But the partnership works and is improving, with the potential for resolving many regional and global problems, explains Morton Abramowitz, former US ambassador and senior fellow at the Century Foundation. In analyzing major issues confronting the three nations, Abramowitz also offers specific recommendations: Japan and the US should refrain from forming values alliances against China; China should end opposition to a seat on the UN Security Council for Japan; and East Asia should form more consultative forums for planning and integration.
Ongoing integration and consultation can only improve the relationship, according to Abramowitz, creating a multilateral policymaking model for the century ahead. China grows rapidly, deriving significant clout and thereby assuming a new world role. Despite a recent leadership transition, Chinese leaders remain preoccupied with mitigating massive distortions of growth, ensuring a successful Olympics and preventing regime change. Its military modernization arouses American.
Yet China continues to be out of step with the political morality of leading countries. China has a long way to go in exercising international leadership. Japan is a major world economic player, but wants to be a normal nation without its postwar defense limitations. It remains fearful of Chinas competition, even as both economies become more entwined. Japan and China have one major concrete dispute maritime claims. The US and Japan each value their alliance, influence in Southeast Asia but the absence of which was clear when most East seat.
In recent years, China has increased its assertiveness in pursuing territorial claims in the South China Sea. This development can most likely be traced to Chinas need to find sources of oil since China switched from being an oil-exporting nation to an oil-importing nation a few years ago. While Southeast Asian nations have essentially agreed to disagree by postponing resolution of their territorial disputes, China continues to insist on its rights to drill for oil on these islands.
These actions exemplify the need to establish a multilateral resource development regime whose prerequisite for admission could be the resolution of territorial disputes. . 6Devout Muslims, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines, saw themselves marginalized by secular (Indonesian) or Christian (Filipino) governments. This produced a sense of victimization that meshed with the message from Osama bin Laden and others.
Money from the Persian Gulf (particularly Saudi Arabia) has flowed into Southeast Asia, propagating a strict, doctrinaire version of Islam through schools and mosques. Mujahideen were indoctrinated into a militant jihadist returned to Southeast Asia ripe for recruitment into local terrorist organizations dedicated to the destruction of non- Muslim communities, Western influence, and secular governments.
There are three types of international terrorist groups- al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), whose agenda includes attacks on U. S. interests and the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate; and traditional Muslim separatists, such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in the southern Philippines and the Pattani National Liberation Front in southern Thailand, that seek a separate Muslim state. One of the questions affecting the security future of Southeast Asia is whether the predominantly Muslim societies in the region can find a way to neutralize and absorb the militants into a moderate body politic.
The picture is greatly complicated by linkages between groups including JI and al Qaeda, between Abu Sayyaf and al Qaeda, and between JI and the MILF. Further complications arise from alleged links between elements of the Indonesian 8 military and Laskar Jihad and another similar group, the Islamic Defenders Front. In short, terrorism in Southeast Asia would depict interactive networks with multiple agendas. The October 2002 bombings in Bali forced Jakarta to acknowledge the reality.