UPDATE: Experts and international observers praised Cambodia’s national elections as free, fair, transparent and nonintimidating because the people clearly understood the value of democracy.
Cambodia has proposed that a recently-concluded ASEAN-China Think Tank Cooperation Forum be upgraded to be a permanent and regular platform to discuss politics, security, development, economic and socio-cultural issues.
The Indo-Pacific Economic framework (IPEF) is more like noise than a signal. It sounds like economic connectivity and inclusion, but lacks a solid set of rules and regulations, impairing a free, fair, and impartial global market and demotivates trade facilitation and tax reduction mechanisms.
The US recently expanded its military presence in Australia and promised to help Australia establish missile manufacturing capacity. Some observers argue that such a move is preparation for upgraded conflicts in Asia-Pacific. Has Australia become a military base of the US? How does the US influence Australia's strategy toward China and China-Australia relations?
Observers praise Cambodia’s free and fair elections
Experts and international observers praised Cambodia’s national elections as free, fair, transparent and nonintimidating because the people clearly understood the value of democracy.
“I can say that the election in Cambodia was clear and calm and there were no incidents on election day, the people clearly understood the value of democracy,” Hubert Moshe Haddad, an adviser to the Ivorian president, said yesterday.
Cambodia’s July 23 National Election was transparent and that the situation in the city was calm before and during the campaign which proved that democracy in Cambodia is very strong, he said.
Hubert said that the people went to vote without coercion and more than 84% of people entitled to vote, cast their ballots.
The remarks came from a special discussion, organised by the Royal Academy of Cambodia under the theme “Elections in Cambodia and People’s Choices Revealed.”
The discussion was facilitated by Kin Phea, director-general of the Royal Academy of Cambodia’s International Relations Institute.
The speakers in the discussion include: Dim Sovannarom, Member of the National Election Committee (NEC), Justice Ministry spokesman Chin Malin, Kem Rath Viseth, Chairman of the Board of the Civil Society Forum, Luca Schio, President of the Paris-based International Alliance Electoral Observers (IAEO), Hubert Moshe Haddad, Advisor to the President of Ivory Coast, and Francis Gabriel Oke, Permanent Secretary of The Economic Community of West African States, which had 15 West African member states (ECOWAS) (joined on Zoom) and Chheang Vannarith, President of the Asian Vision Institute (AVI).
Luca Schio, President of the IAEO, said that he and other international observers went to each polling station carefully.
“We saw that the polling stations were open from 7:00 am and that there were enough election materials and that the officials were doing their job professionally,” he said.
The election process is conducted in accordance with the law and adheres to the principles of open democracy for the people to exercise their rights. Verification of voters with voter ID cards is an important way to avoid identity fraud, Luca added.
Francis Gabriel Oke, Permanent Secretary of the Economic Community of West African States, said that using some public places as polling stations, such as schools, pagodas, was very useful.
After the polls closed at 3 pm, it was observed that the election officials carried out the most careful vote counting under the observation of national and international observers, representatives of political parties, and national and international journalists, he said.
“Every voter exercised his or her rights without fear that these images are a testament to the success of democracy in Cambodia,” Oke said
“The growth of democracy is not only in Cambodia, but will continue to spread to other countries in the region,” Oke added.
Viseth said that the atmosphere of Election Day was safe, secure, free, transparent and without violence.
The observer delegation did not see complaints from any party on Election Day. No signs of intimidation were seen, as NEC officials are independent and transparent, he said.
“The electoral process is carried out in accordance with national law. Moreover, people have a clear understanding of the electoral process and value democracy in their country,” Viseth added.
Sovannarom said that the National Election really reflected the free and fair election process in Cambodia.
All political parties participated freely and equally and in accordance with the legal framework. The two parties that did not contest the election were due to their fault, not the NEC’s fault, he said.
“The people who participated in the election expressed their will through free and peaceful election,” he said.
“We did not see any signs of intimidation or violence in any of the polling stations we observed during this election,” he said.
Read more here.
Cambodia seeks permanent China-ASEAN think tank platform
Cambodia has proposed that a recently-concluded ASEAN-China Think Tank Cooperation Forum be upgraded to be a permanent and regular platform to discuss politics, security, development, economic and socio-cultural issues.
The forum was launched in conjunction with the 2023 ASEAN-China Greater Bay Area Economic Cooperation (Qianhai) Forum which was held in Shenzhen, a southeastern City of China on July 29 and July 30 .
More than 500 political and business representatives from ASEAN countries and China attended the opening ceremony and related events.
During the event, China and ASEAN launched the ASEAN-Greater Bay Area International Chamber of Commerce Alliance and the ASEAN-China Think Tank Cooperation Partnership.
At the Think Tank Cooperation Forum which was held under the theme “Mechanisms and Policy for Digital Economy Cooperation”, the representatives from the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and China gave input during in-depth exchanges and discussions on regional cooperation.
This forum was aimed at bringing about accurate and better mutual understanding of China and ASEAN and their peoples’ ties, promoting mutual learning, inclusive development, human resource development, and people-to-people exchanges.
At the forum, Kin Phea, Director-General of the Royal Academy of Cambodia’s International Relations Institute of Cambodia, a top government think tank that represented Cambodia, called for a permanent and regular platform to be held every year with the participation of a larger number of think tanks from China and ASEAN countries.
He said the forum should focus on sectoral subthemes, including political, security, economic, trade, development, environmental sustainability, and socio-cultural issues.
Phea urged for the promotion of the track 1.5 platform concept, among China and ASEAN think tanks and governments to influence policy development by using an engagement approach, enhancing exchanges in which scholars from Chinese side and ASEAN counterparts visit each other to exchange views.
Track 1.5 dialogues are conversations that include a mix of government officials—who participate in an unofficial capacity—and non-governmental experts, all sitting around the same table.
Cambodia also encouraged having joint research programmes, publications, organisation of academic forums, information and knowledge sharing as well as the establishment of a China-ASEAN Think Tank Network with a solid structure, concrete plan, and concrete activities.
The Kingdom pushed for the establishment of a China-ASEAN Research Fund where think tanks from the countries concerned can apply for funds to organise academic forums, joint research, publication, and knowledge sharing.
“Whenever Chinese or ASEAN think tanks host any academic events, experts from both sides should be invited,” he said, calling for more sideline events to be held during ASEAN or ASEAN-China summits.
“The International Relations Institute of Cambodia is looking forward to collaborative projects and activities with all Chinese and ASEAN think tanks, research institutions and universities to promote the role of think tanks, deepen academic exchanges and produce high-quality research results and publications in contributing wisdom and strength and making solid progress in the joint development of a community with a shared future for mankind,” he said.
Chinese universities, think tanks and research institutions have been particularly active in establishing new linkages with Cambodia in the past and have new momentum within the ‘diamond hexagon’ framework for an improved system of coordinated research that results in dissemination and publication and intellectual exchange.
“Cambodia-China knowledge sharing networks” range from the Cambodian Senate and National Assembly to government ministries and the Royal Academy of Cambodia (RAC).
The second Cambodia-China Think Tank High-Level Forum was held in 2021 with the theme of “Towards New Development Phase of Cambodia-China Bilateral Relations.” The event was co-hosted by the RAC and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).
At that time, Permanent Deputy Prime Minister Bin Chhin had called for strengthening and expanding cooperation between China and the Cambodian think tanks.
“I’d like to request that the Chinese side continue to assist the International Relations Institute of Cambodia (IRIC) by holding these forums more frequently, especially to support research to assist the deepening of the relationship between our governments,” he said.
At the Qianhai Forum, Shi Zhongjun, the Secretary-General of the ASEAN-China Centre (ACC) said the cooperation on digital economy and science and technology innovation represents an important part of ASEAN-China practical cooperation.
In his keynote address, Rommel C. Banlaoi, President of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies (PACS) said, the holding of the ASEAN-China Think Tank Cooperation Partnership reaffirmed the enormous importance of think tanks in promoting cooperation, partnership and peace not only with China and ASEAN but also with the rest of the world.
“Specifically, the ASEAN-China Think Tank Cooperation Partnership can stress the vital role of think tanks in implementing the China-ASEAN Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP),” he said.
At the 24th ASEAN-China Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) meeting held at the ASEAN Secretariat in May, Chinese and the bloc leaders reaffirmed their commitments to advance the CSP. China and ASEAN established the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) in 2021 to mark their achievements of 30 years of China-ASEAN Dialogue Relations.
Banlaoi noted that think tanks can start up a new type of partnership and ensure that China and ASEAN can achieve their goals in the CSP.
“All existing think tanks in China and ASEAN need to pursue closer collaboration in research, studies and advocacies to facilitate the implementation of the CSP to enable China and Southeast Asian nations to enjoy a community of shared future with the rest of the world,” he added.
Read more here.
IPEF: more noise than signal
By Yasir Habib Khan
Overall, if analyzed holistically and pragmatically, the Indo-Pacific Economic framework (IPEF) is more like noise than a signal. It sounds like this all-too-obvious political publicity stunt is about economic connectivity and inclusion. However, on practical grounds, it lacks a solid set of rules and regulations, impairing a free, fair, and impartial global market. It also demotivates trade facilitation and tax reduction mechanisms.
The reason why IPEF advocates a zero-sum game lies in its essence and the resulting conspiracy. Access to the US market under the US-led framework is extremely ambiguous, creating serious obstacles for Indo-Pacific nations to make binding commitments to the high standards sought by the Biden administration.
After the US unilaterally quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it has been intensifying efforts to reclaim its economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific region, striving to put forth an alternative to China’s economic strategy, in the shape of IPEF.
However, the Biden administration does not want to channelize IPEF at the expense of its own market, technically disallowing the rest of IPEF partners, especially economically unstable countries, from enjoying the US business ecosystem.
According to an opinion piece published in a renowned media outlet, US national security advisor Jake Sullivan has said the framework is a means for the US to “strengthen ties with allies and partners for the purpose of increasing shared prosperity.” But analysts noted it is “more marketing than policy.”
The lack of consistency in implementing global economic policies has already drawn ire from international players, especially those part of the US-led framework. It smothers the belief that with a change of command, the US changes its economic strategies. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious major trade pact involving Indo-Pacific countries, was part of President Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia.
Trump pulled the US out of the trade pact in 2017, after it drew criticism from the protectionist end of the US political spectrum. Nobody knows what will happen with IPEF after Biden is gone.
The biggest problem with IPEF is Washington’s mounting rivalry to “free trade.” There are no market access or tariff reduction provisions in the framework, which destroys trade incentives that countries in the region long for.
It was also difficult for the Biden administration to promise sufficient political and economic capital to IPEF. Several developing countries in the framework have demanded clean energy as a significant interest in IPEF. But while renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, the start-up costs of increasing renewable energy production in a country are skyrocketing due to existing infrastructure where carbon-intensive energy generation continues to rule.
Regional partners and countries would urge to pour financial support from the US in eliminating their coal sectors gradually. But apprehensions remain about the funding and execution of these initiatives, especially since IPEF has not been approved by the US Congress, and its political sustainability has been questioned.
No doubt, the verbal features of IPEF include trade facilitation, access to the digital ecosystem, financial assistance for clean-energy transition, and increased investment in the improvement of infrastructure, taxation, and anti-corruption. In order to put all in force, certain economic, legal, and financial SOPs are to be tweaked. The question pops up: Is anything set in motion so far? The answer is simple: not at all.
“If you look at the four pillars, it really requires all partners to do something to change their laws or regulations or the way they operate to a large extent,” said international trade expert and professor of law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Bryan Mercurio, in an article published in an international media outlet.
Experts believe that IPEF hurts economic dividends, harming globalization and win-win situations; it solely serves the geopolitical interests of the US and Japan, who believe that IPEF will give leverage in coping with “economic security threats” from China.
Chinese leadership has made categorical assertions that China does not want to dominate the world. Even in an article published in CGTN, it has been projected clearly: “Peace and development are values that all the world shares, and ideas for solving related problems will increasingly come from the majority of humanity in the Global South. The US Cold War mentality has led to a knee-jerk reaction of criticizing anything that comes out of China, but a closer look at what China proposes suggests that it doesn’t seek to dominate the world, and instead, it is integrating these initiatives with the needs of the entire world and the UN order supported by the US.”
Along with the US, major economies like Australia, Japan, South Korea, and India, developing countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand, as well as smaller nations like Brunei, New Zealand, and Singapore, are signatories of the framework. These countries represent about 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, and about 60 percent of the world’s population resides in the Indo-Pacific region.
In accordance with the White House FACT SHEET: In Asia, President Biden and a Dozen Indo-Pacific Partners Launch the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, it is said that US foreign direct investment in the region totaled more than USD 969 billion in 2020 and has nearly doubled in the last decade, and the US is the leading exporter of services to the region, helping fuel regional growth. Trade with the Indo-Pacific supports more than three million American jobs and is the source of nearly USD 900 billion in foreign direct investment in the US. With 60 percent of the world’s population, the Indo-Pacific is projected to be the largest contributor to global growth over the next 30 years. Besides, the region is highly likely to be the largest contributor to global growth over the next three decades.
Many regional partners have spoken out against IPEF, terming it as essentially a political effort aimed to counter China, rather than a sincere and thoughtful economic policy integration initiative.
In the backdrop of the existing regional economic architecture that already includes the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative, and numerous free trade deals, and many countries are negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), IPEF, as a political gimmick, has lost steam since its onset.
Meanwhile, the digital economy is an especially integral segment of IPEF for many countries in the region. For those with advanced economies, such as Singapore, New Zealand, the ROK, Australia, and Japan, the digital part gives rise to an opportunity to synergize data, privacy, intellectual property, digital tax, and technology policies to foster a more open and interoperable market for advanced digital economies.
However, the White House administration is trying to bolster those terms and conditions of digital technologies and digital trade like artificial intelligence and 5G that promote American First Policy and suit the US dominance. Many countries, particularly the many less-developed countries in the South and Southeast region, cannot meet the standards, or they cannot see the standards suitable for their country.
IPEF must provide incentives to the members and demonstrate that the US is committed to long-term participation in the region. If the US-run framework fails to do so, it will be considered a failure.
With rising inflation, geopolitical disputes, and energy crises seriously threatening the Asia-Pacific region, the region should seek cooperation, not division. With IPEF being driven more by geopolitical considerations rather than economic factors, it will be overshadowed by CPTPP and RCEP. Besides, if Chinese leadership keeps the right direction concerning domestic and international policies, China is destined to thrive with strategies of multilateralism and globalisation.
Read more here.
The US doesn't care much about Australia, but sees it as deputy sheriff in Asia
GT interview with Dr. Digby James Wren (edited)
The US recently expanded its military presence in Australia and promised to help Australia establish missile manufacturing capacity. Some observers argue that such a move is preparation for upgraded conflicts in Asia-Pacific. Has Australia become a military base of the US? How does the US influence Australia's strategy toward China and China-Australia relations? Are China-Australia relations and Australia-US relations zero-sum games? Dr. Digby James Wren (Wren), an Australian scholar and Special Senior advisor at the International Relations Institute of Cambodia, shared his views with Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Zixuan in the following interview.
GT: Recently, the US has been expanding its military presence in Australia and has promised to help Australia establish its missile manufacturing capacity. What do you think of this "help" from the US? Some have said that Australia will become a military base and arsenal of the US.
Wren: I think it's very clear that Australia is deeply embedded in the US' Indo-Pacific strategy designed to counter China. It now constitutes their main foreign policy objective and part of a greater US plan that's unfolding across the region, which is to build military supply chains to support military operations.
Now, Australia is being brought into this. It's part of the AUKUS arrangements. And it's a longstanding arrangement and only going to increase. The militarisation of the Indo-Pacific is not a positive sign, but that's where Australia is going and justifiably coming under a lot of criticism for its loss of sovereignty vis-a-vis the US.
GT: There are analyses that the US moves in Australia are prepared for upgraded conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region, what's your understanding? Is it in Australia's interest to support the US by making itself a stronghold or providing arms to counter or even attack other countries?
Wren: The US is already basing B-52 bombers and the construction of a nuclear-capable submarine base on the east coast of Australia is imminent. Thus, functionally, Australia is becoming a key base for the forward posture of US forces.
Australia doesn't have the capacity to build or maintain any kind of nuclear-propelled sub. The Americans are using Australia to extend their nuclear submarine fleet bases. Nuclear capable subs operating out of Australia is clearly nuclear proliferation. The Australian government has a policy of tactical ambiguity asserting that they don't know whether or not the B-52s and Virginia Class subs carry nuclear weapons. This means that Washington is effectively directing Australian military forces, using them as US auxiliaries, and projecting them into the Asia-Pacific region.
Every state has the right to defend itself and to have some kind of military capacity to guarantee its sovereignty and territorial integrity. But this is far more aggressive than that. This is about the projection of power, not Australian power, but US power across the Pacific islands and into the South China Sea and possibly even onto the continental shelf between Taiwan and the mainland.
It's a very worrying increase in the capacity of the US. For Australia, I think it's a change in their posture from defending the north of Australia to becoming an offensive arrangement targeted at China. The key issue is that it's militarization without dialogue, and it fits into a preconceived plan that doesn't take into consideration the actual realities of the Southeast Asian states and China, and even East Asia.
GT: China-Australia relations have eased since the Albanese government, but some media have said that the deepening of US-Australia military cooperation is targeted at China. What impact do you think the US is having on Australia's strategy toward China and China-Australia relations?
Wren: The Australia-China relationship has a long history. Since at least the 1970s, that relationship was very much based on trade. Australia's phenomenal economic performance over that period is largely due to this relationship.
So it's been a very good Since 2011 that relationship has been caught up in a larger strategy by the US and since 2016 trade has doubled but so have tensions. I think the Australian government, in many ways, has recognised this, allowed it to happen, and willingly become subject to US foreign policy goals. In fact, one could say that Australia's foreign policy is being set in Washington.
GT: In your eyes, are China-Australia relations and Australia-US relations zero-sum games?
Wren: It is often called a “Cold War mentality” or “zero-sum” as in game theory. The trend is in that direction. Obviously, the US and Canberra are not looking for win-win outcomes. While the justification for Australia’s willingness to join the US is framed in the idea of deterrence, the reality is the deployment of military forces along the first and second island chains to impose a rules-based order where the rules are set in Washington and effectively disregard the voices of the ASEAN nations, China and others.
The so-called Indo-Pacific strategy is, in real terms, an evolving set of actions designed to limit China’s “National Rejuvenation”. This is widely understood and is a dangerous plan of regional militarisation to catalyse an Asian arms race. In the longer-term only negotiations, and diplomacy to reset cordial relations and mutual benefit can guarantee the continuing prosperity of the Australian economy, which is being degraded for incremental tactical advantages for US foreign policy objectives.
The plan and its purpose is to destabilise the region much as Europe has been enormously destabilised. All ASEAN governments and China seek to deter further US-led destabilisation. Even the Australians don't want that, but they seem to be taking all the steps that precede actual conflict.
GT: What do you think about the coexistence of hostile voices toward China and rational calls for strengthening economic ties with China in your country? What do you think Australia should do to ensure its ties with China are in the interests of Australia?
Wren: I think that Australia's economy can't really live without China. Some might argue that China is also dependent in many ways on Australia's mineral exports. It's in neither party's interest to dismantle that arrangement. But the idea that Chinese money from iron ore exports is funding weapons production and deployment to be used against China is a zero-sum calculation.
The IMF has noted that Australia has declining living standards. ItAustralia relies heavily for both trade and security with Southeast Asia. So Australia has no option but to maintain its trade relationship with China. The current government has said from the outset that it would try to do that. But the Americans have managed to induce Australia to fund US weapons production lines for $380 billion to become a forward auxiliary forces outpost in Asia-Pacific.
I think China-Australia ties are going to maintain the current trajectory. It's going to be a very rocky road. There's very little opportunity for relaxation of tensions. So diplomatic relations are fraught. I fundamentally believe that Australia does not seek war in Asia-Pacific. But I also believe that many Australian elites are completely skewed to the American view regardless of the potential dangers for Australia’s future in Asia - that is the most dangerous part.
The only way that it might be corrected is through the democratic processes in Australia and the US, and that is more important than the media onslaught inciting fear of war in the region. I really don't think these AUKUS arrangements are going to float. It's a kind of tactic without a strategy, hinged on American direction of their Australian deputy sheriff in Asia.
But in the long term, it's a miscalculation. China seeks to retain its good neighbour relations. It needs to keep a very steady hand on its diplomacy and understand that Australia is a very small country in real terms, and China’s interests in the region also benefit by maintaining a good relationship with Australia.
Since at least the 1970s, Australia has realized that its future is in Asia. While the Americans are often lauded as being the largest investors in Australia, actually, Australia is seeking other sources of investment for upgrading all the time. I think Australians, generally the political elites, understand that a conflict in the region is not to their benefit. They know that they need to have better relations with Southeast Asia, specifically with ASEAN.
However, a key issue is the Australian mentality. Do Australians really understand China? No. Do they really understand Southeast Asians and ASEAN? No, they don't. They think they do, but I'm based in Southeast Asia, and have spent much time in China and ASEAN member states. The view from there indicates that the Australians are really still acting very much in a kind of colonial zero-sum vacuum. And that the Americans are leveraging their enormous influence economically, politically, socially, and culturally. And they're using all of those to manipulate the Australian population and its government.
At some point or another, I'd say in the next 3 to 5 years, the government is going to realise that growth in Asia is growth for Australia and that America and Europe have relatively declining importance for Australia's overall future. Fear of this reality is a very worrying sign, and Australia’s confidence and independence must grow to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future. I think it's obvious, especially in the business community, that maintaining open channels to China and Asia is very important. And that there is a clear misunderstanding within Canberra’s elites that, at the end of the day, the Americans don't really care too much about Australia.
Read more here.