economic policies, which are still pro-reform and pro-growth. At the same time, China is putting more emphasis on sustainable development, environmental concerns and social equity. On the diplomatic front, China has stepped up its engagement with the UN Security Council, and its participation in peacekeeping operations. It has contingents all over the world: in East Timor, Kosovo, Darfur and elsewhere.
China’s relations with Japan are warming up. Prime Minister Fukuda of Japan is continuing with former Prime Minister Abe’s policy of engaging China and cooperating with them. Following last year’s exchange of visits - Mr Fukuda went to China and Mr Wen Jiabao went to Tokyo – President Hu Jintao made a ‘warm spring’ state visit to Tokyo this year. It is the first by a General Secretary since Jiang Zemin’s acrimonious trip a decade ago in 1998. Both sides want to move forward and build constructive relations, despite their unreconciled views of history and unresolved bilateral issues. In Tokyo, Mr Hu said that there should be no grudges between the two neighbours, and that history was a ‘mirror to look forward to the future’. Mr Fukuda responded that both countries must ‘constantly deepen mutual understanding and mutual confidence’. This pragmatic approach bodes well for improved bilateral relations and, more broadly, for improved stability in East Asia.
Cross-straits relations between China and Taiwan are also set to improve with the election of Dr Ma Ying-Jeou of the Kuomintang as the President in Taiwan. Dr Ma has taken a radically different approach from his predecessor, President Chen Shui-bian of the DPP. President Chen had distanced Taiwan from China, slowed down investments and trade, and sought to create a distinct and separate cultural, linguistic and national identity, and political entity. However, there has been a decisive shift in attitudes in Taiwan. Nearly 60% of the electorate voted for President Ma because they realised that years of pushing the envelope on independence have seriously strained relations with the mainland, caused Taiwan to be left behind, and, furthermore, upset the United States. Instead they now want to maintain the status quo of ‘no reunification, no independence and no conflict’, to develop constructive relations with China, and to foster a more prosperous economy. President Hu Jintao has just had a high profile meeting with Mr Wu Poh-Hsiung, the Chairman of the Kuomintang in Beijing, and he stated clearly that China is willing to work with the new leaders in Taiwan to resume dialogue and to build trust in each other. On political matters, however, China will be cautious, calibrating its moves. Meanwhile, it will closely monitor President Ma’s actions and the trend of ‘Taiwanisation’, whether its purpose is more an emphasis on local customs and practices, or the creation of an identity separate and distinct from the common heritage of the ‘peoples of Chinese descent’.
Besides China, India’s weight in regional affairs continues to grow. In maritime security, India’s reach now extends from the Indian Ocean to the Straits of Malacca and beyond. On the economic front, India has a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement (CECA) with Singapore, which is effectively a free trade agreement, and is negotiating free trade agreements with ASEAN and with other regional partners. India’s ‘soft power’ is also growing, with Bollywood movies and Indian fashion gaining popularity abroad, and indeed having considerable followings in Singapore. Nearer home, India is keen to improve relations with its immediate neighbours, particular with Pakistan, which is just emerging from a period of political turbulence. The two countries have resumed their dialogue on the issue of Kashmir after a six-month break. They both recognise that resolving this longstanding dispute will take time, but also that the dispute over Pakistan should not hold back cooperation in other areas.
This generally benign political landscape has helped to foster a closer regional network of cooperation. Southeast Asian countries are progressing towards closer integration with the signing of the ASEAN Charter and the creation, or at least the targeted creation of an Economic Community by 2015. Both of which happened in Singapore in November last year. In the broader region, ASEAN+3, which means plus China, Japan and Korea, has become an established process for concrete cooperation, including mechanisms for economic and financial surveillance. The East Asia Summit, which is ASEAN+6 – ASEAN+3 plus India, Australia and New Zealand – is also developing substance, starting with areas like energy security and the proposal to revive the ancient Nalanda University. The balance between these two groupings is still evolving, but the shape of the regional architecture of cooperation is beginning to form.
In the coming year, I envisage a continuation of some of the issues we are confronting today, but, naturally, also new challenges and uncertainties. One major unknown is who the next US President will be. We in Asia are following the campaign closely because the critical issues of war and peace, of prosperity and scarcity, all hinge on its outcome. Singapore has no votes, but we have our wish list. Whoever wins in November, I hope that he or she will do the following: uphold America’s commitment to globalisation, free trade, and international rules; pursue constructive relations with China and other major powers; actively cultivate America’s vital and diverse interests in the Asia Pacific, especially in Southeast Asia; remain steadfast in the fight against terrorism; and therefore take a long-term approach towards Iraq and Afghanistan.
America’s role is especially crucial in engaging a rising Asia and integrating it into the global system. The emerging powers in Asia should have greater stakes in the existing international order. International cooperation is also key to tackling non traditional security threats, such as food shortages or natural disasters, which are increasingly trans border in character. Let me now discuss three of these issues.
The first imperative is to uphold an open, globalised system that promotes economic interdependence between countries. The greater our stakes in one another’s success, the more incentive countries have to cooperate, and to uphold a stable world order which fosters growth and prosperity for all, and the higher the price will be of non cooperation of conflict. However, globalisation also confronts countries with daunting challenges. Spreading the benefits of globalisation widely among the populations is a considerable task. In many developed countries, income gaps are widening. At the top they are zooming away. As someone told me, it is the different between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have yachts’. It is stagnating in the middle; at the bottom sometimes conditions are getting worse. Job insecurity, immigration and economic restructuring all contribute to a pervasive sense of insecurity amongst workers. They feel helplessly caught up in the process of change, rather than being beneficiaries of a bigger economic pie. Even those not personally affected or vulnerable feel uneasy that closer interdependence may mean becoming vulnerable to foreign powers that may not be benign: buying up your companies, supplying you with important natural resources, and making you more dependent on them than they are dependent on you. Hence the angst and debate about sovereign wealth funds. All this is fuelling deep discontentment with globalisation, and provoking nationalistic and protectionist sentiments around the world.
These issues confront countries everywhere. Governments therefore need to address the anxieties of workers, help more people to become winners, and so build a broad consensus supporting globalisation and prosperity, while resisting protectionism and xenophobia. If countries pursue ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies or erect barriers against one another, not only will we all be economically worse off, but frictions and rivalry between countries and between regions will become harder to contain.
The mood in the developed countries is defensive, partly because the emergence of Asia is shifting the balance of power. However, Asia’s growth is not a zero-sum game. Over the next 25 years, Asia’s growth will contribute to a doubling of the global economy, and open up a whole range of opportunities for many countries. It is in the vital interests of the status quo powers of the developed world to accommodate a rising Asia and to engage the region constructively. For their part, Asian countries are becoming more and more interlinked with the rest of the world. As this happens, they will have bigger stakes in the international system and will have to take greater responsibilities in world affairs.
The most important player in Asia is China. The Olympic Games in August will be China’s coming out party to celebrate its progress, its transformation, and its opening up to the world. If carried off well, it will boost China’s confidence, and help China to continue liberalising and opening up. However, if handled badly, it will stir up deep and angry nationalist sentiments within China, and fuel fears and suspicions of China in other countries, with serious long term consequences.
The disruptions to the Olympic torch relay in Europe and the US last month illustrate how things can go wrong. Tibetan activist groups deliberately seized this golden PR opportunity to embarrass China and to press their case. They systematically organised aggressive demonstrations and protests along the route to capture the attention of the media, and to secure propaganda success. Sometimes pro China groups organised counter-demonstrations to fly the flag and they clashed. Images of these clashes were beamed live around the world. In the West, they influenced public opinion against China and the Games. However, in China and in Hong Kong, these same images sparked outrage and sharp nationalist reactions, especially amongst young Chinese, who flooded internet bulletin boards and chat rooms with virulent anti-foreign sentiments. Some more sober heads in China have criticised this over-reaction, and lamented how easily parts of China’s public debate could so suddenly seem to have gone back to the name-calling and vilification which was the norm during the Cultural Revolution. The sense of national pride and desire to mount a successful Olympics is sincere and passionately felt. It has deep historical roots in the two centuries of weakness and humiliation of China, and the awareness that now at last China is becoming strong again.
The international community needs to understand the strength of these gut emotions in Chinese society and in the collective psyche. At the same time, the Chinese people need to develop a sense of their new place and power in the world, and to learn how to engage the West with measured confidence. This process will take time on both sides.
For now, the issue of the Olympic torch has been pushed off the headlines, partly because the torch is now in China, but also because of the Sichuan earthquake. However, managing the Olympics continues to pose a major challenge for China. More unexpected incidents could arise, even during the Games themselves. How China handles them, and how the world responds, will have a big impact on the strategic success of the Beijing Olympics. Beyond the Olympics, the broader question is whether narrow interest groups will succeed in defining the international agenda on China, or whether both China and the West can rise above these vexing issues to pursue the strategic opportunities together. This, in turn, will strongly influence whether China’s emergence will unsettle the international order, or whether China succeeds in its path of peaceful integration with the rest of the world.
Besides a peaceful ordering of global power structures and institutions, countries must also work together to tackle trans-border common security challenges. One immediate issue of concern is food. People have long worried about food shortages, resulting from population growth outpacing food production. Human ingenuity has deferred this Malthusian prediction for more than 200 years, but it could still happen in the future. On the demand side, the world population is steadily increasing. Furthermore, with Asia’s rise, hundreds of millions of people are becoming more affluent and, as one minister put it to me, ‘They used to eat one meal a day. Now they eat two meals a day.’ That makes an enormous difference to their poorer compatriots and to poor people in many other countries in the third world. On the supply side, misconceived green policies to subsidise bio-fuels are encouraging farmers to grow corn for fuel instead of food, and squeeze the supply of food. In the longer term, gradually, climate change will lead to more extreme weather conditions, and likely reduce the supply of fresh water and arable land.
Over the next year or so, food prices may moderate with better harvests. In the longer term, the trends towards tighter supplies and higher prices will likely reassert
themselves. This has serious security implications. The impact of a chronic food shortage will be felt especially by the poor countries. The stresses from hunger and famine can easily result in social upheaval and civil strife, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states. Between countries, competition for food supplies and displacement of people across borders could deepen tensions and provoke conflict and wars.
We are already experiencing a small foretaste of this today. The recent sharp rise in food prices, particularly rice prices, has led to riots and unrest in several developing countries. In vulnerable areas, such as in Darfur and Bangladesh, large numbers of people are moving across borders, often illegally, in search of food and water. It becomes part of the game. As one country says, ‘I am being blackmailed by my neighbours. They say, “Sell me one million tonnes at the friendship price or I will send you one million refugees”’.
Even without a food crisis, movements of people like this have raised tensions and caused serious problems, as you can see in South Africa with the vicious xenophobic attacks on immigrants fleeing unstable regimes and desperate poverty in their home countries; from Lesotho, from Zimbabwe, and so on. They are now having to flee home because South Africans feel threatened and have viciously attacked them. In the event of a global food crisis, all of this will play out on a much bigger scale across the globe.
To avert a serious problem, we need a multilateral cooperative effort. Individual countries need to upgrade productivity and infrastructure in their farm sectors. International agencies like the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation need to promote research and development in agro-technologies to develop higher-yielding and climate-resistant crop varieties using the full power of modern bioscience, and, inevitably, using genetic modification techniques. Through the Doha Round, countries must work together to keep agricultural trade free and fair. Only then will farmers everywhere have the right market signals and incentives to produce more food to meet increased demand. If countries pursue greater self-sufficiency and try to keep food production and food output within their own borders, they will cause greater international tensions because the prices will become more unstable, food importers will scramble to secure their own supplies, and poor countries will suffer not just greater privation, but famine and starvation.
Besides food, a second challenge requiring international cooperation is the provision of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. This is what the trade calls ‘HADR’. Such situations call for prompt and effective action. The overriding priority is to save the lives of victims and casualties, but the responses of governments also have broader implications for both domestic politics and foreign policy, especially when international assistance is involved, and especially when military forces have to be applied. In Asia, this issue has been brought to the forefront with two major natural disasters within the last month.
The massive earthquake in Sichuan province has been China’s worst earthquake disaster in decades. The last time a major earthquake struck the city of Tangshan was in 1976, and the Chinese government was slow to react. It played down the disaster and rebuffed offers of help from the outside world, reflecting the attitudes of Soviet style societies during the Cold War. However, this time, the government responded with a relief effort unprecedented in speed and scale. Within hours, it had mobilised more than 100,000 troops, police and medical workers to the worst-hit areas.
Premier Wen Jiabao himself flew immediately to the disaster area to direct operations and to comfort the injured. This was all shown on television state wide and worldwide. This state response was matched by a spontaneous outpouring of compassion and support from the Chinese people. They rushed to donate aid to the victims, and converged in large numbers on the quake zone, providing food, shelter and medical treatment in makeshift refugee camps. The crisis rallied the whole country together in a tremendous sense of national solidarity, pride and public spirit.
It is not just China’s self-image that has changed; media coverage of the quake has also presented a different face of China to the world. Satellite TV and the internet carried wrenching images of devastation and suffering, and dramatic footage of soldiers and rescue workers wading through mud and gore to help the victims; working by side by side with international NGOs and foreign rescue teams. Japan was the first country to send rescue workers to China, and the first country from which China accepted such help. It was a gesture of goodwill on both sides that will not have gone unnoticed. Rescue teams from Russia, Korea, Singapore and others followed soon after. The whole rescue operation was an extraordinary feat.
This is a China the world has never seen before: a sympathetic view of a country in transition, confronting enormous problems, but also mustering huge energies and unexpected capabilities, as well as displaying a shared humanity. The Sichuan earthquake showed how much China has changed, and it offered a glimpse of its future: a more open and self confident nation. The political aftershocks from this defining moment in China’s history will be felt long after the ground has ceased to tremble.
The other major natural disaster was Cyclone Nargis which struck Southern Myanmar 10 days before the Sichuan earthquake. The devastation in the Irrawaddy Delta is almost on the same scale as the devastation in the Aceh province in Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004. Then, Aceh was able to recover and rebuild itself through the massive foreign assistance by the US and many other countries, delivered mostly through their military forces, including aircraft carriers, LSDs, helicopters and troops on the ground.
However, there was a political consequence. The foreign military assistance convinced the GAM separatist movement in Aceh – the GAM separatists – as well as the population of Aceh that their separatist movement was not result in independence. No country would support them; they could not go it alone; they had to negotiate with the central government for autonomy. They did this and it settled a civil war. Aceh is now at peace, more or less. There were therefore political consequences.
Myanmar is one of the poorest countries in the world, with limited capabilities and resources, and millions living in extreme poverty. Yet after Cyclone Nargis, the Myanmar government was extremely reluctant to accept help from abroad. Until very recently, it declined to allow foreign aid personnel to operate at all in the disaster areas, and insisted on channelling all relief supplies through its own channels. Until today, it continues to decline offers by many countries to deploy military equipment and personnel for relief operations.
From the humanitarian standpoint, every day lost means more avoidable casualties and more unconscionable human suffering. The frustration of the international community at Myanmar’s refusal to let them act faster and do more is completely understandable. However, from the perspective of Myanmar’s domestic politics, the actions of the government should come as no surprise. The military leaders surely know that foreign aid will save lives and help to rebuild the devastated areas, but they also fear the political consequences of opening up the disaster zone to international aid teams. This might show up their own incapacity and undermine their credibility and legitimacy. They are also highly suspicious of humanitarian aid serving as a camouflage for a ‘regime change’ agenda, especially when some countries have talked openly about invoking a ‘responsibility to protect’ and mounting relief operations without the host government’s permission.
It is regrettable that the Myanmar government has responded in this way. Myanmar’s partners in ASEAN have all been deeply concerned by the massive suffering of the victims, which a more rapid international relief operation could have minimised. ASEAN has taken the initiative, working together with the UN, to strongly encourage the Myanmar authorities to be more open about accepting humanitarian aid and allowing in foreign rescue and medical teams. These efforts have achieved some results, and we hope that they will continue to bear fruit. More can still be done.
In any natural disaster, we must acknowledge these realities, and work out effective ways to cooperate to save lives, doing the best possible under the circumstances. This is why it is important to have a continuous process of dialogue and engagement among the countries to build confidence, mutual understanding and trust. Governments must learn to work together on humanitarian assistance and relief efforts, as they already do in other non-traditional security areas, like maritime security and counter-terrorism. Within the region, we can leverage on existing structures, such as ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), so that when disaster strikes, countries can respond swiftly, and deliver relief supplies and aid to the affected people and areas as quickly as possible.
The challenges of our time are more complex and multifaceted than ever before: adjusting to the rise of China and India, integrating Asia into the global order, and dealing with the rising scale of trans-border threats, like food shortages, natural disasters and climate change. All of these add up to a full agenda for Asia and for the world. Amidst these challenges lie great opportunities: to reshape international institutions and norms, and to reframe the regional architecture to collaborate more effectively and to build more enduring partnerships.
In this global endeavour, America’s leadership continues to be indispensable. Dynamic and vibrant as it is, Asia will continue to depend critically on its links with the US and other developed countries. At the same time, the rising Asian countries will have to do their part as responsible stakeholders, and shoulder their fair share of the burden in the international system. We must work together across continents and across countries to reach a consensus on the big issues, and to make our interdependence work for the benefit of all. Thank you very much.
Questions and Answers
Dr Chipman
Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for that masterly survey, and, if I may say so, for not skirting any of the sensitive and difficult subjects that will be discussed in even more detail, I am sure, over the next two days. The Prime Minister has agreed to take one or two questions. I will ask the first question.
Prime Minister, on a couple of occasions, you referred to the rise of India and China. These are subjects that the Chairman of the IISS also mentioned. In the rise of these two great powers simultaneously as one of the truisms of contemporary international affairs, and which is seen as so inevitable as to be only answerable to the laws of physics, if you speak to Indians and Chinese, they both believe that the future belongs to them. Can they both be right?
Lee Hsien Loong
I think they will both have great futures, but the future will belong to neither of them. The world is a big place. Asia is an important part of it, but Asia is not all of it. America will continue to play an important role. It is the most powerful economy and will be so for decades to come. Europe ought to play an important role. Its potential is there, but it depends on how the European enterprise fairs in becoming more coherent and in developing a strategic view of its position in the international system. Within this framework, the Chinese and the Indians can prosper, and other much smaller countries, including Singapore, can also prosper.
Major General Anm Muniruzzaman
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for a wonderful exposition of the security landscape of Asia and beyond. Prime Minister, allow me to make a comment and to ask you a question. I am the President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies. My first comment is about your comment about Bangladesh creating food refugees. Bangladesh is under stress, such as many of the third world countries, due to increasing food prices around the world, but Bangladesh has not yet created any food refugees. We are happy not to be in the league of regions such as Darfur.
My question to you, Prime Minister, is that you eloquently mentioned the rise of China and how China’s peaceful rise in international affairs should be a matter of fact and that we should adjust to it. I see, with increasing concern, that the so called ‘democratic five’ or the arc of freedom of prosperity, and their recent naval exercise in the Indian Ocean of the Malabar, have created not only concerns in China, but also in other countries in the region. Do you think such an exclusive arrangement[?] of countries in the region is conducive to the peaceful rise of China and how we accommodate this or will this be something that is played out negatively in the perception of the rise of China? Would it be instrumental in creating something like a new contentment in our region? Thank you.
Lee Hsien Loong
First of all, thank you for correcting the impression which I may have given that Bangladesh produces food refugees. I did not say that. I said that there had been refugees from Bangladesh, which I think is true. I think that if there is a food crisis, this will be a problem, not just for Bangladesh but for many countries around the world.
On China, I do not think any containment strategy is going to be assayed, nor will it succeed. None of the countries in the region wants to take sides between China and an adversary. We all hope to see China and America developing constructive relations. That is why I put that as one of the items on my wish list of a new American president: to be able to develop this relationship with China. The trade links are there, the investment links are there, the shared interest in many international issues, including global warming, and the stability in the Asia Pacific, is there. Therefore, there is an interest in working together to deal with the problems which are inevitably going to arise, whether it is a renminbi exchange rate, whether it is a trade deficit, whether it is human rights, the flow of intellectual property or whatever. Within the context of a relationship which is sound, these are issues to be discussed between countries which are not at loggerheads. On that basis, there is room for countries in Asia to be friends with both sides. This is what we earnestly wish to do.
Robert D Blackwill
Prime Minister, thank you very much for a majestic presentation. In the context of what you had to say, what worries you most about the future of Asian security? What scenarios might develop which would threaten the stability which you eloquently described? Is there anything that keeps you awake at night?
Lee Hsien Loong
Many things keep me awake at night. Something can go ‘bump’ elsewhere in the world, such as in the Middle East, in Iran. That would certainly affect us. Or, for that matter, Israel and Palestine continue to radiate tension all around the world, including to Southeast Asia and East Asia. Something could go ‘bump’ within the Asian region, such as in North Korea. Fortunately, the cross straits situation looks as though it will not run into difficulty any time soon. It is heading in the right direction. There could be a terrorist incident on a massive scale. Such things can never be ruled out. It could be a problem with globalisation. If attitudes towards globalisation change; if America becomes inward looking and protectionist; if the Europeans decide that they do not have a stake in a rising Asia. Therefore, instead of the rising economies being integrated peacefully into the world system, they force their way in. That would mean big trouble.
Some of you may have watched the series called ‘The Rise of Great Powers.’ It consisted of 12 programmes, produced by a Chinese producer and it was shown in China. It was widely discussed. It studied many of the empires and powers from over the last half millennium; how they rose, what difficulties they ran into, the wars and the conflicts. It started with the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British, the Soviets, and so on. The conclusion was that they went into trouble, such as the Germans, because they went to the route of expansion and assertion. This is a dead end. You must use the route of cooperation, peaceful commerce, and you must integrate into the national order. That is the way forward for China.
It was not an official position. A director made the series. I presume it had approbation, otherwise it would not have been shown on CCTV. It is a thoughtful view of a power which is aware of the difficulties ahead, and which is thinking carefully about doing things in a sustainable way. I discussed this with one of the senior leaders, who at that time was in a province. I said to him, ‘You say that you are not going to exercise hegemony ever. I believe you, but how do I know it will last?’ He said, ‘We are not going to do it. I said, ‘Well you may say you are not going to do it, but what about your grandchildren? How can you speak for your grandchildren?’ He said, ‘Well, I cannot say forever, but I can say that, for the next 50 years, China cannot afford war. We need peace; we need to grow; we need to develop. If there is conflict we are in trouble and my children and grandchildren need to know that.’
If those are the mindsets in China – and I am sure that similar calculations must be in India – then there is a good chance that we will not have to take sides. That is the best outcome.
John Chipman
Prime Minister, you have whetted our appetites wonderfully for the substantive discussions we have before us this weekend. Thank you very much indeed.
