Freedom House Trend Review: Improvements and Declines in Democracy

This is a post script of the last post, and let me tell briefly about the Freedom House report. The Arab Spring is moving democracy in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya forward. Also, it is noteworthy that Myanmar, one of the most terrible Asian autocracies, eased restrictions in public discussion and media reports of politics. Thailand made progress, too, due to free and fair election in July last year.

However, counteractions to the Arab Spring were witnessed in many courtiers of the Middle East. Civil movements face violent repression by the government in Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, UAE, and Yemen. In Saudi Arabia, restrictions on public speeches and media reports were tightened. In Asia, China strengthened online censorship and innumerable number of freedom activists.

There are some unexpected cases that need more attention. In Africa, the Ethiopian government abused antiterrorism legislation to repress political oppositions. Since the Assad administration of Syria adopts the same logic to murder freedom fighters there, this case cannot be dismissed. In Latin America, Puerto Rico lowered the grade though it is under US sovereignty, because of police brutality. Surprisingly enough, civil liberty recedes in post-communist Europe like Hungary, though this country was regarded as the role model in the shift toward democracy and the market economy.

The trend mentioned in the report will be a guideline for foreign policy of leading democracies such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. See which countries gain and lose their credits in democracy from this link. 

The Western Alliance Must Reunite to Overturn Democracy Decline

The Facebook Revolution in Tunisia and Egypt triggered the Arab Spring last year, which has overthrown autocrats to pave the way for long pursued democracy in the Middle East. However, the Freedom House has released a warning report that democracy is in decline worldwide, particularly in Asia, Latin America, and Southern Africa (“Democracy declined worldwide in 2011, Arab Spring nationsat risk: report”; Reuters; September 17, 2012).

In view of the rise of autocratic powers, this is a critical problem. China shows no hesitation for expansionism in the East Asian sphere. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin denounced American “manipulation” to sponsor against Kremlin votes in the presidential election this year (“Russiasays U.S.aid mission sought to sway elections”; Reuters; September 19, 2012). And also, Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons.

Let me review the report briefly. “Freedomin the World 2012” states that despite progress in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, repressive responses against civic movements are rampant in Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen. Therefore, Middle East democratization, which is a key global security agenda since the out break of the War on Terror, is seriously challenged. Also, governmental propaganda in China and Russia agitates fears against civic protests, in order to prevent the spread of the Jasmine Revolution in their countries. China boasts their most sophisticated system of media repression to control news reports and censor information. Other authoritarian regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela develop various techniques to control the media and blogs.

Currently, the Western alliance just sits still and watches such gloomy trends. But it is established democracies, notably the United States, Europe, and Japan, that can take leadership to overturn global trend of moving back toward autocracy. Freedom activists against authoritarian regimes are disappointed with the Western alliance for petty realism and appeasement policies at the expense of their hope. They are right, in view of the trend stated in the Freedom House report.

For advancing democracy, the Middle East is a key area. While the Freedom House evaluates the transition in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya positively, democracy in those countries are still fragile. Also, some conservatives in the United States and Europe are afraid of the rise of Islamism as typically shown in the enforcement of Sharia law. However, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki comments that the Arab Spring is neither anti-West nor pro-West. Nor is it a matter of religion or Sharia Law, but of social justice. Marzouki admits that democratization allowed some extremists to free ride liberal political system. However, he stresses that the real objective of religious extremists is not political participation, but creating chaos. They attacked Tunisian symbols like national flag and anthem, before attacking American symbols, according to Marzouki (“The Arab SpringStill Blooms”; New York Times; September 27, 2012).

We have to watch carefully how much Islamists respect universal value of modern enlightenment. But President Marzouki’s article is noteworthy, because social justice in one country poses significant influences to its behavior on the global stage. This is the vital reason why the Western alliance needs to be re-invigorated to manage the resurgence of autocracies. We must remember that democracy promotion for good governance is one of vital objectives in the War on Terror, in order to wipe out the root causes of violence and extremism.

Currently, the Atlantic alliance is centrifuged as seen in the Chicago NATO Summit. Also, the US-Japanese alliance faces a critical test on Okinawa. Autocracies and extremists seize opportunities like this. In order to bounce back from democracy decline and endorse Middle East freedom, major democracies need to redesign strategic partnership to launch initiatives to promote liberal values throughout the world. These initiatives are beyond the United States, Europe, and Japan. Once the strategic partnership is found, then, we can enlarge this to include emerging democracies like India, Australia, Israel, South Korea, and so forth. Freedom House report is a reminder to tell us how seriously unsecured our liberal society is in the world today.

911 Event: Chinese Repression in East Turkistan

In collaboration with Masaaki Mezaki, an international culture analyst, we will hold an event on Red China’s repression to Uighur and other ethnic minorities in East Turkistan or Xingjian. We invite Tur Muhammet, a Uighur independence activist who lives in exile in Japan. Muhammet interpreted for Rebiya Kadeer, President of the World Uigur Congress, at the General Assembly of Tokyo on May 14 this year.

For detail of this event, see this link. The event is conducted in Japanese. If you are interested, please contact Mr. Mezaki or me.

Obama’s Pivot to Asia is against Japanese National Interests

When the Obama administration announced the shift of foreign policy focus from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia Pacific region, the Japanese public welcomed it as they were critically concerned with rapid growth of Chinese military power. However, it appears too naïve for me. Contrary to widespread understandings among Japanese people including politicians and opinion leaders, I believe Obama’s pivot to Asia will ruin Japan’s vital national interest from the following three points. The pivot to Asia is not the shift of military presence, but it disguises massive shrinkage of US armed forces. Also, this is not just a shift of geographical focus of US foreign policy, but a shift of partnership priority from mature liberal democracies to emerging economies regardless of the regime. Finally, an Asianized America will pose more unpredictable stresses to Japanese policymakers than an Anglo Saxon based America.

Let me begin with military shrinkage. In a previous blog post, I mentioned strategic emptiness of the pivot to Asia from military perspectives through quoting articles by McKenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Despite rhetorical willingness for strong involvement in Asia, drastic cuts in defense spending lead to precipitous downsizing of US armed forces, particularly the Navy and the Air Force. Obama’s emphasis on upgrading military software is meaningless without sufficient size of military hardware to face off against rapid growth of Chinese armed forces. Obama's strategy is appallingly contradictory to an analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that the pivot to Asia simultaneously means the emergence of the ASBC (Air-Sea Battle Concept) (“NewUSmilitary concept marks pivot to sea and air”; IISS Strategic Comment; May2012).

Certainly, it is the rise of Chinese naval and air power that led the US armed forces to shift their resources to Asia. However, a scaled down defense budget makes it difficult for the United States to counter China’s A2AD capabilities. In response to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s TV interview admitting that the defense sequester will pose disastrous constraints to US defense (“Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and ABC News Jake Tapper”; DefenseDepartment News; May 27, 2012), Robert Zarate, Director of the Foreign Policy Initiatives, raises a critical concern that it will hollow America’s strategic “rebalance” to Asia. Furthermore, he denounces Democrat Senator Harry Reid for his remark, “Sequester’s a tough pill to swallow, but it’s a balanced approach to reduce the deficit that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.” More problematically, the rise of China is perceived when both allies and adversaries cast doubt on America’s capability and willingness to stay power in Asia (“An Off-Balance Pivot to Asia?”; FPI Bulletin; June 4, 2012).

The final point that Zarate mentions is related to inherent nature of Obama foreign policy. Emerged in protest to Republican unilateralism and American exceptionalism, Barack Obama gave apologetic and appeasing speeches in Prague and Cairo shortly after his inauguration. It seems that he does not necessarily desire to maintain the superpower position for America. From this perspective, we need to explore the real implication of the pivot to Asia, since it does not make sense as a military strategy.

People in the Asia Pacific region tend to be so naïve as to focus on the shift of geographical emphasis in US strategy. However, we must not dismiss recent article by a British Labour foreign policy strategist Mark Leonard (“The End of Affair”; Foreign Policy; July 24, 2012) to note the other aspect which is the shift of partnership emphasis from liberal democracies to emerging economies. To understand the fundamental idea of the pivot, we need to review a landmark essay by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“America’sPacific Century”; Foreign Policy; October-November 2011). Certainly, Secretary Clinton says that the United States needs to shift foreign policy focus from Iraq and Afghanistan to Asia. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not for the market but for defeating terrorists and rogue states that brandish nuclear threats. I firmly would like to emphasize this, because her article on the pivot to Asia is extremely “market oriented”.

The premise of Secretary Clinton’s essay is, “Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama.” On the other hand, her commentary sounds very cool to traditional allies as she states “We are proud of our European partnerships and all that they deliver. Our challenge now is to build a web of partnerships and institutions across the Pacific that is as durable and as consistent with American interests and values as the web we have built across the Atlantic.” Though she says America is both a Pacific and an Atlantic power, the entire tone leans toward Pacific, or more straightforwardly, toward emerging economies. More critically, she gives a “farewell message” to America’s role as the superpower and the War on Terror, as she mentions “In the last decade, our foreign policy has transitioned from dealing with the post-Cold War peace dividend to demanding commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.” Has global realities changed so much? The New Cold War with Russia and China emerges, and Iraq and Afghanistan still need Western involvement to fight against terrorists and radicals.

While Secretary Clinton talks extensively on economic opportunities in Asia, the focal point of security is how to manage the rise of Chinese military power. Rather than containing China’s regional and global ambition, the Secretary focuses on engagement with Beijing and market opportunities there, despite political risks associated with extremely repressive nature of the regime. Though the Secretary calls the alliance with Japan the cornerstone of peace and stability in the region, she hardly mentions strategies to curb regional threats posed by China and North Korea. This is also the case with other Asia Pacific allies, including South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and so forth.

The above points will be the clue to understand fundamental contradictions in Obama’s Asia strategy: expressing increased regional involvement while downsizing necessary military power. The Obama administration may think of geopolitical rivalry with China and other strategic challengers, but they are willing to make compromise with or even appease them in some cases. The Senkaku Islands clash is a typical case. At first, the State Department said China’s pressure can be regarded as an attack against Japan under the US-Japanese Security treaty (“U.S.says Senkaku Islands fall within scope of Japan-U.S.security treaty”; Kyodo News; July 10, 2012). However, Assistant Press Secretary Phillip Crowley said that though the security treaty would be applied to Senkaku as long as it is under Japanese authority, the United States would stay neutral on the issue of sovereignty (“Daily Press Briefings”; Department of State; August16, 2012). Furthermore, State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland urged bilateral talks on sovereignty of these Islands between Japan and China (“U.S. asks Japan, China to solve island dispute”;Daily Yomiuri; August 22, 2012). This is a substantial retreat from 2010 position when Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage even proposed a joint US-Japanese military exercise to stop China’s ambition to dominate the Asian sea lanes.

As to the background of the pivot to Asia, we should not dismiss Asianization of America which is mentioned in the above article by Mark Leonard. As opposed to widespread understandings, this will hurt Japanese national interest. I am not endorsing any kind of racism and ethnocentrism, but it is necessary to talk of this issue from politically incorrect and cold blooded realist viewpoints. As Asian voices grow bigger in American politics, “ant-Japanese” movements will become more influential. The typical case is the comfort women resolution in the Houseproposed by Congressman Mike Honda. As widely known, wartime history is a sensitive issue for Japan in relations with China and South Korea. An Asianized America will invigorate Chinese and Korean lobbies.

Recent studies show that the share of Asian population rises in the United States. As shown in the above table, Chinese and other Asian subgroups are far more populous than Japanese Americans (“The Rise ofAsian Americans”; Pew Social & Demographic Trends; June 19, 2012). More importantly, while Japanese descendants are reluctant to unite with Japan due to wartime experience of quarantine camp, Chinese and other Asian subgroups are willing to lobby for their home countries. Actually, Congressman Honda acts for Asian American interests rather than Japanese Americans’. He represents the 15th congressional district of California which is the only minority-majority district among top 10 richest districts in the United States. Asians account for 29.2% of voters there. According to Wikipedia in Japanese, some journalists like Yoshihisa Komori of the Sankei Simbun reports that his fundraising is heavily dependent on Chinese and Korean lobbies. In view of recent territorial clash with China and South Korea, and comfort women dispute with South Korea (“InNew Jersey, Memorial for ‘Comfort Women’ Deepens Old Animosity”; New York Times;May 18, 2012), further rise of Asian lobbies in the United States will jeopardize Japan’s national interests furthermore.

Some Japanese who are obsessed with Sinophobe viewpoints tend to welcome the pivot to Asia so naïvely, without considering the background deep inside. However, we, Japanese are in a position to share European concerns presented by Mark Leonard. A shift to emerging economies and Asianization of America are critical problem for Japan. Also, it is not regional priority in rhetoric but America’s real strength and the will for the superpower that can stop dangerous ambitions of challengers and adversaries. Remember how good it was for Japan when US global strategy was based on the Anglo Saxon alliance under the Kennedy-Macmillan and the Reagan-Thatcher duo. Therefore I regard Mitt Romney much more favorable for Japanese national interests over Barack Obama, even though he made an inappropriate remark on Japan. As a Japanese who strongly agrees to European unease, I shall never bow down and praise poorly armed and empty pivot to Asia that the Obama administration launches.

Revitalizing the Alliance of America and Europe in an Era of Global Power Shift

The advent of the Obama administration was expected to heal the bitter split between America and Europe since the Iraq War. Europeans were dismayed with the Bush administration’s cow boy diplomacy, and Barack Obama was their long awaited savior. The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee made a decision to award the prize to Obama long before he was elected. But has he improved the relationship between America and Europe, and strengthened the trans-Atlantic alliance? Ironically, Obama is not so enthusiastic to deepen the Atlantic partnership. He is more focused on emerging powers rather than traditional allies. For Obama, the US-European alliance as the anchor of world peace and liberal democracy is of not so much importance to manage global issues in the era of power shift.

How much are Europeans disillusioned with Obama diplomacy? Let me mention an article by Mark Leonard who was a policy advisor to the Blair administration, as he explains the paradox of Obama’s trans-Atlantic diplomacy (“The End of Affair”; Foreign Policy; July 24, 2012). When he visited Berlin during his election campaign in 2008, overwhelming majority of Europeans were pleased with the appearance of multilateralist, peace minded, welfare oriented, and eloquent leader in America. George W. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy and American exceptionalism annoyed European leaders and citizens. At a mere glance, America and Europe coordinate well on Iran and Syria. It appears that the split over the Iraq War has been healed. However, contrary to superficial impression, trans-Atlantic alliance is fading under the Obama administration due to his perceived power shift and personality.

Seen from the American side, the Obama administration is more interested in exploring partnership with emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil rather than solidifying the Western alliance. Obama sees European nations are overrepresented in international organizations, and he believes this will jeopardize US interests in multilateral diplomacy. This is well illustrated in Leonard’s quote of Walter Russell Mead, “Increasingly it will be in the American interest to help Asian powers rebalance the world power structure in ways that redistribute power from the former great powers of Europe to the rising great powers of Asia today." From the Obama administration's viewpoint, shared value does not count so much for America, and Europe does not enjoy overwhelming advantage over China, Russia, and emerging economies in Asia.

It is not just political aspects that matters. Leonard mentions Obama’s personal history is more oriented toward Asia and Africa than Europe. Certainly, he is a son of Kenyan father, and spent his boyhood in Indonesia. However, I believe that it is a sheer blunder for a state leader to give an impression that his or her policies are biased with racial, ethnic, class, and other personal backgrounds. Also, his business like attitude is a hurdle to make personal friendship with European leaders that his predecessors did. Leonard is not the only one who points it out. Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, comments that Barack Obama lacks personal charm that George W. Bush has, which deters him from making humane relationship with foreign leaders.

There are some problems on the European side as well. Europe has been reluctant to share global responsibility with the United States. This is noticeable in defense. European military spending accounts for 21% of the world, far more than those of China, Russia, and other emerging powers. However, Europe does not use their political, economic, and military power resources for active roles on the global stage. Europeans leave security responsibility to the American sheriff. Quite importantly, a British Labour Mark Leonard argues almost the same point as an American neoconservative Robert Kagan. Current Europe is becoming increasingly inward-looking as most leaders are preoccupied with the Eurozone crisis. NATO Chicago Summit this summer has impressed such a downbeat of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

This is not just a problem in the Euro-Atlantic sphere. For example, Japanese leaders are so naïve as to welcome Obama’s pivot to Asia for fear of China. They hardly think of the real meaning beyond geographical power shift from West to East. The pivot also implies that Obama’s partnership priority is shifting from traditional democratic allies to emerging powers regardless of the regime. Therefore, cooling US-European relations can ruin Japan’s national interest.

The underlying problem is that Obama’s foreign policy assumption is based on inevitable American decline, and that leads to strategic errors like embracing China in a “G2” partnership, talking to Medvedev over Putin in the reset with Russia, abstaining from helping the Green Movement in Iran, and so forth (“The 'Obamians' and the truth about Americandecline”; Shadow Government; July 24, 2012). The pivot to Asia is also a serious problem. Under Obama’s plan, America is shifting to Asia with smaller forces, particularly, cutting the size of the Navy and the Air Force (“Obama’s defense ‘pivot’masks shrinkage”; Politico; July 22, 2012).

From the above perspective, Mitt Romney’s visit to Britain, Israel, and Poland deserves attention because the Obama administration has cooled strategic ties with these key allies. Prior to the trip, conservative media argued that it was a good chance to demonstrate Romney’s involvement in foreign policy to discuss global and Middle East security with Prime Minister David Cameron and Tony Blair in Britain, and to overturn Obama’s stances to the Palestine issue in Israel and missile defense in Poland (“Romney uses trip to stressforeign policy”; Washington Times; July 25, 2012). Successful visit to three countries could have revitalized the anchor of Western democracies that Obama has weakened. Just before visiting Britain, Romney criticized Obama’s left-wing coolness to the Anglo-American special relationship and his appeasement to America’s enemies and rivals (“Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America”; Daily Telegraph; 24 July,2012).

However, Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge was revealed shortly afterwards. On his visit to Britain, he annoyed the home audience as he casted doubt on Britain’s readiness to the London Olympics. Furthermore, Romney failed to recall the name of Labour leader Ed Miliband (“Romney in Britain: Diplomatic Offensive”;Economist blog --- Blighty; July 27, 2012). Also, Romney’s questionable remark, “We are not Japan“, raised concerns among the Japanese public and Japan watchers who advocate a strong alliance (“Romney'sJapanremark raises eyebrows”; Cable; August 10, 2012).

Despite such awkward behavior, Mitt Romney chose Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate instead of heavy weights like Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and General David Petraeus. As a budget expert, Ryan may be much smarter Sarah Palin, but like Romney, he does not have sufficient foreign policy backgrounds. Historically, presidential candidates without strong backgrounds in foreign policy chose running mates to make up for their weakness. Romney’s pick for Ryan can be interpreted that he does not regard foreign policy as a key issue in this election (“With Ryan pick, Romneywould send a message: This is not a foreign-policy election”; Passport; August11, 2012).

Obama is shifting policy focus to forging partnership with emerging powers regardless of regime, rather than deepening ties with liberal democracies. The fading of the trans-Atlantic alliance is counterproductive to global security. Romney showed willingness to reinvigorate the anchor of world peace and liberal democracy, but just revealed his insufficient foreign policy background with awkward remarks. The alliance of America and Europe has played the foremost role in making the world more liberal, prosperous, and civilized. In view of the rise of autocratic regimes, America and Europe need to reunite. At present, neither incumbent Democrat nor opposition Republican is well aware of this. Who can revitalize the trans-Atlantic alliance from the apathy of Chicago?

The State of World Nuclear Weapons

See the chart below.

Nuclear armed nations are appearing, but only Big 5 have operational nuclear warheads.

Some proliferators like Iran and North Korea are not ready to fire warheads immediately. They claim nuclear power status, primarily for brinkmanship diplomacy and sponsoring terrorism. Senator Bob Casey testified “A nuclear Iran would feel empowered to conduct more terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets, provide more lethal assistance to Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups, and give the Quds Force greater freedom to support terrorist groups across the Middle East,” at a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee (“USSenators Examine Iranian Involvement with Terrorism”; VOA News; July 25, 2012). North Korea will act similarly to Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

Also, we have to note that lack of transparency with Chinese nuclear weapons. It is unknown how many warheads are operational for strategic and tactical use. Such a big power has not joined nuclear arms cut negotiations, and leaves the responsibility to the United States and Russia. Beijing Communist Party should disclose more information about their nuclear weapons.

The Role of Europe in Asia

                                                                       Sailing in quest of the Asian dream!



When people talk about the Pacific century, they tend to focus on regional powers like the United States, China, Japan, Russia, India, and other middle and small nations in the Asia Pacific area. However, actors outside the region can have indispensable influence on Asia, particularly Europe. Historically, Europe and Asia have deep ties each other since the Age of Discovery. Not only big powers like Britain and France, but also smaller powers like the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal have long historical interactions with Asia. Europe can provide so many things that Asia needs such as investments, knowledge, brand, and export market. A more active Europe will provide invaluable help to the United States, Japan, and other Asia Pacific democracies in geopolitical rivalries against China and Russia, and in dealing with unpredictable threats of North Korea.

Will the rise of Asia overshadow Europe? Judy Dempsey, Senior Associate at Carnegie Europe, mentioned some opinions by top experts on both sides of the Atlantic to explore Euro-Asian relations on her blog (“Judy Asks: Should Europe Fear the Pacific Century?”; Strategic Europe; June 27, 2012). While demography may favor younger Asia to ageing Europe, Asians face tough regional problems such as rising nationalism, numerous territorial disputes, growing economic imbalances, and massive environmental degradation. Europe can help Asian nations in socioeconomic development, human rights, good governance, and technology. However, some experts see that Europe will play a limited role in Asia.

For many Europeans, Asian power politics is remote, and they are satisfied with strong economic ties in trade but small commitment in security. Taking all of those into consideration, there is a distinguishable aspect in Europe’s approach to Asia. Though sharing values with the United States, Europeans prefer multilateral and civilian solutions to manage Asian crisis like South China Sea issues and the Aceh dispute. I find some similarities between what Dempsey discusses in this blog post and Japanese diplomacy. Sharing political values and socioeconomic development stage, Europe and Japan can found a closer partnership to manage diversified challenges in Asia.

Rising economy and growing political tensions in Asia will pose substantial impact on an increasingly globalized world. Therefore, Europeans need to play more active roles in Asia, and should not be content with happy and prosperous life in their homeland. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe commented that European leaders were not keenly aware of Chinese threats until Beijing succeeded in sending an astronaut into the space. Once actively involved in Asia, Europe will share more security interests with the US-Japanese alliance.

For further understanding of European approaches to Asia, it is necessary to understand their stances on the global stage. As Robert Kagan comments in his well known book “Of Paradise and Power”, Europeans leave security responsibility to American sheriff. It is not geographic remoteness but post imperial mindset that leads Europeans to shy away from Asia. An advocate for the Iraq War by the Bush administration, some people misunderstand Kagan a unilateralist. That is wrong. He endorses a close trans-Atlantic alliance to tackle global challenges, and from this context, Europeans must be much more keenly aware of their roles in Asia. An active Europe will present valuable advantages to Asia-Pacific leaders like Ex-Prime Minister Abe or whoever else.

Europe can act as a global power either through a collective channel of the European Union or an independent channel of a sovereign state. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is one of collective channels to deepen Euro-Asia relations. The EU gives amazing opportunities for small nations to punch above their weight, but Stefan Lehne, Visiting Scholar at Carnegie Europe, comments that the Big Three often chooses to act on their sovereign basis, and compares foreign policy of Britain, France, and Germany (“The Big Three in EU Foreign Policy”; Carnegie Paper; July 2012). Based on his paper, I would like to mention the Big Three’s approach to Asia. Winners of World War Ⅱ and possessors of nuclear weapons, Britain and France pursue more ambitious policy, while Germany is reluctant to assume leadership roles.

The United Kingdom envisions strong ties with Asia. Ambassador to Indonesia Mark Canning used a word of “re-prioritisation” in a blog post of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when he addressed Britain’s policy in Asia ("EU has Arrived"; FCO Blogs;April 27, 2012). Ambassador Canning assumes a very influential position in Britain’s Asia-Pacific policy as he concurrently serves as the ambassador to ASEAN. Britain is exploring more influence in Asia as the United States and Russia are. Jonas Parello-Plesnersenior, Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, points out that the United Kingdom hopes other European nations to follow suit.

Even after Royal Navy's withdrawal from Singapore in 1971, Britain has been trying to retain military influence in Asia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore. In April this year, Prime Minister David Cameron visit Burma as the first European leader to encourage Aung Sang Suu Kyi (“David Cameron calls for Burma sanctions to be suspended”; BBC News; 13 April, 2012). At the Shangri-la dialogue in Singapore this June, Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey met Japanese Senior Vice Defense Minister Shu Watanabe to reach an agreement to deepen defense cooperation on cyberspace and space. See the video below and these links (“PM Emphasises UK commitment to signing a defence cooperation memorandum with Japan”; Defence News; 10 April, 2012 and "Japan, Britain Agree on Joint Defense Development"; House of Japan; 3 June, 2012).


 


France also takes some impressive actions in Asia. Shortly after the Fukushima shock, it sent top experts to manage the nuclear reactor crisis to help Japan. In arms export to India, Dassault’s Rafale edged out F-35 and Typhoon. French approaches to Asia are more realist than idealist. This may be partly because France does not have liberal imperialist tradition which Britain does, and partly because it was defeated ignominiously in the battle of Dien Bien Phu to withdraw from Viet Nam.

Things are different in the case of Germany. Though it is the second largest exporter of the world, trauma of defeat in World Wars makes this country hesitant to act as a great power. It is the most postmodern nation among the Big Three, and more likely to associate itself with the European Union. However, Germany is reluctant to assume leadership in EU based common foreign policy. Instead of political burden sharing with other major powers, Germany prefers trade oriented diplomacy. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that Germany aspires to exert great influence in “remote” Asia.

Each sovereign state has its own interest in Asia. Quite importantly, experts almost unanimously agree that the Pacific century does not mean Asian domination of the world, but it presents nations outside the region with more opportunities for economic growth. They argue that Europeans need not fear the rise of Asia and the decline of the West. Europe may not be a primary actor in Asia, but Daniel Keohane, head of strategic affairs at a Brussels based think tank FRIDE, quotes an old proverb, ““He who is Lord of Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice”.

A close Euro-Asian tie will have spill over effects on other external actors. A BRICS nation South Africa is one of such examples. Not only in terms of geography, but also in terms of history, race, and culture, South Africa connects Europe and Asia. It is no use for descendants of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama to fear benign neglect by America and the decline of the West. Europe should act along with the United States and Japan in quest of the Asian dream.