The question of the role of non indigenous Asian within ASEAN is not a new debate, but a old problem instead. There are basically three major non-local ethnics within ASEAN, Chinese, Indians and Japanese, although the former two are more significant. The main focus of this essay is that ASEAN would be a more powerful and efficient governance if they can get cooperation from India, China and Japan's leadership on a full scale, although we believe it is highly unlikely. The essay is divided into China, Japan and India subsections and conclusion afterwards.
Most experts generally agree out of the three major groups of China, India and Japan, the Chinese are the most significant of the three. Out of the three groups, the Chinese is the only one that has an independent state within ASEAN, namely Singapore. Not only this, numerically Chinese ethnics is the largest out of the three in demographics of money, population and representatives in parliament.
However, even through the Chinese are the most influential, they are the ones with the most challenging to regionalism. Most local ASEAN are afraid of communist revolutionist sent by China as well are not delighted at the fact Chinese are rule in authoritative ways, not electorate rule. As well the Chinese are internally divided between electorate Taiwan and communist dictatorship. Regionalism is a long way for China and ASEAN in light of this discussion.
Out of the three groups, Japan is numerically the smallest; however they hold weights that are far from their population size. In fact they are the one out of the three that have been head of state rulers in almost all of the ASEAN countries.
Not only being rulers, in all of ASEAN history the largest Asian owned corporations are always all controlled by the Japanese, like Toyota, Honda, Sony and Fiji Films. As well since the founding of ASEAN, the highest income group has always been the Japanese.
The biggest challenging and need for reform of Japan-ASEAN integration is the issue of redistribution and poverty inequality between the two. This re-distribution is unlikely to come soon, as the Japanese have no indication of sharing the profits.
Out of the three groups, the Indians are seen as the least of the threat to security and money, Indians has no major super large scale corporations on an international level, as well no large scale military ambitions. In the history of ASEAN, Indians has no top top level leaders within this region, but instead mostly working and middle class constitutes.
In fact out of the three groups, Indians integrate the best into ASEAN. Most ASEAN accepts the current regionalism with India as good relations generally speaking. The problem of regionalism for Indians is not compliant from ASEAN, but compliant from India about the lack of equity for the local Indians and India led trade systems.
In conclusion, the current system of regionalism between ASEAN and India, China and Japan is character by the formation of two tier relations. The two tier relations are free market elite world view of Japan versus the more equity advocates of ethnic Indians and Chinese. The current ASEAN advocates for a middle ground path, but most experts including myself doubt the middle way would work in the long term of events.
The debate over which version of China should represents Chinese to the world community has been debated since 1949 formation of two major fraction of Chinese society. This debate has been on going even to today's times.
Our main focus is that of unlikely in the future, the development of a pro-western democratic China because of the biggest obstacle; poverty. Our discussion is divided into two parts, mainland communist analysis of the poverty issue and democratic Taiwan perspectives. The former discussion of the important first part will be subdivided into the two schools within the left, moderate dictatorship against fundamentalist revolutionist.
The discussion of fractionist within mainland China begins with fundamentalist socialism school of thought. There is a view in a section of Chinese leaders that the only way to achieve equity is through war and struggles.
There is a few people who would say given the size of China geographic and population, modernization would never ever reaches the western level. This view is shared with some communist in the sense that they see that even today after long period of reform, people in poverty are still in the hundreds of millions. The continuation of hundreds of millions still not reaching equity presently, gives room for lot of skeptics within the leadership.
The discussion of moderate socialist in China is very similar with only a few exception. The question of dictatorial rule and guided market system are still the same in the moderates as well as the fundamentalist.
The differences lie not in the system or present changes, but in futuristic and gradual changes. This view take the stand that China recent upgrading of status is in a progressing continues stand. Progress would go further eventually but when, where and how much is still being debated and an unknown factor to most people, including the top level experts in top research centers of the world.
The final fraction of Chinese society is basically Chinese outside of mainland China which includes; Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao and Singapore and other Chinatowns in the world. These people are mostly upper class, rich and went to elite westernize university. They are however unlikely to play a significant role due to the fact China is almost entirely fill with lower class personal with only a few exception.
Most overwhelmingly mainland China will not accept leadership form the outsiders. In conclusion, the basic problem to peaceful co-existence between the west and China remain the same issue as hundreds of years ago; inequity between the two parties. The solution to the antagonistic issue has always been the same; two hundreds years ago and possible a long time from today; universal respect and equity for all human life regardless of skin, class and ideology.
