China and South-East Asia have had a long history together,
but they still need to work hard to consolidate confidence and trust.
Highlights: President Xi's Southeast Asia tour
RECENTLY, the Chinese Ambassador to Malaysia, Chai Xi, remarked that
the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping will lift the bilateral ties
of the two nations to a higher level.
Saying that the Sino-Malaysian relationship has taken the lead when
compared to the other members of Asean, Chai pointed out that China has
become Malaysia’s biggest trading partner in the world, with the first
seven months of this year recording a 14.9% increase in bilateral trade
to US$59.72bil (RM190.6bil).
Indeed, Xi’s visit to Malaysia was historic not only because it was
his first state visit to the region since assuming office, but also in
the sense that it marks another step in the continuation of the long
history that Malaysia has shared with China.
It is a history that can be traced back to the 15th century, when
the famous Chinese explorer Admiral Zeng He of the Ming Dynasty landed
on the port city of Malacca only to find a thriving community of Chinese
traders that had long established ties with the local population here.
Fast forward to the 20th century, into the height of the Cold War,
and we have an international environment that is mired in suspicion and
misperception, with loyalties mostly split along clear ideological
lines. South-East Asia was a particular hotbed, and there was a great
fear that China would turn its attention to the young and small nations
of the region and begin forcibly exerting its influence to bring them
under its sphere of control.
And yet, amid all the paranoia and balancing among all the nations
in South-East Asia, Malaysia had the foresight of Prime Minister Tun
Abdul Razak Hussein, who clearly understood the gravity and
inevitability of China’s peaceful rise when he pushed for Kuala Lumpur
to be the first in the region to establish diplomatic relations and
normalise ties with Beijing in 1974.
Those who express opinions implying that it is possible to shape the
direction of regional security and development without including China
display a worrying lack of understanding and appreciation of the lessons
of history, particularly that of the region.
That China will fulfil its cyclical destiny and rise to take centre
stage in Asia and become a major player in world affairs is no longer a
question, but the character and nature of the rise will ultimately
depend on how others might want to meet this rise halfway.
Successive Chinese leaderships have assured the rest of the world
that their rise is a peaceful one, which does not seek to create ripples
and waves in the international world order, and there is plenty of
evidence to support that assertion.
China is in pursuit of rapid economic growth and expansion to lift
its 1.3 billion-strong population into the developed world. In order to
do this, China needs wide-ranging support from the global community and a
stable and peaceful international environment.
But China’s growing assertiveness, especially in the South China
Sea, may unfortunately send the wrong signals to certain parties, and
this is especially the case if there is very little understanding as to
why China feels the need to proceed in such a manner.
The complexities and nuances that surround China’s actions are
likely to be lost if the nervousness and concerns of its regional
neighbours are not promptly and clearly addressed.
Asean countries have high hopes as to how far the Chinese dream can
trailblaze the growth of the region and provide the developmental
slipstream for them to follow suit.
However, the region is, understandably, still wary as it bears fresh
scars of at least two other dreams before this: one that carried the
salvation of “the white man’s burden” from the West, and another that
sought to build a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” from the
East (Japanese occupation).
Granted, the Chinese dream is categorically different from these
expressions of imperialism cloaked in ideology, but one needs to
understand the reasons why sovereignty is an overriding concern in the
region and some react strongly to the movements of greater powers.
It should not be such a stretch for China, which bears the memory of
the century of humiliation dealt by former European powers through
their unequal treaties, to see that the concerns of its smaller regional
neighbours run along similar lines.
China and South-East Asia have had a long history together, but they
must also work hard at understanding each other better so that the
confidence and trust that has been built over time, albeit interrupted by occasional incidents, can be
strengthened, consolidated, and built upon extensively. Trust and
understanding are not built overnight, but we are not mistaken to think
that the process has been going on for quite some time now.
Networks of relationships have been stitched across the region for
centuries, from the trading routes and migration patterns of yesteryear
to the regional production networks and the financial and business
networks of contemporary times. Part of the reason why South-East Asia
has been developing rapidly has been attributed to the “bamboo
networks”, the ethnic-based business networks built upon the hubs and
spokes of the Chinese diaspora that intersperse the region, with firm
roots in the local communities but sturdily connected to the regional
landscape.
But while the “infrastructure” of trust has already been firmly
built between China and South-East Asia in the form of these networks of
ties, which some scholars refer to as the “invisible linkages” that
hold us together, there needs to be a more concerted effort to bring
about more interaction and discourse, which are the lifeblood of trust,
to engage the various communities at multiple levels.
These connections and dealings must not only dwell exclusively on
economic and security issues; although important and, some may even
argue, central, there should also be some effort invested into exploring
how the cultural and normative aspects of these relations can be worked
upon and perhaps improved, presenting opportunities to further
strengthen the trust and deepen the understanding between China and its
smaller neighbours.
In this respect, the idea of moderation as espoused by Malaysian
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and reiterated by him in his
recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, may lend itself
as a starting point in the search for mutualities of interest. This
framework of moderation calls for the exercise of restraint and the
creation of a discursive environment that allows for a multiplicity of
voices to come together and collectively work towards solutions,
defusing tensions and avoiding conflict.
This notion is perhaps compatible to the Chinese Dream; as China
aspires for peaceful development with Chinese characteristics towards a
moderately prosperous society, Malaysia and the rest of South-East Asia
pursue their own goal of development that holds fast to moderate
principles, so that their race towards becoming fully developed nations
does not sacrifice their identities, traditions and culture, and
sovereignty, the very things that make them what they are.
The idea of building a truly authentic East Asian community can
begin with this very simple but powerful idea, and as Malaysia looks
forward to assuming the chairmanship of Asean in 2015, it also looks to
further strengthen ties between China, itself and the region through the
values and principle of moderation.
Contributed by Tan Sri Razali Ismail
> Tan Sri Razali Ismail is Chairman of Global Movement of
Moderates Foundation (GMM). The GMM is an initiative of Prime Minister
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak that calls for combating the scourge of
extremism in five broad areas – peaceful co-existence, democracy and
rule of law, finance, education and conflict resolution. The views
expressed are entirely the writer’s own
Related posts:
Lee said the Federal Government should look into controlling price,
other than cement, of essential building materials, as the rising price
of raw materials was a reason for soaring property prices.
