China leads in advocating free trade Jin BaisongChina Daily Updated: 2005-11-02 05:58
Now that East Asian economies' "V formation" - with Japan as the lead goose -
has been disrupted, an era of real competition has been ushered in, as pointed
out by Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank.
Competition is one thing and co-operation is another. Total trade volume in
East Asia increased by a factor of 7.8 from 1985 to 2003. Mutual investment
between different economies in the region has maintained energetic momentum.
Bundled together, China, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan and the 10-country
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have a population of 2 billion
and a GDP of US$7.44 trillion - a match for North America or the European Union.
The time is right for establishing free trade zones.
Regional economic grouping follows two paths. One is advocated by China and
promoted by Beijing and ASEAN countries, characterized by the establishment of
bilateral free trade zones. The other is led by Japan, which also focuses on
setting up free trade zones with ASEAN.
The European Union was formed because there were no distinct ideological
differences between member countries, with their values based on Christianity.
Economically, the foundations and need for close co-operation were already in
place.
But in Asia, values vary widely because of the profound influences of Indian
Civilization, Confucianism, Islam and Christianity existing side by side.
In view of this, the strength of individual economies is all the more
important for promoting regional economic co-operation and integration. China
and Japan, among others, could play a vital role in this regard on condition
that the two sides discard disputes, retain common ground and strive for
tolerance.
China joined the Bangkok Agreement in May 2001 and the World Trade
Organization in November of that year, and signed a framework agreement on
overall economic co-operation with ASEAN in 2002, targeting the establishment of
a Sino-ASEAN free trade zone by 2010. At the same time, co-operation in
investment, the information industry, monetary and service sectors has also been
stepped up. In addition, the Chinese Government has time and again expressed its
desire to establish a China-Japan-ROK free trade zone as well as the East Asia
free trade zone.
By doing this, China has indirectly become an advocate of free trade zones in
East Asia, which means the vast areas excluding the South Asia Subcontinent and
the nations in Central and West Asia. In other words, the country is playing a
leading role.
But Japan, which considers itself the unchallenged leader of Asia, has its
own plans, despite China expressing its desire for co-operation.
This was demonstrated by a plan hammered out at the 2003 ASEAN Summit in
Tokyo, a plan that will lead to the establishment of an economic partnership
agreement in East Asia.
But negotiations have proceeded slowly, owing to resistance from various
interested groups in Japan. In negotiations with Thailand on farm products, for
example, Japanese negotiators insisted that Japan's rice market remain closed to
the outside world. In talks with the Philippines on labour import, Japan
permitted the entry of only a very limited number of Filipino labourers. Such
behaviour makes some doubt if Japan is capable of acting like a world power.
At present, Japan's ability does not match its ambition to power economic
growth in East Asia. In the 1990s, the Japanese economy entered a chronic
sluggish period, which was made worse by the Asian financial crisis in the late
1990s. Now Japan depends heavily on China for consumption demand to lift it out
of the quagmire of a decade-long depression, let alone for driving the Asian
economy forwards. The countries that could replace Japan as the region's
economic locomotive are the United States beyond East Asia and China within.
In its 2000 white paper on trade, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry said Tokyo's involvement in regional economic co-operation in Asia is
meant to promote its domestic reform programme and enliven the Japanese economy.
In other words, Japan needed other Asian countries to help pull it out of
economic difficulties. So how can Asian countries that are much weaker
economically count on Japan's help in terms of regional development and
co-operation?
In addition, Japan has allied itself closely with the United States, which
naturally distances Japan from other Asian countries politically and
diplomatically.
Some Japanese foreign ministry officials think regional co-operation should
be carried out in political, diplomatic and security areas rather than in the
fields of economy and trade. Some Japanese defence researchers have proposed
that US military elements be ushered into the framework of East Asian
co-operation. Obviously a set of plans involving political, diplomatic and
security affairs with regard to East Asian co-operation is being conceived by
Japan. Once Tokyo unveils its plans, I believe it will be hard for East Asian
countries to accept them.
East Asian regional co-operation should follow a step-by-step principle. It
is supposed to start from economy and trade. Only when liberalization of trade
and investment is fairly consolidated can regional co-operation spread to new
fields and become deeper. The ideas of overall and fast-paced regional
co-operation as conceived by Japan are likely to exacerbate disputes between the
parties involved and lead to a failure of the regional co-operation.
I personally have some specific suggestions with regard to China's
co-operation with East Asian economies. To begin with, Thailand is the focal
ground because enterprises run by overseas Chinese make up an important portion
of the Thai economy and political, economic and cultural exchanges between China
and Thailand have been faring very well.
In addition, with a population of 60 million, Thailand is a huge market that
is fairly stable and standardized. In Thailand, Japan's competitive edge lies in
digital technology, automobiles, machinery and management expertise. China's
advantages lie in home electric appliances, cultural industries and textiles,
which should have priority in China's economic undertakings in the region.
Indonesia and Viet Nam are supposed to be secondary focuses. Considering
these markets are not as standardized as that in Thailand, though very large in
scale due to the countries' large populations, large-scale entry of Chinese
enterprises is not advisable at present. Projects enjoying government support
should be promoted first in order to power non-governmental co-operation in such
fields as energy and raw materials.
The author is a researcher at the Foreign Trade Research Section of the
Research Institute affiliated to the Ministry of Commerce
(China Daily 11/02/2005 page4)
|