By Professor Tommy Koh: What Asia, Europe Can Do to Fight World’s 3 Major Crises

The world is simultaneously faced with three crises: a health crisis, an economic crisis and a global governance crisis. To tackle them effectively will require countries of the world to work together to find practical common solutions.
Asia and Europe have a major role to play in this endeavour. We wish to argue, in this essay, that by acting together, the leaders of Asia and Europe can provide the world with the leadership, resolve and policy ideas. They should also enlist the support of like-minded countries in other regions of the world.

Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM)

A historic meeting took place in Bangkok, on the 1st and 2nd of March 1996. At the suggestion of the then Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, 10 leaders from Asia met with 16 leaders from Europe, to begin the process of building a new bridge connecting the two regions and their peoples. The bridge would have three pillars: (a) political; (b) economics and finance; and (c) social, cultural and educational.
The meeting also established the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), which was set up the following year and based in Singapore.
ASEF is the only institution which ASEM has established. Its mandate is to promote better mutual understanding between Asians and Europeans through intellectual, cultural and people-to-people exchanges. Over the past 23 years, ASEF has brought together more than 40,000 Asian and European participants in seminars, conferences, internships and projects covering culture, education, governance and economy, media, public health, sustainable development, human rights and civil society.
ASEM has expanded from the original 26 to 53 partners: 30 European countries and the European Commission and 21 Asian countries and the Asean Secretariat.
As a grouping, ASEM accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s population and 65 per cent of the world’s economy. It is therefore a group of countries with weight and influence. We appeal to the leaders of ASEM to rise to the challenge and provide the much-needed leadership and resolve to steer the world through its current crises.

The First Crisis

The first crisis is the health crisis. COVID-19 has caused the world’s worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu. To date, it has infected over 14 million people and killed over 600,000. The virus has spread to all parts of the world. Here is what the leaders of ASEM can do to defeat COVID-19.
First, share good practices with one another. Some ASEM partners have done better in fighting the virus than others. Those who have done well should be willing to share their best practices with other countries.
Second, ASEM should agree and persuade others not to impose restrictions on the export of personal protective equipment (PPEs) such as surgical masks, isolation gowns, gloves as well as alcohol rubs ventilators, test kits and medicines. It can also utilise the ASEF Public Health Network, which deals with capacity building and stockpiles of anti-viral drugs and PPEs.
Third, ASEM should encourage the scientists and doctors of the two regions, to share their research and to do joint research on vaccinations and therapeutics.
Fourth, if a vaccine or a cure is discovered, ASEM should agree to make it an international public good. In this way, it will become affordable and available to all the countries of the world.

The Second Crisis

The second crisis is the economic crisis. COVID-19 has essentially forced the world economy to shut down. The International Monetary Fund has stated that this economic crisis will be as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to more than a third of the world’s population being placed on lockdown, to stop the spread of the virus. There is a rapid increase in unemployment in many countries. The tourism and hospitality industries have collapsed. The energy industry has been badly hurt. Remittances have dried up. The poor and the migrant workers have suffered the most.
What can ASEM do to shorten the recession and to accelerate the recovery?
First, ASEM should agree to keep their economies open, to support free trade and regional economic integration. There is a grave danger that, because of the crisis, countries will become protectionist and will seek to de-globalise. This should be resisted, and a serious attempt made to persuade major countries beyond Asia and Europe to join in this effort.
Second, they should agree to keep their seaports and airports open. They should facilitate, not obstruct, the resumption of travel, as soon as possible and provided the necessary safety measures are observed.
Third, they should allow the market to determine the supply chains of companies and industries. Because supply chains have been disrupted during the crisis, some countries may be reluctant to restore them. Other countries may have political reasons to exclude some countries from those chains. ASEM can play a leadership role to demonstrate how inclusive and open supply chains can benefit all countries determined to do their part.
Fourth, they should use their influence to prevent international trade and technology from being split into two rival blocs: a US-centric bloc and a China-centric bloc. History has shown that rival trade and economic blocs are detrimental to all parties. ASEM should prevail on both sides to look at concrete ways to work together to address these global crises and, in the process, rebuild the trust to settle their differences peacefully.

The Third Crisis

The third crisis is the crisis of global governance. Multilateralism is under attack. Multilateral institutions, such as, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) are being undermined. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are facing challenges on several fronts. The leaders of Asia and Europe can play a valuable role in defending multilateralism and the environment.
First, ASEM should continue to strongly support multilateralism and its institutions.
Second, in the case of the WTO, ASEM’s position should be that it is for the reform of the institution. However, it will oppose any attempt to destroy the institution in the guise of reform.
Third, ASEM should support the WHO, which plays an indispensable role in safeguarding the health of the people of the world. Partners should strengthen the organisation and its finances. A higher percentage of WHO’s budget should come from the assessed contributions of member states. This will strengthen WHO’s independence and reduce its dependence on voluntary contributions.
Fourth, climate change and sustainable development should be accorded the highest priority. This is because if we don’t embrace sustainable development and fight climate change, our very existence on this planet will be in peril. ASEM must take a strong stand on these issues.

Conclusion

The world is faced with three crises simultaneously. The world is adrift because of the absence of a leader.
We appeal to the leaders of Asia and Europe, acting through ASEM, to lead the world in tackling the three crises.

Following the summit in Bangkok, Mr Goh and my boss at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Kishore Mahbubani, requested me to be the founding executive director of the Asia-Europe Foundation.u00a0 The three and a half years I spent in that job enabled me to learn, more deeply, the history of the post-war European integration project. I was particularly struck by the miracle of reconciliation, which had taken place between historic enemies, such as between France and Germany.

u00a0

ASEF: China and Japan Say No

At ASEF, I proposed convening a seminar to consider how Asia can learn from the European experience of reconciling historic enemies. To my surprise, the governors of China and Japan objected to my proposal.u00a0 When I pressed them to explain their objection, they said that their countries were not ready. In exasperation, I said that if they were not ready, more than 50 years after the Pacific War had ended, when will they be ready. In view of their objections, I had to abandon my proposal.

There will be no peace in Asia unless there is peace between China and Japan. It is therefore important for us to help those two great countries to reconcile and to live at peace with each other. I co-chair the Japan-Singapore Symposium and the China-Singapore Forum. When misunderstandings occurred between them, I had tried to explain China to Japan and Japan to China.

u00a0

Lee Kuan Yew and Kiichi Miyazawa

I once sought the advice of the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on what I could do to help China and Japan achieve a historic reconciliation. He was quite pessimistic. He told me that he had once asked the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Kiichi Miyazawa, whether the Chinese will ever forgive Japan for all the wicked things that Japan did in China, from 1931 to 1945. According to Mr Lee, Mr Miyazawau2019s reply was, u201cneveru201d.

I am an optimist. I am not prepared to accept, as inevitable, that China and Japan will never reconcile. Let us examine the three impediments to such a reconciliation: (a) the burden of history; (b) the competing ambition to lead Asia; and (c) the deficit of strategic trust.

u00a0

The Burden of History

It is a historical fact that Japan invaded China in 1931 and waged a war, from 1931 to 1945, in a failed attempt to conquer that country. It is also a fact that during those 14 years, the Japanese army committed many atrocities against the Chinese people.

In Europe, Germany was the aggressor. The German government and army had committed many crimes against the French and other victims, especially the Jews. After the war, Germany repented for all the crimes it had committed against the French people. In return, France forgave Germany. There was repentance on one side and forgiveness on the other.

Why canu2019t the same thing happen between China and Japan? China says that Japan has not repented for its wrongs. It says that all the apologies expressed by the leaders of Japan had been nuanced and had fallen short of a sincere apology. Japan denies this. It says that Japanu2019s leaders have apologized on several occasions. Prime Ministers Hosokawa and Murayama had apologized without reservations. It states that the problem is on the Chinese side. It holds the view that China will never forgive Japan, no matter how many times it apologizes.

I have often wondered why Japan finds it so hard to apologize and China finds it so hard to forgive. Why canu2019t they behave like the Germans and the French? Is there something in the character, culture and value systems of China and Japan which distinguish them from the Germans and the French? I donu2019t know the answer to the question.

u00a0

Competing Ambition to Lead Asia

The second obstacle is the competing ambition of China and Japan to be the leader of Asia. One of my previous Japanese co-chairman of the Japan-Singapore Symposium is Mr Shotaro Yachi. When he was the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan, he said that China and Japan were struggling for leadership and locked in a rivalry that would last a long time.

Both the Chinese and the Japanese believe in the saying that there can only be one tiger on a hill. Both China and Japan want to be that tiger.

Why canu2019t we see Asia as not a hill but a mountain range with several peaks? The Chinese tiger can be on top of one peak, the Japanese tiger on another and the Indian tiger on a third peak. This works as long as the Chinese tiger and the Japanese tiger are not competing to occupy the highest peak.

I would respectfully point out to both China and Japan that Asia cannot be dominated by any one country. There are three major powers on the continent, namely, China, Japan and India. An extra-regional power, the United States, claims to be a resident power of the region. It is more powerful than any of the three Asian powers. It will never allow the region to be dominated by a regional hegemon.

My advice to China and Japan is to compete but not to seek to put the other down. It should be a win-win and not a zero-sum competition. Asia is big enough to accommodate a rising China, a rising Japan and a rising India.

u00a0

Deficit of Strategic Trust

The third impediment is the deficit of strategic trust. It is unfortunately true that China does not trust Japan and Japan does not trust China. Because they donu2019t trust each other, they have tended to oppose each otheru2019s initiatives and to misread each otheru2019s intentions.

A few examples should suffice. China is opposed to Japanu2019s quest to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Japan does not support the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Belt and Road Initiative.

The Chinese suspected that the Japanese Governmentu2019s decision to nationalize the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands was intended to change the status quo. I donu2019t think this was the case. The Japanese government had nationalized those islands in order to prevent their private owners from causing trouble.

How to reduce the mistrust between China and Japan? How to promote better understanding and mutual trust between them?

I think the key question is whether the leaders of the two countries see each other as friends or as enemies. If they see each other as enemies, then the status quo will continue. However, if they see each other as friends, then many steps can be taken, at all levels, to improve understanding and to reduce distrust. At the moment, I think they see each other as frenemies, part friend and part enemy. As long as this is the case, no historic reconciliation between them will occur.

u00a0

Conclusion

Will there ever be a historic reconciliation between China and Japan? The pessimists say, never. As an optimist, I think it is possible, provided we can overcome the three obstacles I have described.