Political and economic analysts vie with fund managers, public relations specialists, economic and business forums , futurists and psychics, along with outright hucksters seeking to land a fat contract with a Chinese investment company or government office keen at expounding notions such as “when China rules the world”, “the post- American world” or “the hemispheric shift to the Asia and the Pacific”, with all the consequences of how that trajectory of Chinese power will impact the rest of the world.

Markets, finance, oil and mineral deposits in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin Americas all are inextricably linked to the need to sustain China’s inevitable leap to the top of the table of power relationships.

The second school of thought draws an entirely different projection and conclusion. Members of the more “sober” view are less numerous and rarely capture headlines in the media and specialty trade magazines. Susan Shirk, a former American diplomat now teaching at a university in the United States, drew a more restrained picture in her 2005 book The Fragile Superpower, in which she sought to assess China’s weak institutional support in the internal structure and reach of China’s elements of governmental power. Others in this group focus on China’s opaque banking system run by the state-backed system with little capacity to develop a robust “red capitalist” financial system to underwrite the burgeoning economy away from the blistering growth in the Eastern coastal area of China, to China’s vast hinterlands in the north and west.

Gerard Lemos, a former British Council official who spent more than four years teaching at the Chongqing University of Technology and Business, has written The End of the Chinese Dream, based on his field experience gauging “the real world” of China’s rise from the ground level, in and around China’s third-largest city and its environments.

Eschewing the broad macroeconomic projections favored by marketing firms, Lemos embarked on examining the dynamics of China’s forgotten poor. Central to his message of getting to the real fate and feelings of the marginalized poor is his use of employing “The Wish Tree” method of assessing opinion among the underclass.

Behind the blinding figures of an eight percent GDP growth rate, the skyscrapers of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Beijing and “the unattractive urban sprawl of Chongqing” highlighting the promise for the emerging 300 million middle class, lies the grim reality of fear, uncertainty and continued abject deprivation of millions of Chinese workers who fear for their health, family well-being and financial support as a result of the Chinese government’s decision in the early 1990s to embark on political and economic reform, and entry to the wrenching and ruthless market-based global economy.

In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002, the government laid off 50 million workers from state enterprises, and another 18 million that lacked the benefits provided by their old jobs. During the same period, there were 400,000 registered cases a year of mass social protests across the country, in some cases involving murder, clashes between urban workers and migrants competing for a living wage. Inequities and injustices among the urban-rural divide also grew sharply, taxing the competence and resources of the People’s Security services and, in some instances, requiring the deployment of the People’ s Liberation Army to contain and suppress violent action by the poor.

Lemos lists a number of issues that arise from collecting data and feelings of those who registered their fears and worries through the “Wish Tree” they signed into. Fear about their future: unhappy families, educational pressures, failing health, prolonged financial insecurity and the dangers of polluting industries.

During the rule Mao Zedong in the 1950s and early 1960s, the Chinese dream consisted of owning a bicycle, a radio, a watch and a sewing machine. Under Deng Xiaoping in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the list consisted of “the eight bigs”: color television, refrigerator, stereo, camera, motorcycle, furniture, washing machine and electric fan. The 2010 China Human Development Report listed “the three bigs”: an education, a house and a car, but noted that finding jobs, access to medical service and attending school also became big concerns.

China’s current problems, albeit on a lesser scale, are a warning to other emerging markets, including: Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Growth may be fine for the middle class, but not for the forgotten lower class. As in China, the most challenging political economic issue is the widening Gini coefficient index, which has risen from 0.32 to 0.45 in income inequality, equal to contemporary United States, the most unequal society in the “developed world”. In differing trajectories, China and the US must each address this severe disparity in the monetized banking and financial worlds. Their success or failure in facing this reality, will decide which country remains “top dog” in 2030.

Its long-standing alliance with the United States and linkages to the US-Korea and the US-Taiwan security treaties network has given rise to its renewed security presence in East Asia, particularly given the uncertainty over reports regarding possible implications of the ongoing Chinese civilian and military elite relations over the role of the military in relation to politics and party leadership.

Japan’s recently published annual Defense White Paper cites “the worrying influence of the Chinese military in foreign policy issues over the disputed islands in the East China Sea” and “the need to reaffirm the presence of US forces stationed in Japan” against “regional contingencies” and “to bring a sense of security” to countries in the region.

The publication of the paper has received strong criticism from neighbors China and South Korea. While China has attacked the white paper for its gross “distortions”, jeopardizing Tokyo-Beijing relations and heightened tensions in the region, South Korea has issued an official reprimand, particularly regarding Japan’s reiterated claim to the Takeshima Islands, which are also claimed by Seoul under the name Dokdo.

The Japan-China dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands has given rise to a perceptible nationalist surge in Japan, even as the Chinese military attempt to project its influence within the Chinese Party hierarchy, months before the expected leadership change within the Chinese Communist Party. Tensions are reported to be running high ahead of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, with the Chinese military’s desire to control the state’s military policy before the October 2012 congress — a forum held once in a decade to decide on party leadership change
at the top.

Meanwhile, Chinese defense ministry officials have tried to assure its domestic and foreign policy constituents that “protecting national sovereignty and maritime rights and interests will be closely coordinated with other departments in conscientiously discharging our responsibilities”.

In recognition that the civilian–military tussle has led to confusion among civilian and military leaders in Beijing, among command-level operational units in the PLA Navy and associated fisheries, as well as para-military forces in East China and South China Seas, the Japanese defense forces have been placed on high, though subdued alert.

Uncertainties regarding East Asia multilateral security policies is compounded by criticism in the United States that the “Asia pivot”, announced by the Obama administration in November 2011, has not resulted in a tangible manifestation that “60 percent of American forces will be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region”.

Several US congressmen and US think-thank analysts have pointed to the continued American deployment to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. All this is in conjunction with uncertainty as to how the retrenchment of the US$450 billion US defense budget over the next 10 years will affect the “rebalancing” of US forces to the Asia-Pacific region, including the US-Japan alliance
system.

Preparing for these uncertainties has added urgency for the Japanese defense forces to quietly but firmly raise its profile in its relations with both US and Chinese forces, which have for so long overshadowed Japan’s security profile in East Asia.

Even with the current burden of its deficits from the 2007-2008 financial crises, the US’ defense budget of US$650 billion remains greater than the combined defense budgets of Russia, China, India, Japan, Britain, France and seven advanced countries in Europe. Control of the global commons remains in the US’ strong hands.

Defense of the global commons has two dimensions: a strategic-military dimension; including cyberspace, nuclear, sea and air conventional forces and undersea capabilities, and the natural-environmental dimension; including water, natural resources, Arctic regions and climate change.

Like other dominant powers throughout history, the US has sought to prevail over management of the global commons within the context of its national interest, hence the scope and size of the US defense budget.

In 1992, Washington spent more than $450 billion on 700 American bases in North America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East, surpassing the defense expenditures of the next 12 major powers combined. From the Arctic to Northern Europe to the tropical waters of Oceania, the sun never set on the backs of American GIs.

Twenty years later, the United States is spending $650 billion to sustain America’s global leadership over the next decade, even as it phases out $450 billion in spending over the next 10 years.

Part of the reduction is related to addressing US deficits after more than 15 years benefitting from loans extended by Europe, China, Japan and South Korea. All of these countries enjoy the privileges of America’s security assurances. China implicitly acknowledges the need for the US’s “stabilizing presence” - despite its occasional defiant rhetoric and statements of its national interest in the Taiwan Strait, the Korean peninsula, the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait.

The rise of East Asian economies has led Washington into tricky negotiations and to forge new implicit understandings about the cost structure of safeguarding the regional commons regarding international trade, investments flows and political pre-eminence in East and Southeast Asia.

Both regions are subject to the area of responsibility of the US Pacific Command, whose essential role in cyberspace and nuclear and undersea capability remains both intact and unchallenged. The phased reduction of US defense expenditures may reduce America’s near hegemony, but credible alternatives to Russian, Chinese or Indian “spheres of influence” have yet to materialize.

While China enjoys a comprehesive strategic relationship with the US, China is well aware that its investments across the world are secured by US military forces. While US soldiers and marines secure Iraq and Afghanistan, Chinese oil and mineral companies have gained rights in Iraq’s northern region and to mine copper in Afghanistan. China’s access to Brazil’s “Chinamax” superport has guaranteed an adequate supply of iron ore for China’s burgeoning steel industry — yet it is the US Navy’s omnipresent 11 carrier strike groups worldwide that ensure China’s access to oil and strategic materials from Africa and that its worldwide exports to emerging economies are delivered on time.

While it takes two to three weeks for Chinese oil tankers to reach their ports from the Persian Gulf, it is US naval strike groups in the Indian and Pacific Ocean that secure strategic military commons. China may be keen to present the renminbi as alternative currency to the US dollar and the euro, but the risk of imported inflation by loosening its peg to the dollar will force China to consider the security costs of abruptly challenging America’s military primacy. In addition, America’s dominance in cyberspace security over international finance and banking transactions across Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul and Southeast Asian countries faces no serious challenge.

In the long run, US management of the strategic-military and the environmental commons will have to be rebalanced with the assistance of China, Russia, India, Japan and other growing economies and markets in East and Southeast Asia. For the moment, however, the terms for a more distributive control of the global commons will have to be patiently negotiated not only by the defense, finance, trade and environmental ministries but also by the chambers of commerces across the world.

In the globally interconnected financial system, there are now more sober assessments about the economic trajectories of China, India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa and other emerging markets. Political crises in the Middle East and civic unrest in Russia have grave implications over the viability of the euro and energy supplies from Europe to Central Asia.

The key question is: How will the global security environment impact the future of market access and economic stability within Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Japan, South Korea and other economies in Latin America and Africa?

How will debates on retrenching the US defense budget over the next 10 years affect strategic assurances to the economies in mature as well as in emerging markets? Which power or combination of military powers can provide the all important security assurances that are vital to underpin economic recovery, deliver political stability and provide security assurances that markets anywhere ultimately rely on?

How will the global security environment evolve and how will regional security arrangements assure domestic market stability and predictability? The stability of debt restructuring in Europe depends on the security balance reached between the United States, NATO and Russia.

In East Asia, the terms and conditions of regional security depend on America’s commitment to the global commons and on China’s tacit acceptance of the preponderance of the US Navy for at least another 10 years. In Latin America and Africa, the American military presence helps assure regional economic and trade groupings, which offer timely financing to ensure sustainability in the war against drug and criminal gangs threatening nations’ social and cultural fabric.

The fulcrum of political-military “balance of power” and the evolving “power of balance” incorporating economic, financial, trade, investment and energy interaction traversing Europe, Central and the Middle East, Asia and Latin America will have to be factored in the overall rebalancing process.

As Russia, China and India develop greater military capabilities, can their desire to be preeminent in their respective “core areas of national interest” (Russia in Eastern Europe, China and India in Asia) be accommodated by American strategists increasingly aware of the need to share some degree of “strategic space” with Russia, China and India?

When the United States launched the 2008 Comprehensive Cyber Defense Capability, the stated goal was to ensure that US cyber security integrated federal, state government and private sector capabilities at all levels. It implied that US cyber defense covers military, business and finance sectors that serve to advance and protect the national security interest of the United States.

The lessons learned from cases of Russian and Chinese hacking into American systems in business and economic competitiveness have not been lost by influential business and political leaders.

More than ever, strategic linear planning must increasingly mesh with coordinated cyber capabilities. The subtle combination of “soft”, “smart” and “hard” powers has captured the imagination of leadership groups in government, in private business and in the military. Through this combination the US government and businesses can best connect, cooperate as well as compete across the world.

Increasingly, there is an urgent need to prepare more skilled and better-educated military officers able to interface not only with the planning of “military battles” over physical space, but also in areas of the “non-military battles” of ideas, of knowledge and of scientific skills, which are increasingly prominent in determining a nation’s ability to thrive in a “24/7” globalized world. Research in science and technology must continuously be prioritized to maintain America’s competitiveness against emerging market ascendancy.

In the US, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, the curricula of “network centric warfare” emphasizes the need to interact and interface continuously to a broad community of military units, business schools and academia. That is the essence of “total defense” in applying information technology and the power of the Internet.

At the recent Bali meeting of higher military educational institutions from ASEAN and neighboring nations, there was common understanding that ASEAN countries should adopt a comprehensive vision integrating the global, the regional, the national, the provincial and the local so that “access to” and “claims over” strategic resources in their respective countries and in internationally disputed areas can be resolved through mediation and peaceful negotiation. “Sovereign space” between and among the 10 ASEAN countries must be respected among all defense officials.

ASEAN leaders in government, business and the defense-security services have vital roles in preparing the next generation of leadership to be able identify future areas of long-term collaboration in government, businesses and defense throughout East Asia. Likewise, foreign, home, trade and finance ministries will have to hone their knowledge and personal instincts to enhance leadership skills combining political, economic and military “situational awareness” with greater degrees of “technical competence”.

The combined but subtle applications of soft, smart and hard powers must become the overall learning processes in all ASEAN countries: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Brunei Darussalam. This pool of human resources in the application of brain-warfare is ASEAN’s commitment to be counted in the East Asia rebalancing process.

Current and future generations of civilian, business and military officials in ASEAN, both at the national and local levels, must assume shared responsibility to secure the ASEAN Economic Community. Support from capable civilian, business and military leaders is crucial to the transformation of ASEAN into a credible entity within Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region as well as within the over-all global rebalancing act in the years to come.

Concern over current plans to cut America’s military spending (US$345 billion over the next 10 years) coincide with reports on China’s soaring defense budget ($120 billion a year and rising). Worry over a “dangerous confrontation” between the US and China is compounded over concerns that China may replace the US as the region’s “essential security guarantor”.

For the moment, the reality is less worrying. First, current American economic travails must be viewed in the context of the long-standing fusion of the economies of the US, Japan, Korea and China as inseparable trade, investment and financial trans-regional entities. The $14.5 trillion US economy is directly linked to South Korea (GDP $1.8 trillion), Japan GDP ($5 trillion) and China (GDP $5.2 trillion).

Notwithstanding the persistent trade and fiscal surpluses with the US for almost 20 decades, all three East Asia economies remain strongly welded to the American trade and financial markets. The US dollar remains the only currency with the backing of a credible and flexible market. The presence of well over $10 trillion in treasuries and foreign exchange reserves held by Korea, Japan and China are clear indications of the staying power of US stock, whatever the fluctuations of the bond and money markets. Chinese bankers agree there is no viable alternative to US treasury bonds.

Second, global markets do not and cannot operate in a security vacuum. Therein lies the importance of understanding the economic and security interface among the US, Korea, Japan and China. The fiscal and monetary positions of each of the East Asian economies are inextricably linked to the prevailing security assurance of US military preponderance, especially of its naval forces. Three generations of Korean and Japanese and two generations of Chinese economic officials implicitly understand the imperative of American naval, air and land forces providing strategic assurance throughout Northeast Asia.

While China’s leaders implicitly acknowledge the imperative of American dominance, its more pragmatic leaders must periodically defer to their hard-line factional rivals and register open defiance over America’s role in Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and in the South China Sea. From Deng Xiao ping to Hu Jintao, China’s more pragmatic leaders in the end prevailed in accepting American dominance, albeit as a “transient necessity”.

Like their Korean, Japanese counterparts, Chinese economic and business leaders understand that access to iron ore, oil, gas and other strategic minerals from points in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia rely on the secure sea lanes provided by America’s unmatched US Navy carrier strike groups in the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf region. In short, China’s future economic sustenance depends on continued American strategic preponderance.

US military power ensures that the stock, bond and financial markets in Seoul, Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong are inextricably linked to the New York Stock Exchange and to Chicago Mercantile. Hong Kong and Shanghai’s global financial links to New York, London and Frankfurt are based on the premise that Chinese access to world markets rest a stable American military assurance. Japanese, Korean and Chinese holdings build manufacturing bases in the US because their parent companies were secured by American strategic assurance in Northeast Asia.

The habitual concern over China’s increased military assertiveness is a reflection of the enduring factionalism between hardline nationalists and pragmatic internationalists within the Chinese Communist Party leadership. It is also a constant feature of policy differences between China’s hard-line defense ministry nationalists and pragmatist internationalists in the foreign policy and economic bureaucracies. Issues over Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea are part of the perennial contest for key policy decisions. These gyrations are reflected in the US between hardliners, who want to “punish” or “roll back” China, and those who understand that China’s assertiveness carry more rhetorical style than hard policy substance and that American prevalence, if not dominance, will continue for another generation.

China’s anti-satellite capability, its recent launch of its first aircraft carrier and stealth fighter capability, and other features of China’s military modernization, have important symbolic value to satisfy Chinese pride but they do not adversely reduce American strategic presence in East Asia. On this score, cool-headed defense and military leaders in the US and China share a much more in tacit understanding than appears in reported public debate.

There is finally the all-important but less publicly discussed issue of China’s severe internal economic and social problems, with their attendant dangers of political, economic and cultural unrest. It is in the interest of the US and of China’s neighbors in Northeast and Southeast Asia that China’s current internal political, economic and social unrest do not fuel passion within the country’s masses and its elites, giving fuel to channel aggressive nationalism abroad.

The “Fifth Generation” of China’s leaders who will gain top leadership positions in 2012 are expected to continue to focus on both surmounting the dangers of internal unrest and maintaining the path of peaceful accommodation between America and China. All nations and economies of Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and indeed the rest of the world, watch with keen anticipation that China’s peaceful development complements its continued peaceful accommodation with America.

First, Satelllite-based cyber defense: the use of satellite communications technology to transmit, encrypt, capture and control the transmission and content of military communications in space, including tracking and intercepting systems utilized and deployed by the military.

The United States, Russia, Japan and China dominate space-based defense technology. European countries, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore provide first and second-tier advanced communications technology systems deployed by land, sea and air forces.

Second, Strategic Nuclear: nuclear weapons with high-grade explosive capability with launch-capabilities of over 6,500 kilometers from land, sea and air. The United States and Russia lead the field with over 8,000-12,000 strategic nuclear warheads with command and control capabilities. China and India have fewer warheads, shorter launches as well as lesser command and control capability.

Third, Ballistic Nuclear: nuclear weapons with launch capability at ranges of 1,500-2,000 kilometers.The United States, Russia, China, India, France, the United Kingdom and North Korea are states that possess warheads and delivery systems linked to tactical nuclear weapons, deployed in tandem with conventional forces.

Fourth, Tri-Service Conventional Defense: “The military balance” usually associated with distribution and the quality of conventional army, navy and air forces’ ability to defend territorial integrity and maintain “deterrence” in conventional terms. The US is the only power with Carrier Strike Group (CSG) capability in the region as well as worldwide.

Fifth, Undersea Capability: deployment of undersea nuclear powered/nuclear-weapon submarine deployment, armed with strategic missile strike capabilities. Only the United States has the range capability in terms of numbers and accuracy, with Russia, China and India actively developing anti-ship missile capability, designed at enhancing their respective “strategic space” and “far sea” presence.

The above macro-security dimensions underwrite both the intra-regional and trans-regional economic relations. Japan, South Korea and later China benefited from American “security assurance” that provided economic, trade and invesment commitments in the Pacific. ASEAN today has become a community of 10 nations with a combined GDP of US$1.4 trillion.

The security, trade and investment complementarities linking Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean are covered by America’s critical role as the “security assurance” underpinning trans-regional stability. It survived upheavals in Southeast Asia, periodic crises over the Taiwan Straits and occasional tensions in the Korean peninsula.

The rise of China and India as regional and global economic powers has given rise to a desire by both nations to enhance “strategic space” in their respective “core areas of national interest”, in Northeast Asia and the Indian Ocean respectively. China and India’s core area of security presence will be taken into greater account as each nation increases its conventional power capability and affects ASEAN’s stance on regional security.

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)/ASEAN Security Community (ASC) aims to foster intra-regional links leading to market-driven economic prosperity. ASEAN+3 (Japan, South Korea, China), ASEAN+6 (Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, India) followed by ASEAN+8 with the entry of the United States and Russia in 2010, are enhancing the concept of regional security in an interconnected world.

The ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting, since May 2006, has provided a vehicle for ASEAN to provide “strategic space” among resident powers as well as calibrate “technological parity” with extra-regional military powers in order that regional security and economic progress become mutually reinforcing.

All of these collaborative clusters need to be carefully harmonized with the right pitch of military presence. The fulcrum of strategic “balance of power” and the evolving “power of balance”, incorporating economic, financial (AMRO, the ASEAN Macro Economics Research Office), trade (ACFTA, ASEAN-China Free Trade Area), investment and energy interactions need to be carefully calibrated by all nations in the region. The entire Trans Pacific Partnership community constitutes 78 percent of world GDP.

The key issues for ASEAN and for Indonesia in particular for the next 10-15 years: How coordinated and synchronized will ASEAN’s public and private leaders be to harness a concerted vision about its geo-political location relative to its geo-economic competitive strength? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore exemplify the imperative to utilize “brain power” in order “to live off” the rest of the world precisely because they do not possess natural resources.

What combination of “hard”, “soft” and “smart” powers must ASEAN’s leadership groups in the government, in the military and in private business command in order to be able to connect and cooperate with the US, Japan, China, Russia and India? Can the national security state cope with technological, economic and financial globalization? Can territorial defenses adapt to the functional aspects of global economic and financial competitiveness arising from the pervasive uses of technological innovation?

With a population of almost 500 million, ASEAN must adopt comprehensive policy visions simultaneously linking the global, the regional, the national, the provincial and the local levels. There is a need for more skilled and educationally trained civilian, business and military leaders who are skilled at interfacing the planning of “military battles” over physical space with areas where “non-military battles” of ideas, innovation, knowledge and financial and management skills become increasingly prominent in determining a nation’s ability to survive in a “24/7” competitive world.

Within the fused economies of Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, South Pacific and the Indian Ocean, ASEAN’s notion of total defense and security must merge territorial defense with functional defense. The real test for each ASEAN country is to provide broad-based social and economic justice at home. Indonesia must ensure sustainable human security, from Aceh to Papua, from North Sulawesi to East Nusa Tenggara. In the final analysis, social and economic justice is Indonesia’s best defense. A strong and stable Indonesia is in the interest of all ASEAN and for security cooperation with all major extra-regional powers.

*) The article was an excerpt from the opening remarks at the 4th NADI (Network of ASEAN Defense Institutes) Workshop in Jakarta on April 19, 2011.

We meet at a critical time in the geo-political and geo-economic setting of today’s world. This coming November 15, the powerful economies of the world___the United States (GDP: $ 14,5 trillion), the European Union (GDP: US 14,6 trillion) and Japan (GDP: US$ 4,6 trillion)__will meet in Washington for the G-20 Summit which aims to resolve the global financial market and economic crises which have afflicted many countries and regions across all continents. The Washington Summit follows the G-8 meeting in Hokkaido in September and last month’s Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) in Beijing.

CHOD-11 must take into account what will come out of the Washington Summit and its follow-up meetings. As the “center of gravity” of the world economy continue to shift from the North Atlantic to Asia and the Pacific, Japan, China, South Korea will play more significant roles in redesigning the global financial and economic orders. Sooner than later the crises will affect all of our economies, including the budget, force planning and operational capabilities of the defense forces. In turn, the crises will influence the security environment where trans-regional trade, investment and financial flows occur, ultimately impacting perceptions about future multilateral cooperation.

For over 60 years, the United States maintained “full spectrum dominance” in Asia and the Pacific. Throughout the Cold War (1947-1990) and beyond (1990- present). United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) held its role as “security provider,” enabling its treaty allies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) to secure 80% of energy supplies from the Middle East within a stable Northeast Asia-Southeast Asia-Indian Ocean environment. That security environment made possible Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and China to accumulate today’s combined GDP of US $ 11 trillion, whilst at the same time underwriting America’s trade and budget deficits. Growth of Asia Pacific coooperation, including the formation of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) in 1989 and the more recent East Asia Summit in 2005 were made possible by America’s ability to provide satellite surveillance, strategic nuclear, ballistic missile as well conventional forces “forward presence.”

Significantly, USPACOM secured both the intra-regional and trans-regional strategic balance. Japan provided economic, trade and invesment commitments, leading ASEAN to become today a community of 10 nations with a combined GDP of $1,2 trillion. The security, trade and investment complementarities linking Northeast and Southeast Asia were facilitated by USPACOM’s critical role as “regional balancer” adjusting to the shifts of trans-regional military balance over the past 60 yearss. It survived the upheavels in Indo-China (1954-1975), the crises over the Taiwan Straits and periodic tensions in the Korean peninsula.

The transformation from an alliance based SEATO to an independent Asean Regional Forum(ARF)/ASEAN Security Community (ASC) fostered inter-regional links leading to market-based economic prosperity. Indonesia’s vision within the ASC is to provide “strategic space” among all extra-regional and resident economic and military powers in order that multilateral cooperation, regional security and economic prosperity reinforces one another. In place of the former ANZUS (Ausralia-New Zealand-US) alliance, there now exists an informal quadrilateral security consultation forum involving the US, Japan, Australia and India.

CHOD in 21st Century must track trends and projections of Northeast and Southeast Asia with other transregional centers in Pacific Basin, including links with North America, Oceania, Australia/New Zealand and Latin America. USPACOM in Hawaii is strategically located to monitor trans-Pacific air and maritime trade, investments and financial interaction. As budgetary priorities shift, “regional cooperative clusters ” offer useful intersecting points in maintaining trans-regional stability: China-Japan-Korea in Northeast Asia; The ASEAN Security Community in Southeast Asia ; the US-Japan-Australia-India consultative framework.

All of these collaborative clusters need to be carefully harmonized with the right pitch of US military presence. The fulcrum of military “balance of power” and the evolving “power of balance” incorporating economic, financial, trade, investment and energy flows passing through the seas and airspaces of East and Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Indian Oceans were a carefully calibrated by USPACOM..

How will future multilateral cooperation fit into the above trends? How coordinated and synchronized will public and private leaders harness a concerted vision about each country’s geo-political distinct location relative to its geo-economic competitive strength? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore exemplify the imperative to utilize “brain power” in order “to live off” the rest of the world precisely because they do not possess natural resources. What combination of “hard”, “soft” and “smart” powers must leadership groups in government, in the military and in private business command in order to be able to connect, cooperate and at the same time compete with one another as well as with the rest of the world?

What is the role of traditional “military power” compared to the growing importance of “non-military warfare” such as the “battle” over brain-ware, creativity, ideas and innovation? What is the optimum mix matching the ability to“deter and destruct” with the ability to “capture and secure ” market share, financial assets and intellectual property”? Countries with sizeable numbers of population and territory must adopt a comprehensive policy vision simultaneously linking the global, the regional, the national, the provincial and the local so that “access to” and “claims over” strategic resources in international legally disputed areas can be resolved through mediation and peaceful negotiation.

There is need for more skilled and educationally trained military officers who are able to interface the planning of “military battles” over physical space with areas where the “non-military battles” of ideas, knowledge and management skills become increasingly prominent in determining a nation’s ability to survive in a “24/7” globalized world. The “war room”, “board room” and the “classroom” must interface continously.

CHOD has a vital role in preparing next generation of military leaders able to map out a network of collaboration among young officers in the armies, navies and air forces throughout the Pacific. They will be more skilled in the combined applications of “hard” military power, “smart” economic-financial power as well as the “soft” power of culture and communication.

Only in this way can future generation military leaders and defense planners can ensure that the shared responsibility to secure sustainable multilateral cooperation, regional security and economic prosperity will justly reward our vision of planning ahead in keeping the peace in our region.

The staple line of argument among liberal media circles in the West is that the “military junta” or “military regime” in Myanmar and Pakistan need to be changed into liberal democracies along the lines of what politicians, legislators and media pundits in America and Britain seemed to be obsessed with. The illusion that Aung San Suu Kyi, Benazir Bhutto and/or Nawaz Sharif and their coterie of politicos/lawyers are able to devise a alternative, competent and unifying “democratic”political system remains a strong and, at the same time, naive and dangerous one.

Some 8 years ago, at the residence of the British ambassador in Jakarta, I was invited to meet for tea with Michael Aris, husband of Aung San Suu Kyi. I asked him pointedly whether the National League for Democracy which his wife headed was really a viable political organization that could galvanise a sense of national purpose among Myanmar’s civic society, particularly among Shans, Karens, Kachens and other minorities. His answer was so carefully guarded that I did not press the point. I had earlier remarked to him that (then) Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri was still grappling with forging unity within her PDIP party. In other words, for the NLD and PDIP there were limits to riding on the on the charisma of Aung San and Soekarno, to which both Syuu Kyi’s and Megawat relied upon for their influence and legitimacy.

Aris and I both agreed that presenting a viable political alternative to the military would have to be one of the priorities of all Aung San Suu Kyi’s followers within Myanmar as well as self exciled Myanmarese residing in Thailand, Western Europe and North America. However powerful the military in its power grip , social and economic changes were taking place within the country which required adjustment on the part of the military. Deep down, Myanmar was undergoing vast economic and political changes similar to what took place during the final 10 years of President Soehartos’s rule in Indonesia. The key issue was defining the scope and pace of change engaging with the military.

In Indonesia, the political structure of the ruling Golkar, the military and the bureaucracy established in the 1970s and mid 1980s had served its purpose of providing stability but since the 1990s had felt the need to gradually adjust and adapt. As with Indonesia in the 1990s, Myanmar post 2000 was changing fast, and the Myanmar military leadership felt it had to adjust to the realities of Myanmar’s growing political and economic interaction with the outside world, not just with its ASEAN co-member states. In fact, a hybrid political transitional arrangement was in the cards since late mid 1990s, recognising the need on both sides to define how much change and how much continuity would be mutually agreeable and realistically feasible. The unsaid transition period would be “a generation”, which means at least 15-20 years.

Similarly with Pakistan. General Musharraf may have outlived his legitimacy and political hold as leader of a “front-line state” in the West’s war against terrorism. But it is important to recall that when he came to power in October 1999, the Pakistani political public had been fed up with the constant gibbering, grab and greed politics of the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments of the previous eight years. Not to speak of the associated role of “the infamous 22 families” which for long controlled the levers of political and economic power since Pakistan’s independence. Just as in Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, contending ruling civil and military elites have always been beholden to the 3 C’s (Chinese Crony Conglomerates) dispensing business and monetary favours in return for political recognition and protection.

The real issue, then, is: do the civilian leaders and their fast-talking lawyers, NGO types and politicians in Myanmar and Pakistan have a credible and presentable alternative to military dominance? Have they also realised that a hybrid “military-civilian transitional system” is the true and only viable one, until the much vaunted “institution building”__political, economic, social__ underpins a truly functioning and sustainable democracy based on a committed civilian based middle class?

BBC World TV is airing a series on “Why Democracy?” based on a survey in several countries across the world it conducted last August. I suspect that it will contain the underlying taxonomy of what the often insufferably condescending British like to claim as Anglo Saxon superiority as pioneers of modern political and parliamentary democracy. It will make little note of the historical, cultural and economic backdrop of how democracies are defined, applied and reinterpreted in terms of each country’s historical cultural and economic context. But then the BBC, The British Council and the English language itself, is the last best hope of what Churchill called the need to capture “the empires of the mind” in the wake of Britain’s imperial decline.

More sanity is called for about the future prospects of graduated political and economic democracy in Mmyanmar and Pakistan. Instant democracy___openness, free press, rule of law, transparency and other accountability features____are fine for those who can afford it. But for those who still live in despair and desperation, it would be naïve and dangerous to think that feisting Western style democracy would bring about instant solutions on the ground. Witness the current state of the “democracy project” in Iraq and Afganistan.

Western media have used such variants of expressions ranging from “Islamic fundamentalism”, “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamic Jihadists”, and even “Islamic Fascists”. Toxic television, rabble ras well as trash tabloids are prone to use these caricatures. They feed on one another in ways “fact” becomes fiction, and fiction “ ignites” facts.

The Muslim world as a whole has suffered from this massive media manipulation. It has given rise to many different set of perceptions about “clashes within civilizations,” including among Muslims in the Middle East, Asia and Southeast Asia. You can also say that it is a clash of ideas about civilizations across all continents.

The “Clash of Civilizations” was first publicly raised in 1993 in an article written in Foreign Affairs magazine by Professor Samuel Huntington , and it is useful to remind ourselves of the context of when and why the question of clash of civilizations was brought up at the time.

First, it appeared in the wake of the “victory” of liberal capitalism over communism symbolized by the unification of two Germanies in October and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December. Earlier, the January 1991 Gulf War over Kuwait added the sense of western triumphalism. American hegemonism was at its peak.

Second, the crises in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islamist movements against Western interests throughout the world in the mid 1980s began to be perceived in the West that “Radical Islam” would supplant Communism as the principal challenge for the world-wide ideological contest. Bombings against western interests in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Gulf region resulted in the rise of faith-based neo-conservatism in the United States.

Thereafter, the events of September 11, 2001 confirmed the notion in the West that there would be a world-wide contest between the liberal capitalist world led by the United States and the Islamic world led by Usamah Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda movement.

While there may be superficial truth about this world-wide contest for ideological supremacy, the fact of the matter is that there were even more serious clashes within civilizations, both in “the West” as well as in the “Muslim world”. Within the Western world, there began a series of political cleavages between Christian fundamentalists and progressive schools both in the Protestant as well as Catholic churches, in North America, Europe as well as in Latin America.

In the United States, the Christian right representing various church denominations became powerful in influencing both domestic and foreign policy debates. From prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriages, stem cell research, to preaching Christian civilization and feisting western-style “democracy” abroad, these self righteous views influenced the perception that the current American administration has been strong influenced by the right wing constituencies. In Europe, crises of identity among Muslims within each of the European democracies in part have been compounded by worries over illegal immigration.

Contrary to popular opinion both in the West and within the Muslim world itself, there began serious clashes about civilization in the Islamic world itself. While a tiny minority may have been attracted to the motion of a “world wide caliphate” imbued by Islamic values as propounded by Usamah Bin Laden, there have been different “realities ” at the ground level.

Serious differences of the interpretation of Islam in Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia began to proliferate. Differing interpretations of the practical application of Muslim values are present in the Middle East among and within each Arab state, between Arab states and Iran, between the larger Middle East and Turkey, between Muslims in Pakistan and Muslims in India. And indeed, among Muslims within Malaysia, Indonesia.

Ultimately, it is the clash of local political interests that define conflict in the Middle East. Much of the root causes of these conflict rests on tribal rivalry and clan contests for access to status, group privilege, personal power or combination of the three. As we meet in this room tonight, the Palestine Authority is divided by factionalism between Fatah and Hamas which ironically, has little to do with Islamic values. In contemporary Iraq, violent clashes occur between Sunnis and Shites, as well as among Sunni parochial groups. And then there are thecriminals and thugs who profit from incessant chaos. The issue of anti-Americanism is marginal to all of these situations.

Historically, the Muslim world in the Middle East has been marginalised by the juxtaposition of three issues: one, the Palestine-Israel conflict going back to the early 20th century; two, the nexus of energy dependence and strategic military projection of the West going back to the 1930s; three, the conflicting claims by Islam, Christianity, and the Jewish religion over heritage of the holy sites in the region.

After decades of so many “Middle East peace processes” involving presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, kings, sultan, emirs, special envoys, rapporteurs and good offices, there has to date been no international initiative that has been able to sustain the painstaking tribal and clan accords that are imperative to make any progress viable. Thus far, all manner of agreements have unravelled by these micro dimensions of clashes of civilization.

Indonesia has often been seen as a model “moderate” Muslim country which can play a significant contributing role to the peace process in the Middle East. But we all realise that the realities of the Muslim world in the Middle East is strikingly different from the situation in Southeast Asia. We must not be too tempted to preach, much less transpose, our version of Islam to the situation in the Arab world in particular and to the Middle East in general. The history, geography, culture and the regional strategic context of the Middle east and Southeast Asia are vastly too different to have any immediate practical relevance.

Within Indonesia itself, there is much work to be done in the days, months and years ahead to prevent and mitigate clashes within our own micro civilizations at the ground level. From Aceh to Papua, from Northen Sulawesi to the south in Rote, the challenges of alleviating mass poverty needs to be addressed in tandem with continuing cooperation and dialogue among Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and Confucians.

The effective delivery of food, adequate housing, clean water, primary health care, affordable utilities and employment to the 39 million who live off on less than 2 dollars a day and the 10 million openly jobless are sources of profound challenges to all Muslim leaders of the Muhammadiyah, the NU, and all Islam-based parties and civic groups represented in this hall.

For myself, it is a source of pride and hope that many of you who recently established this Centre have worked together with friends and colleagues from other faiths to rebuild schools, mosques, churches, and health care facilities after the many devastating social conflicts throughout Indonesia over the past 9 years.

While we may enjoy and enrich ourselves intellectually in gatherings of seminars, workshops and even in launch events such as here, we can only pre-empt clashes among our religious communities if we together cooperate in providing basic human needs to the poorest members of each of our constituents.

As we all work hard towards a fairer and just society, let us through the work of this Centre enhance our sense of tolerance among our faiths by appreciating the salient features of our respective religious precepts, rituals and norms. Let us commit ourselves to ensuring that many, if not all, of those whom we seek to alleviate from wrenching poverty can at least have the audacity of hope that their lives can improve within their life-time.

Realistically, we cannot in the near term save them all. There will be many who will have to go through a series of glitches and crashing of cultural gears, before things get better. But let us in this hall tonight pledge ourselves to resolving these ground-level issues as quickly as is humanely possible.

Only then can we be vindicated by our common commitment that this Centre is serious not only in promoting dialogue and cooperation among Indonesians of all faiths, but can provide real- world practical solutions on the ground that replenishes the true traditions of pluralism, tolerance and openness within the widening embrace of Indonesian-ness . Let us conduct dialogue and work cooperatively. Let us all practice what we preach.

At the same time, the Pentagon is wrapping up its own Iraq Review. The Pentagon review, led by Chairman of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace and prepared by three American colonels (two army and one marine) with experience on the ground in various insurgency-afflicted countries, provides a much more “ground level” military approach to the American military role in Iraq. The three options mentioned___ Go Big, Go Long and Go Home aims to boost US troop presence by 20.000 personnel, stave off sectarian violence and support Iraq to build a government of “national reconciliation”. There is no mention of a timetable for American withdrawal, though Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged that America “cannot win in Iraq.” However, there seems to be speculation that a “Go Long” strategy means “a surge” of American troop increase (”Go Big”), will eventually lead to a “Go Home” scenario.

In essence, American policymakers are reviewing the role of US military forces abroad, realizing that superior military technology has limits over essentially social and political problems on the ground. The paradox of American military power seems to be that the more overwhelming its military presence the less influential it becomes on matters pertaining to the local social and cultural situation on the ground. This is true of Afghanistan and even more pertinent to the situation in present day Iraq.

The recently published Pentagon “FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency” field manual asserts that American soldiers and marines must be prepared to be “nation-builders” as well as “warriors.” The aim is not to kill as many insurgents as possible but to maximise support from the local population (the old “winning hearts and minds” doctrine of 1960s Vietnam).

The US revised military doctrine is a throwback to the military doctrine of Indonesia in the early 1960s, when the Indonesian Army adapted its strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Indonesian people in its counter-insurgency against the Darul Islam (DI) and Tentara Islam Indonesia (TII) in West and Central Java, as well as South Sulawesi.

This much is acknowledged by George Packer in an article in The New Yorker magazine of December 18, 2006. Entitled “Knowing the Enemy”, Packer article cites the role of Australian colonel David Kilcullen, who currently assists the Pentagon in revising US military doctrine abroad . Kilcullen’s experience as a captain in a language immersion program in West Java in the early 1990s revealed to him the essentially political and anthropological nature of the “Islamic insurgency” in West Java. It was, he acknowledged, not a primarily religious as a matter of social identity and network. Kilcullen later completed a dissertation in political anthropology on the Darul Islam conflict at the University of New South Wales. Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger Petersen, he observes “People don’t get involved into a rebellion bytheir ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.”

The Indonesian Army in the early 1960s effectively won over the hearts and minds of the local populace because it was able to deploy soldiers skilled in networking with the people, understanding the local social and cultural make-up, thereby effectively depriving the DI and TII of their social support . More recently, the Indonesian army’s territorial back-up role of the police effectively deprived the DI’s supposedly successor, the Jemaah Islamiyah of popular support among moderate Islamic civic organizations.

The Indonesian Army was less successful with East Timor, when its militias created a backlash and instigated events that eventually led to the birth of Timor Leste.

There is of course one big difference between the current Iraq problem and the Indonesian Army success in the early 1960s. That is the importance of the information warfare conducted by insurgents everywhere against heavily armed conventional armed forces too reliant on technology and firepower. Al Qaeda and other anti-American insurgents skillfully manipulated satellite television coverage and the internet to apply political pressure to the millions of American viewers at home. Iraq effectively became a major domestic political agenda in the US.

It has been argued that anti-American insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan attacked American forces and interests to deliberately help re-elect George Bush in 2004, knowing that his hard line policies would further inflame anti-Americanism and replenish financial as well as political support against American military presence in Iraq . The Indonesian experience in battling Islamic insurgents in the early 1960s may be one useful lesson. But Indonesia’s loss of East Timor in 1999-2002 could be of greater relevance to the Pentagon planners contemplating the Iraq problem in the months and years ahead.

*) Wishing you a safe and happy holidays, and a prosperous New Year!