By Yang Wenchang
The security situation in Northeast Asia has been consistently
complicated over the past 50 years, featuring interweaving
conflicts, old and new, and a large number of unsafe and
destabilizing factors.
On the one hand, the fragile peace that took shape during the
Cold War years has been maintained; on the other, however, as the
scars and wounds caused by wars and conflicts in the region since
World War II are left unhealed, the possibility of having all
potential security risks in the region properly addressed in the
near future remains elusive. In particular, the outbreak of the
Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis has turned Northeast Asia into one
of world's trouble spots, less serious only than the Middle
East.
The following are the major potential security risks in the
region:
1. On the Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis, a light appears to
have emerged as chief delegates to the six-party talks on the issue wrapped up their
talks in Beijing on Friday with a schedule for further meetings on
the denuclearization process. However, given the weak political
trust between the United States and North Korea, any positive
statement of substantive progress from the talks on the crisis
seemed too early. Should the talks on the Korean nuclear crisis
fail to find a way out of the difficult situation, the danger of a
nuclear arms race taking place in Northeast Asia and even slipping
out of control will grow substantial.
2. The United States and Japan, the world's leading economic
powers, have constantly strengthened and deepened their security
alliance, bringing pressure to other countries in the region. These
moves, aimed at seeking self security at the expense of a sense of
security for others, is less than conducive to the fostering of
enduring peace in the region.
3. In spite of a relaxed military standoff between the North and
the South on the Korean Peninsula, the two sides are still engaged
in frequent military exercises aimed at deterrence and
anti-deterrence as well as containment and anti-containment. With
tension embedded in the fragile peace, the prospect of unification
on the peninsula remains slim.
4. Disputes among countries over territorial and maritime rights
keep cropping up. These disputes, if mishandled, might touch off
new crises.
In addition, the separatist forces in Taiwan headed by Chen
Shui-bian still cling tight to their "independence" attempts, thus
posing a grave threat to the peace of Taiwan and the region as a
whole.
My proposal of a new security pattern in Northeast Asia is based
on the fact that the region has had no reliable security mechanism
since the Korean War and the ideology-based security alliances
among some countries are incapable of ensuring lasting peace in the
region. I am also of the view that the unique historical background
of Northeast Asia makes the security patterns elsewhere unfitting
to the region. Hence, a new pattern should be built in the region
that is based on the actual diversity of the region and acceptable
to all sides concerned.
1. The European pattern does not fit Northeast Asia.
Profound changes took place on the European security landscape
after the end of the Cold War. There used to be two military rivals
in Europe. But one of them ceased to exist following the
disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European
bloc, leaving the other one at a loss for new defense goals with
the loss of a rival on its par. Despite present setbacks in the
European integration process, the call for peacefully building a
new Europe has become the main theme of the whole continent.
The security situation in Northeast Asia, in contrast, bears
little room for optimism. First and foremost, the above problems
could hardly be properly solved soon. Second, given the varied
historical and cultural backgrounds as well as varying level of
economic development among Northeast Asian countries, the region is
not equipped with conditions for integration in the way Europe
is.
However, the yearning for peace and development and the urgent
need for a peaceful regional environment for their economic and
social development in all countries in the region make it utterly
necessary to build a new security pattern in Northeast Asia that is
binding to all countries in the region.
2. My thinking for the future new security pattern in Northeast
Asia is: take the six-party talks on the Korean nuclear issue as an
opportunity to push forward the building of enduring peace in the
region.
A specific proposal is as follows: through joint efforts, six
parties should endeavor to materialize the 9.19 and 2.13 consensus
reached during the 6th round six-party talks, and on this basis, a
regional summit on peace and security can be held with the
conclusion of a Peace Treaty in Northeast Asia in the 21st
Century.
The purpose of this summit is: propose basic principles for
enduring peace in the region based on the diversity in Northeast
Asian countries; reach an agreement in principle on concluding the
Peace Treaty in Northeast Asia in the 21st Century; based on this
summit, governments concerned designate experts and scholars to
draft the specific clauses of this Peace Treaty in Northeast Asia
in the 21st Century, which can be discussed and adopted in a
regional international conference, then submitted to the
governments concerned for signature and entry into force, and to
the United Nations for record.
Conclusion of such a new treaty will have the following
effects:
First, the series of issues left over from history in the region
will be further cooled down and enabling conditions will be created
for their final peaceful solution.
Second, antagonism among countries in the region because of
differences in ideology will be greatly eased.
Third, fostering a relatively enduring regional environment of
peace will be conducive to regional economic integration, which
will benefit the United States, all East Asian countries and
Oceanic countries. Deepened economic integration in the region
will, in turn, be a positive force for regional peace and
security.
3. To rebuild the peace and security pattern in Northeast Asia
requires major countries in the region such as China, the United
States, Japan and Russia to take the lead while all other countries
in the region to take an active part.
To be frank, it is not easy to conclude a Peace Treaty in
Northeast Asia in the 21st Century. But it is a treaty well worth
the efforts of all the countries in the region despite the
different values they uphold. Nonetheless, whether such a new
pattern could be built depends on the political will of China, the
US, Japan and Russia. Major countries in the region must realize
that upholding long-term peace and stability in Northeast Asia not
only serves their long-term interests, but also makes them
responsible to other countries in the region. To this end, may I
make a bold suggestion that the idea of concluding a peace treaty
should be included in the official strategic dialogue mechanism
among China, the United States, Japan and Russia and gradually
placed on the agenda of the leaders' dialogue.
After an "ice-breaking trip" to China by Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao paid a very successful "ice-melting trip" to Japan in April. The Joint
Communique issued by the two governments made the two peoples and
the people of the rest of the world see again the dawn of peaceful
cooperation between China and Japan, the two major powers in Asia.
As two major countries in Northeast Asia, China and Japan are
responsible for making efforts for enduring peace in the region. So
I suggest that experts and scholars of China and Japan meet
regularly to have in-depth exchanges of views on such an important
issue.
The author is president of the Chinese People's Institute of
Foreign Affairs.
(China Daily July 24, 2007)
