Introduction

The United States of America is a very complicated country.  Although I have spent over 20 years of my life in that country, I am frequently surprised and puzzled by events in that country.  This essay is an attempt to understand the 2020 elections which have been won by President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. I should add that President Donald Trump has not conceded defeat and intends to challenge the results in the courts. 

Blue States and Red States

The Democratic Party is represented by the colour blue.  The Republican Party is represented by the colour red.  A very striking feature of the election result, is that the 3 states on the west coast and the 10 states on the northeast coast, are blue states.  The reason is probably that the people on the two coasts are better educated, more cosmopolitan and liberal.  This is why most of them voted for the Democratic Party.

Why is the South Coloured Red?

Another striking feature is that most of the states in the south, which were part of the confederacy during the Civil War, are red states.  Georgia is the only exception to the rule.  Historically, the southern states were blue states.  However, when Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, decided to end segregation in the south, and introduced the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the south felt betrayed by the Democratic Party.  As a result, all of them switched their allegiance to the Republican Party.  The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, has forgotten his legacy and become the champion of the white voters.

Why are most of the states between the two coasts are red states?

It is also very striking that most of the states between the two coasts are red states?  Is there an explanation for the phenomenon?  I think there is. The people who live in the middle of the country tend to be more conservative than those living on the two coasts.  They also tend to be more religious.  Many of the Americans who live in the rural America and in the west, tend to own guns and hunt for recreation.  The Republican Party has weaponised Christianity against the Democratic Party.  It has also embraced the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby.  To understand this better, please read Joe Bageant’s excellent book, Hunting with Jesus.

Urban and Rural Voters

There is another interesting phenomenon.  It is the political divide between the voters living in cities, who tend to vote for the Democratic Party and the suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote for the Republican Party.  We saw the same divide in the British Brexit referendum.  This could be explained by the fact that people who live in cities tend to be more liberal than those who live in the suburbs and rural areas.

The Education Divide

Education is another divisive factor.  There appears to be a political divide between the white college-educated voters and non-college-educated white voters.  Those with college degrees tend to vote for the Democratic Party and those without tend to vote for the Republican Party.  I think the explanation is that those who have had the benefit of a university education, tend to be more liberal than those who do not.

The White Working Class

Until the 2016 Presidential Election, neither party had focused on the white working-class voters.  Historically, the Democratic Party was the champion of the working class.  The party made the mistake of taking this constituency for granted.  The party’s leaders, such as, Hillary Clinton, also became elitist and lost touch with this constituency.  In 2016, President Trump saw the opportunity to be the champion of this constituency. The Republican Party has succeeded in capturing the support of the white working-class voters. To understand this development better, I recommend two excellent books:  Hillbilly Elegy by J D Vance and the White Working Class by Joan C Williams.

White Voters and Black Voters

There is also a racial divide in the behaviour of the voters.  By a big majority, the black voters voted for Joe Biden.  Most of the Asian Americans, Hispanic-Americans and the Native Americans also voted for him.  However, in Florida, there were two groups of Hispanic-Americans who voted for Donald Trump.  These were the Cuban-Americans who were ideologically anti-left and the Venezuelan-Americans who were grateful to President Trump for his opposition to Venezuelan President Maduro.  In the case of the white voters, especially the male white voters, a majority voted for Donald Trump.  A majority of white female voters voted for Biden.

The Gender Divide

There is also a gender divide in the voting behaviour of male and female voters.  In every election, a higher percentage of women voters than men took part in the election.  There is a 4 percent gender gap between men and women.  More women voted for the Democratic Party.  About 56 percent of registered women voters identified themselves as Democrats or leaning towards them whereas only 38 percent of such voters identified themselves as Republicans or leaning towards them.

The Young Voters

Who did the young voters, below the age of 30, vote for?  This group of voters constitutes 17 percent of the electorate.  According to www.vox.com, 53 percent of the young voters cast their ballots this year.  The young voters did not vote as a bloc.  A slight majority of young male voters voted for Trump.  A big majority of young female voters voted for Biden.  Youth of colour voted overwhelmingly for Biden.  According to a report, of 7 November 2020, by the Tufts Tisch College, the youth vote was one of the factors which powered Biden to victory. 

A Divided America

Thirty years ago, American was a different country.  In the old America, the two political parties did not see each other as enemies.  They saw each other as competitors.  The leaders of the two parties consulted frequently and were often able to achieve a consensus on contentious issues.  In those days, there was agreement to put nation before party and party before self.   In the recent past, some American leaders seemed to put self before party and party before nation. 

I recall for example, that Senator Joe Biden (D) and Senator Richard Luger (R) would alternate as Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, depending on which party had a majority in the Senate.  The two Senators were friends and were able to work closely together. 

To be sure, there was some ideological differences between the two parties.  The Republican Party stood for free trade and the Democratic Party was more protectionist.  The Democratic Party tended to give a higher priority to democracy and human rights in its foreign policy agenda. The differences were however, of degree rather than kind.  There were more commonalities between them than differences.

Over the past 30 years, America has become more polarized and divided.  The paradigm shift probably began with Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican who viewed the Democratic Party as enemy and advocated confrontation over compromise.  The relations between the two parties have become toxic and they view each other as the enemy of the people.

The Future

Joe Biden is a healer and unifier.  We must wish him success in uniting a deeply divided nation. I hope the Republicans in Congress will not rebuff him as they did to President Obama.  The Democratic and Republican parties must put aside their petty differences to tackle the monumental challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic recession, the just demand of the Blacks for equality and justice, climate change and the formulation of a new foreign policy. 

The election of Kamala Harris as the Vice-President-elect is a historical first in three ways.  She is the first woman, the first black woman and the first Asian-American, to hold that high office.  She is a tremendous asset to Joe Biden.

I have a final message to my friends in the Democratic and the Republican Parties:  America leads best abroad when she is united at home.

The United Nations (UN) marks its 75th anniversary this year with a mixed record of achievements and failures. One of the less known success stories is the link between the UN and regional organisations.

Article 52 of the UN Charter refers, with approval, to regional arrangements, which support the purposes and principles of the UN. Asean and the European Union are two regional organisations which readily come to mind – both support the objectives of the UN by maintaining peace in their respective regions, by preventing armed conflict, by empowering their citizens and by raising the standards of living of their peoples.

Asean is the most successful regional organisation in Asia. The European Union is the most successful regional organisation in Europe, perhaps, in the world.

And yet, despite the many ties that bind these two institutions, the relationship between them is little known to the public.

Singapore is currently the Asean coordinator of the Asean-EU relationship. Given the paucity of literature on the subject, we have decided to edit a new book, entitled, Asean and EU: The Untold Story, which will be launched tomorrow (15 Oct). One of the unique features of the book is that all its writers are from Asean, comprising diplomats, journalists and analysts from universities and think tanks.
In this essay, we wish to share 10 little known facts about that relationship, the many facets of which are amplified in the book.

1 The similarities
The biggest similarity between Asean and EU is that they are dedicated to maintaining peace in their respective regions. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. We hope that one day Asean will also receive the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping the peace in Southeast Asia.
Another similarity is integrating the economies of its member states into a single market. The purpose of integration is to enhance the welfare of their people and to have stronger negotiating power. The European single market has over 450 million consumers. The Asean economic community has over 650 million consumers.

2 The differences
The biggest difference between them is that Asean is an inter-governmental organisation and the EU is a supranational organisation.
In the case of the EU, its member states have pooled their sovereignty in certain areas, such as trade and environment. They have institutions such as a Parliament, a Court, a single currency and a foreign service which Asean does not have. The Asean Secretariat, with fewer than 400 staff, is tiny compared to the European Commission with more than 23,000 personnel. Asean’s annual budget of about US$20 million is miniscule compared to that of the EU Commission, with a budget of about US$180 billion.

3 Dialogue Partners
The EU is one of Asean’s oldest dialogue partners. They entered a relationship in 1972. This relationship was formalised in 1977. With the signing of the Asean-EC Cooperation Agreement in 1980, the relationship has grown to encompass cooperation in many fields, including economics, development, political and security dialogue.
The two sides have agreed, in principle, to become “strategic partners”.

4 Investments
Asean’s largest foreign investor is not the US, China or Japan. It is the EU. In 2017, the EU held an investment stock of 337 billion euros or US$398 billion in the region. EU’s companies have been investing approximately 15 billion euros or US$17.7 billion in Asean, annually, since 2004.

5 Trade
Trade is booming between Asean and the EU. The EU is Asean’s second biggest trading partner, after China. Asean is the EU’s third largest non-European trading partner, after the US and China. In 2018, the total trade between the EU and Asean exceeded 237 billion euros or US$280 billion. The EU has successfully concluded FTAs with two Asean members, Singapore and Vietnam, which are in force.

6. Development aid
The EU and its member states are the world’s largest donor of development aid to the developing countries. In 2019, the collective Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the EU and its member states amounted to 75.2 billion euros or US$89 billion, representing more than 55% of total global aid.
They are also the largest donor of aid to ASEAN. The less developed members of ASEAN, such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, still need the help of ODA in their development. To fight COVID-19 and to mitigate its social and economic impact, the EU has pledged to donate 800 million euros or US$946 million to help Asean.

7. Free Trade Agreement
In 2017, Asean and EU agreed to re-launch negotiations for an ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement. An FTA between them will create a combined market of more than a billion consumers and would be warmly welcomed by the business communities of the two regions.
To be sure, there are difficult issues in such a negotiation. But, with political goodwill, every difficulty has a solution. Without goodwill, every solution has a difficulty.

8. Open Skies
Asean and EU are negotiating an ASEAN-EU Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement. The ambition is to conclude an open skies agreement between the two regions. This would be a boom to our travellers. It would also help the aviation industry which has been devastated by COVID-19 and the restrictions on travel. We should expedite the negotiations to conclude this important agreement to give a much-needed boost to our aviation and travel industries.

9. Human Rights
There are, of course, some issues on which Asean and EU have different perspectives. One such issue is over the plight of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. Due to the Asean principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, Asean can only offer humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya refugees but cannot confront Myanmar on the root cause of the problem.
The EU has no such constraint. It has often used trade and development assistance as an instrument to put pressure on countries to improve its human rights record. Asean believes in engagement and does not believe in using sanctions. The EU is prepared to use sanctions when engagement fails to bring about the desired outcome.

10. Common values and interests
Asean and EU share many common interests. They champion open economies, free trade and regional economic integration. They support the rule of law and the rules-based international order. They prefer multilateralism to unilateralism. They should therefore work together in areas such as climate change, digital economy, smart cities, cyber security, equitable access to vaccines, public health and pandemics preparedness.
In the 2020 ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s survey on the State of Southeast Asia, the EU was ASEAN’s second most trusted partner, after Japan. There is therefore much goodwill in Asean towards the EU. The EU should take advantage of this happy position to raise the game with Asean.

Looking Ahead
Given the many areas where Asean and EU share a common vision and the pressing issues of our times, we urge both parties to be more ambitious. They should not be content with what they have already achieved. They should negotiate and conclude expeditiously the Asean-EU Free Trade Agreement and the ASEAN-EU Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement. The conclusion of those agreements will bring new energy to the relationship.
Looking ahead, the two sides should step up cooperation on both old and new issues. These include fighting against COVID-19 vaccine nationalism, preventing the future occurrence of pandemics and threats to public health, promoting the growth of the digital economy and smart cities and reinforcing cybersecurity.
Finally, it is important for the leaders of Asean and EU to close ranks and stand united against protectionism, isolationism and unilateralism. They should also champion free trade, regional integration and multilateralism. By doing so, they would continue living up to their mission of fostering the UN objectives of maintaining peace and safeguarding the welfare of their peoples.

The Second World War killed between 70 and 80 million people and left many countries in ruin. In the aftermath of the war, the leaders of the victorious allies wanted to build a new world. One of their most important initiatives was to establish the United Nations in 1945.
The UN is commemorating its 75th anniversary this year. Is it an occasion to praise or criticise the UN? Does it have a bright or bleak future?
The UN has a mixed record of successes and failures. I will begin this assessment by discussing its three biggest failures.

First Failure
The preamble of the UN Charter states that the UN was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The UN’s biggest failure is that it has been unable to prevent the occurrence of wars and other armed conflicts.
According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme, there have been 285 armed conflicts since 1945. According to the Dutch think-tank, the Clingendael Institute, these conflicts have killed over 40 million people.
There are many armed conflicts in the world today, such as, those in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya and Syria.
The Syrian civil war has been raging since 2011. To date, it has killed between 400,000 and 500,000 people. The UN estimates that about 6 million Syrians have been displaced and 5.6 million of them have sought refuge abroad. The inability of the UN to bring the Syrian civil war to an end, due to disagreement among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the Big Five), is a disgrace.

Second Failure
The second failure of the UN is its inability or unwillingness to protect minorities from being killed or oppressed by the majority. This happened in Rwanda in 1994 and in Srebrenica in 1995.
In the case of Rwanda, the UN Security Council chose not to act because the Big Five did not have a strategic interest in the conflict. In the case of Srebrenica, the UN did not intervene because of disagreement among the Big Five and because the UN did not have the guts to fight the murderers. The International Court of Justice is currently considering a case against Myanmar for genocide against the Rohingya minority.

Third Failure
The third failure of the UN is the dysfunctional Security Council. At the San Francisco Conference, to draft the UN Charter, the five great powers – the US, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and China – demanded permanent seats in the Security Council and the power to veto or kill any resolution before the council. The other countries were told to accept these demands or there would be no charter.
The Council works beautifully when the interests of the Big Five are aligned. However, on most occasions, they have divergent interests. When this happens, the Council is paralysed and unable to act. This is why the Council is impotent in the face of the daily slaughter and destruction in Syria.

First Success
The UN can claim many success stories during the past 75 years. Let me mention seven of the most important. The first success is to create a safer world for small countries. The Charter confers equal rights to countries, big and small. In the General Assembly, every member country has one vote. Singapore is the founding chairman of the Forum of Small States, which has 108 members.

Second Success
The second success is to build a new world order, based on the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with international law. This was a revolutionary change from the old order, which was based on the principle that might is right.
An example of the new order at work was the decision by the UN to defend Kuwait against Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and sought to make it part of Iraq. Due to the UN’s intervention, Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation.
We should therefore stop quoting Thucydides who said that it was the destiny of small countries to suffer the aggression of big countries.

Third Success
The third success of the UN was the proactive and constructive role it played in helping countries and peoples, under colonial rule, to gain the right to self-determination and independence.
In 1945, when the UN was founded, it had only 51 members. Today, the UN has 193 members.
In 1945, 750 million people, one third of the world’s population, lived under colonial rule. Today, fewer than 2 million people still do so.

Fourth Success
The fourth success of the UN is in the field of human rights. After the horrors of World War Two, the UN was determined to make a fresh start. The preamble of the UN Charter, reaffirms “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women.”
Over the past 75 years, the UN has adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights; conventions against genocide, torture and slavery; conventions to end racial discrimination and discrimination against women; conventions on the rights of the child and the disabled; and much more.
UN members have to appear, periodically, before the UN Human Rights Council and account for their human rights record. However, enforcement is a weakness. This is because the Council is highly politicised. Whether a country is censured or not depends less on the merit of the case and more on how many friends it has in the Council.

Fifth Success
The fifth success is due to the network of UN agencies and other entities which cover every field of human endeavour. Let me give some examples.
The International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation make rules to govern international shipping and international civil aviation, respectively. The World Health Organisation is indispensable to protecting the health of the people of the world. The World Meteorological Organisation is playing a leading role on climate change. Without the International Telecommunication Union, there would be no international mobile calls.
The International Labour Organisation protects the rights of workers, including the right to a minimum wage. The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) supports child health and nutrition and provided free milk for poor children in Singapore in the 1950s. The Food and Agricultural Organisation, the World Food Programme and the International Atomic Energy Agency have also become indispensable.
Recently, a Singaporean, Daren Tang, was elected as the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. He is the first Singaporean who has been elected to head a UN agency.

Sixth Success
The sixth success of the UN is in the protection of our environment and our global commons, such as the oceans. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a comprehensive treaty which governs all aspects of oceans and its resources. It is also to prevent the oceans from being polluted, degraded and over-exploited.
The UN has adopted a treaty to protect our vanishing biological diversity. The UN has also adopted two treaties to protect our climate system against global warming and climate change.
The UN Environment Programme or UNEP, should be upgraded to the status of a UN agency, given its important role. Its mandate is nothing short of ensuring that the earth is in good health and can sustain the human civilisation. Nature is the source of human health.
The UN has convened, every 20 years, a major conference on the environment. These conferences have raised the world’s awareness about the importance of the environment. It has also galvanized the political will to take collective action to protect our biodiversity, climate and oceans.

Seventh Success
The seventh success is the UN’s peace-keeping operations. In recognition of its contributions to peace, it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998.
The first Peace-keeping Operation was launched in 1948, to separate the forces of Israel and the Arab countries. In 1949, the UN established the second peace-keeping force to separate the forces of India and Pakistan and to monitor the situation.
Since 1945, UN has completed 57 peace-keeping operations. There are currently 14 such operations, including the two established in 1948 and 1949. The soldiers and police officers of Singapore have participated in a total of 15 such operations in Asia, Africa and Latin-America.

Conclusion
The UN is not perfect and I have described three of its failures. However, the UN has many more successes than failures. The civilisation we enjoy would not be possible without the UN and its family of agencies and entities.
Going forward, the UN should seek to deliver on its Sustainable Development Goals. It should listen to its loving critics and reform its institutions, to improve their relevance and efficiency.
The UN should be a thought leader on new developments, such as, the digital economy, smart cities, cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, human genome editing, external interference in elections, and others.
At the same time, it should work harder at tackling some of the old problems, such as, the prevention of armed conflict, the protection of minorities, the persistence of poverty and under-development and growing inequality, both within and between countries.
At the same time, it should fight against the forces of darkness, which are attacking open economies, free trade, international cooperation, regional economic integration and multilateralism. They want to take us back to the pre-1945 world. We must not let them succeed.

On Tuesday, former World Bank president  Robert Zoellick  caused a stir when he said relations between Washington and Beijing were in a “free fall” and may escalate into a  military confrontation with serious implications.
“The relationship right now is in free fall.  It’s quite dangerous,” he said   at an event sponsored by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, adding: “People need to be aware that miscalculations can happen, and issues with Taiwan and others can move to a danger zone.”
Is his assessment right? Will the US and China go to war?
As reflected by Mr Zoellick, who was a former White House, State and Treasury senior official, and then a Harvard University senior fellow, the international community is concerned by the worsening relationship between the two most important countries in the world.
 The experts used to say that war between them was inconceivable. However, some experts are now saying that war between China and the United States is conceivable. To  understand what has gone so badly wrong with this relationship, we need to look back at history.

Three Historical Phases
The relationship between the United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) can be divided into three historical phases.
The first phase was between 1949 to 1972.

In the Chinese Civil War, the United States supported the Kuomintang (KMT) against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). When the KMT was defeated, the United States helped the government and armed forces of the Republic of China (KMT) to relocate from the mainland to Taiwan. The United States also helped to defend Taiwan.
During this period, the PRC and the US saw each other as enemies. The lowest point in their relationship was during the Korean War. The US supported South Korea and the PRC supported North Korea. This was the one and only occasion on which the armed forces of the two countries clashed. The fighting ended in a stalemate and ceasefire.
During this 23-year period, each side tried to demonise the other. There were no trade or diplomatic relations between them.
Phase two was from 1972 to 2016.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon shocked the world by going to Beijing to talk to Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai.
Why did the US do a 180 degree turn in its China policy? Nixon’s objective was to forge an alliance with China against the Soviet Union. The two erstwhile enemies joined forces to fight a common enemy. There is a saying that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. For both the US and China, the number one enemy was the Soviet Union. This was a marriage of convenience. The two countries might be sleeping in the same bed but they had different dreams.
Apart from opposing the Soviet Union, the policy of the United States was to bring China out of isolation. The agenda was to socialise China and integrate her into the international community, including joining the World Trade Organisation. The American hope was that China would eventually become a responsible stakeholder. The American expectation was that China would be subordinate to the US and not challenge US hegemony.
The Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, was a black swan. No one could have expected that the CCP could produce a leader who would have the courage and power to put an end to the inefficient centrally planned economy. For a communist, this was nothing less than killing one of the ideology’s most sacred cows.
Deng’s decision, in 1978, to embark on reform and open the Chinese economy to the world, would change the fortune of China. The progress which China has made in the past 40 years is historically unprecedented. It has transformed China, from a poor, backward and weak country into a strong, modern and rich country. No American, in 1972 or 1978, could have imagined that China would become the world’s second largest economy and is projected to overtake the US and become the world’s largest economy.
During the 44 years, from Nixon’s visit to 2016, the relationship between the two countries was fundamentally stable and peaceful. The two countries cooperated when their interests converged and competed when they diverged. When difficulties arose, they were able to deal with them, through give-and-take, without disrupting the whole relationship. However, trouble was brewing.
We are now in the third phase of relations, which began from  2016.
Things have changed: the original reason for the alliance between the US and China, disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Their common enemy, the Soviet Union, was gone.
Their bilateral relationship has evolved, from one between a rich, powerful country and a poor, weak country to one between two approximate equals.
 They are not yet equal, economically or militarily. The US’s per capita income is six times higher than that of China. US military power is without peer. China is not yet a superpower.
However, as China’s power increases and the gap between them narrows, the Chinese would naturally be more assertive and less willing to play the role of a subordinate. Since the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, China has discarded Deng Xiaoping’s advice, to keep a low profile and to hide its strength. Many Chinese feel very proud of their country’s achievements. They feel that their dream of a rich China with a strong military has come true. They want China to play a leading role in the world.
China has shown its global ambitions by launching  the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative, both opposed by the US which saw  them as building blocks for Pax Sinica to replace Pax Americana.

US Bill of Complaints
It is clear the US has become disenchanted with China, seeing it as a competitor and challenger instead of friend and partner.
Why is this so?
The American bill of complaints against China is long and varied. It includes disaffection over trade relations, economic concerns, accusations of theft of technology, suspicision of cybercrime, intellectual property rights, ideology, human rights, religious freedom, South China Sea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, the rule of law and so on.
 The Chinese view is that the criticisms are unfounded  and emanate from a US policy to contain China and prevent the further rise of China.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US and China are engaged in a geopolitical contest for influence in Asia and the world. The danger is that the contest may become violent. The one hotspot which could provoke an armed conflict between China and the United States is Taiwan. If the People’s Liberation Army were to attempt to “recover” Taiwan by force, this could lead to the involvement of US armed forces. If the leaders of Taiwan were to seek dejure independence and if Washington were to support such a move, this could lead to a war between the two great powers.
Another hotspot is the South China Sea. The US has announced that the Chinese claims to the rocks and reefs and the waters, enclosed by the 9-dash lines in a Chinese map are illegal. The US has called upon China to comply with international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the award of the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal, of July 2016.
China asserts that its claims are consistent with international law and it rejects the award of the Arbitral Tribunal. The US Navy has conducted and will continue to conduct the so-called Freedom of Navigation operations to defend international law and to reject China’s claims. There is a danger that the two navies may clash and things could spiral out of control.
A war between China and the United States would be disastrous for both countries and for the world. Since the two countries possess nuclear weapons and have a second strike capability, a nuclear war between them would lead to mutual assured destruction. There would be no winners.

Dangerous moment
Like Mr Zoellick, I think we live in a dangerous moment of history.
 An incumbent superpower, the United States, is faced with a rising challenger, China. According to Professor Graham Allison, the author of the excellent book, Destined For War: Can America and China escape the Thucydides’ trap, in the past 500 years, there had been 16 instances when this occurred. According to him, in 12 cases, the result was war. Let us hope that wisdom will prevail in Washington and Beijing and war can be avoided.
My own conclusion is that war between them is no longer inconceivable but is unlikely. It is unlikely because war will lead to the destruction of both countries.
However, we may be at the beginning of a long struggle between the US and China for global leadership.
Unlike my good friend, Kishore Mahbubani, the author of a new book, “Has China Won?”, I don’t think the US would ever accept to be number two. Having spent many years of my life in America, I believe that it is not in their character and psyche to accept to be number two to any other country. The future is therefore unpredictable.

Let me begin my essay by telling you a story.  In 1996, the then Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, was successful in convening the inaugural meeting of the leaders of Asia and Europe, in Bangkok. The leaders agreed to establish the Asia-Europe Meeting or ASEM, in short.  They also agreed to establish the Asia-Europe Foundation, ASEF, to promote better mutual understanding between the peoples of the two regions.

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.  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.

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.  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.

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 Miyazawa’s reply was, “never”.

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.

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 can’t 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 Japan’s 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 can’t 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 don’t know the answer to the question.

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 can’t 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.

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 don’t trust each other, they have tended to oppose each other’s initiatives and to misread each other’s intentions.

A few examples should suffice. China is opposed to Japan’s 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 Government’s decision to nationalize the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands was intended to change the status quo. I don’t 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.

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.

Tembusu alumni, Sai Surya Yarlagadda and Irsyad Ramthan founded Young Sustainable Impact Southeast Asia while they were engineering students at NUS. They were featured on Eco-Business to share tips on how students can convince rising start-ups and big investors to believe in them.

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.