Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

AMERICA’S ASIA POINT MAN
Roth defends APEC, engagement and Al Gore

Asia Week, 02/19/99 Editor Ann Morrison and Senior Correspondent Alejandro Reyes

AMONG THE LARGE U.S. delegation attending the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in the Swiss enclave of Davos earlier this month was Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth, Washington’s point man for East Asia. Roth, who turns 45 in March, has worked on regional issues for nearly two decades and has served in his current post since 1997. After his trip to Europe, Roth traveled to Jakarta, where he met with a range of government officials and opposition leaders. In Davos, Roth spoke with Editor Ann Morrison and Senior Correspondent Alejandro Reyes about U.S. policy in Asia. Excerpts:

How do you see the China-Taiwan situation?

The fact that high-level cross-strait talks have resumed is encouraging. Nevertheless, the question remains as to the basis for resolving the issues. Obviously this is between the two parties. The U.S. has absolutely no desire to be an intermediary, broker or negotiator. We are absolutely determined to see this issue resolved peacefully. That is the very core of U.S. policy.

The Spratlys dispute has flared up again between Beijing and Manila.

It’s important not to overstate the situation, while at the same time not to underestimate the need to get some resolution. There has been a lot of publicity recently which might suggest that freedom of navigation is at risk because of new construction by China at Mischief Reef. In fact, [the building] is in no way a fundamental threat to security. The fact is the U.S. Navy transits the region all the time. It is disappointing that China chose to build. It appears to be at odds with commitments they have given the Philippines previously and certainly with the notion of resolving by peaceful means the many disputed claims.

What is your reading on Indonesia in the run-up to the June elections?

All indicators are that the government intends to have an election. From our talks with the government and military, there is total recognition of the importance of the elections – the fact that the government has to be perceived as legitimate and the fact that this is important both internally and also for relations with the outside world. The passage of electoral laws was a demonstration that the stage was being set for an election in which the opposition could compete. I’ve heard no allegations that the laws were in any way designed to cook the books in favor of the government. The army has said that it will remain neutral. Our hope is for as violence-free an election as possible. But the question is whether there is a government-led or military-led attempt to disrupt the election. We see no evidence of that whatsoever.

Are the region’s institutions in trouble?

There have been some challenges as countries cope with severe economic challenges and turn inward. There was much less progress in regional meetings than in prior years. But that is very different from saying that the survival of these institutions is at risk or that they don’t have the potential to resume their productive roles. Improvement in the Asian financial situation should enable us to see more progress in these institutions. It is way premature to start ringing the death knell.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is still pushing for a separate East Asian caucus.

The whole issue is dead. There is broad recognition, particularly after the financial crisis, of the absolutely essential role of the U.S. in managing this issue. A lot of Malaysia’s difficulties at APEC related to Malaysian policies. APEC promotes trade and investment liberalization. Unfortunately, Malaysia turned away from that path – temporarily, according to them. Consequently, [as last year's APEC chair] it was awkward for them to push a vigorous agenda. I hope that Malaysia will rejoin the mainstream, but I would not see APEC as fundamentally flawed.

What about U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s speech in Kuala Lumpur?

The vice president gave a rather profound speech trying to discuss the correlation of good governance, transparency, the opening up of economies, pluralism and democracy with economic performance. The record in Asia strongly supports his position. As countries open up, their economic performance increases. This was not a call for revolution in the streets. The intention was merely to suggest that the reform movement in Malaysia is quite similar to others we have seen in the region and that the desire to seek change in Malaysia itself should help on the economic side.

Is there consensus in the U.S. about engagement in Asia?

In fact, isolationist pressures have probably diminished because of trade. The concern may be more justified in the willingness to support foreign aid. But there is no serious movement to bring U.S. troops home from Asia. The region does not need to be nearly as anxious as it is about our staying power.

Could that be undone by difficulties with China over human rights and a growing trade deficit?

The exchange of state visits [in 1997 and 1998] helped to educate the American public. There is no shortage of difficult issues. But what we are talking about is a key bilateral relationship that will have an awful lot to do with whether we have peace and stability in the next century. Obviously there is a lot of criticism of China, which has been increasing recently because of what is perceived to be backward motion on human rights and a growing trade deficit. The answer to that is not to break or change the policy of engagement but rather to achieve progress in specific areas.

---