With ongoing tensions in Northeast Asia – North Korea threatening war, pervasive struggles over island territory, and disputes over history and trade – there is a temptation to grow impatient with dialogue and diplomacy. But for more than 60 years, economic growth, peace, and stability in this region have been secured through regional and global cooperation, dialogue, and partnership. Today, too, the peace and well-being of future generations is best assured through continued close regional and global coordination and communication – however challenging this may at times appear.

To those working in the non-government arena, it is also clear that the critical issues facing Asia in the 21st century – from economic development to women’s empowerment; from safeguarding the environment to disaster relief; from effective governance to rule of law – cannot be solved through the power of governments alone. In the 21st century, all elements of a nation’s strength – its citizens, communities, institutions, NGOs – all of civil society must be called upon to assure Asia’s continued development as a peaceful, just, and thriving region of the world.

The role of civil society is crucial, and no one witnessed this truth more than the Japanese people. In the grim hours, days, and months following the March 11, 2011, “triple disaster,” the world watched in awe as the people of Japan joined together to overcome this unimaginable tragedy. New civil society organizations sprang up, and those already in existence grew. These civil society groups worked side-by-side with local communities, educators, businesses, local governments, and national governments to help the victims and to get Japan back on its feet.

The world also witnessed the capacity of civil society groups from many nations to work together, and to coordinate effectively with a range of government and non-government institutions. This is an approach that The Asia Foundation, as a civil society organization with six decades of experience in Asia and 17 offices across the region, has learned well. We know that to be effective we must coordinate with the full range of Asian institutions and actors. And it is why The Asia Foundation recently began to expand its relationships with Japanese institutions and civil society.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, The Asia Foundation helped make the West more accessible to the Japanese people through travel grants, a translation service, and book donations. Today, we turn to Japanese institutions as partners in Asian development.  Last month, The Asia Foundation signed a cooperative agreement with JICA, the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Through this partnership, our two organizations will work together in support of inclusive, dynamic, and sustainable development and regional stability in Asia. And last summer, leading Japanese civil society organizations and The Asia Foundation joined together to bring members of Afghan civil society to Japan, so that their voices would be heard at the Tokyo Ministerial on Afghanistan by governments committing to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

We no longer live in a world where governments alone can solve the great challenges of the world. Civil society organizations, the business community, and governments must work hand-in-hand, across national boundaries. The Asia Foundation has had a relationship with Japan for nearly 60 years. We know that with the rise of Japanese civil society, our new strategic partnership will be even more effective as we work – together – to improve lives and expand opportunities across a dynamic and developing Asia.

Michael Armacost is the Chairman of The Asia Foundation, and was U.S. Ambassador to Japan and to the Philippines, and under secretary of state for political affairs. David Arnold is the president of The Asia Foundation.?The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

The conference in the Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation dialogue series convened in Seoul, South Korea, this month, and brought together development experts and senior government officials to discuss climate change mitigation, green growth, and adapting to and building resilience to natural disasters. This dialogue series, co-organized by The Asia Foundation and the Korea Development Institute (KDI), brings together both “emerging” and “traditional” development actors to discuss international development challenges. This year’s focus on effective cooperation for deterring the impacts of climate change was launched in Seoul, fittingly, as South Korea is playing a leading role in low-carbon development in the Asia-Pacific region.

According to the UN, boosting global investments in renewable energy to $630 billion by 2030 would create at least 20 million additional jobs worldwide. South Korea is playing a leading role in the region’s green growth. Photo/Flickr user Toby Simkin

Green growth is a new policy paradigm for Asia and the Pacific that emphasizes ecologically sustainable economic progress and fosters low-carbon, socially-inclusive development. Its four pillars include sustainable production and consumption, green businesses, sustainable infrastructure, and fiscal incentives and reforms. “Growing green” means implementing more eco-efficient and profitable production, producing less pollution and waste in the process, and prioritizing the environment as essential to long-term social and economic development goals.

In July 2009, South Korea announced its “National Strategy for Green Growth” through 2050, providing a blueprint for how to shift its economic structure away from energy-intensive industries that have driven the majority of the development paths in Asia. The target goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from a business-as-usual path by 2020, and increase the country’s renewable energy to 11 percent of total energy supplies by 2030.

With initial funding of $83.6 billion (representing 2 percent of GDP), South Korea’s first Five-Year Plan for Green Growth 2009-2013 has successfully turned strategy into concrete and operational policy initiatives toward achieving green growth and resource efficiency. South Korea’s government announced plans to continue making investments in innovative, low-carbon technologies for renewable energy, waste management, public transportation and construction, and to create enough new jobs in these sectors to offset the loss of employment in current carbon-intensive industries, such as mining, petroleum refining, and fossil fuel power generation.

In terms of development cooperation, South Korea has increased its development assistance budget since 2000 by 6.5 times, to approximately $1.3 billion in 2011, and has pledged to boost financing of regional renewable energy, conservation, and development projects to 30 percent of the total aid budget by 2020. Already, the Korean government installed a Communications, Ocean, and Meteorological Satellite system to improve Sri Lanka’s disaster preparedness by allowing officials to better share data, analysis, and forecasting capability. The system is part of the East Asia Climate Partnership, an initiative announced in 2008 and funded by the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) to share South Korea’s knowledge and technology resources in green growth, climate change adaptation and improved resource management to developing countries. KOICA has also pledged to build reservoirs, irrigation channels, and treatment facilities that will clean, recycle, and better manage water resources needed to effectively sustain agricultural production in the Philippines, which has decreased dramatically due to recent sustained droughts.

South Korea is also playing a leading role in green-growth policy advising. The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), founded in 2010 as a Korean NGO and since established as a treaty-based intergovernmental organization, works to advance the practice and theory of green growth by supporting the development, implementation, and diffusion of green growth strategies in developing and emerging countries, including in the least-developed countries in Asia. GGGI involves both state and non-state actors, such as other international organizations, NGOs, private companies, and research institutes.

According to a United Nations report on green growth, boosting global investments in renewable energy to $630 billion by 2030 would create at least 20 million additional jobs worldwide, making it a much larger source of employment than today’s fossil energy industry. One of the most interesting but least reported aspects of the current economic recovery effort is that over two-thirds of global green stimulus has in fact been committed in the Asia-Pacific, led by Australia, China, South Korea, and Japan.

Indeed, South Korea’s green growth strategy was highlighted throughout the AADC dialogue with representatives from other emerging economies in the region, notably China, India, and Malaysia, to share its successes on enacting renewable energy policy, implementing low-carbon transportation, and employing financial incentive for industries to make reforms to achieve green growth goals. Reflected in part by its leadership in this area, South Korea has been chosen as the home of the newly established Green Climate Fund, the multilateral financial mechanism recently created to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adaptation and mitigation efforts.

At the 2010 G20 Seoul Summit, South Korea’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Kim Sung-han, declared that “many issues today require unprecedented international cooperation. Solving today’s complex challenges will require ‘middle powers’ to play a greater, more active role. Through various initiatives, such as its programs in green growth and development cooperation, South Korea has demonstrated the influence middle powers are having on global governance and that they may be best suited to facilitate consensus building and revitalize momentum for cooperation.”

Kourtnii S. Brown is a program officer for The Asia Foundation’s Environment Programs in San Francisco, and attended the AADC conference in Seoul. She can be reached at kbrown@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

While the Asian Century is most often used to describe the global shift of economic power to Asia, Asia’s rise is also significant in the area of development cooperation. Asian countries have emerged as game changers in the aid arena, challenging traditional notions of aid, reshaping global aid architecture, and placing new challenges on the global development agenda.

Asian countries like Korea have emerged as game changers in the aid arena, challenging traditional notions of aid and reshaping global aid architecture.

Last week, The Asia Foundation, in partnership with the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australian National University, and AusAID, hosted three events on Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation (AADC), in Canberra and Sydney. The events featured government officials and policy experts from China, India, Indonesia, and Korea, who shared their country’s role and approach to development cooperation in this rapidly changing global aid landscape.

AusAID directs half of its $4.8 billion annual budget (2011-12) to the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, Australia is acutely aware that rising Asian powers like China and India are shifting the political and economic dynamics in the region, including in the area of development cooperation. Indonesia is Australia’s largest aid recipient, while at the same time being a leader in South-South and Triangular Cooperation. Although Australia is one of the largest and fastest growing providers of development assistance in the region, it and the other “traditional” large donors are now operating alongside India, China, and Korea as providers of significant development assistance to the region. Given the difference in approaches, this new landscape offers both opportunities for collaboration and possibilities for competition.

Participants at the AADC events discussed and debated some of the most salient issues on Australia’s development agenda:

Aid and foreign policy

Australian development and foreign policy pundits debate whether aid is less effective if it is linked to the donor country’s national interest. Over the last two decades, many Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors have danced delicately around the relationship between their foreign policy and their development cooperation programs. Some, in attempt to protect the primary humanitarian and developmental interests of aid from national political and economic interests, have created dedicated and independent aid agencies.  Asian country participants in the AADC events were unequivocal about the link, stating that development cooperation is an intrinsic component of Chinese, Indian, and Korean foreign policy, for example. Government officials from China and Korea were firm that cooperation is extended first based on the stated needs and requests of the partner country, aid is not perceived as charity, but as a mutual benefit. Indeed words like aid, donor, and recipient do not sit well with Asian development actors. Korea, for example, understands its cooperation as development knowledge exchange, emphasizing Korea’s belief in knowledge-based development models.

Poverty

Even though economic progress in Asia, particularly China and India, accounts for significant reductions in global poverty, poverty nevertheless remains a pervasive problem. Middle-income countries, such as China, Indonesia, and India, are home to 75 percent of the world’s poor. Inequality in Asia is rising, with China and Indonesia topping the charts. Australian audiences questioned how, in the face of persistent domestic poverty and development challenges, Asian countries can justify being aid donors.  For Indonesia, sharing with other countries is enshrined within Indonesia’s constitution. Indonesia’s approach to development cooperation is less a matter of financial flows. Rather it is based on the principle of South-South Knowledge Sharing. This approach is valued by both partners and does not detract Indonesia from addressing its own domestic challenges. Similarly foreign aid does not conflict with China’s domestic concerns. China has promised to improve the welfare of its people, doubling their income within 10 years, while at the same time increasing its foreign aid budget. Foreign aid, because it is based on the principle of mutual benefit, is perceived as beneficial for China’s own development, promoting trade and investment, strengthening partner countries socially and economically, and enhancing China’s image abroad.  Based on these win-win principles, it is understandable that for both China and Indonesia, development cooperation has been a key and explicit feature of their foreign policy for decades.

Post-2015 Development Agenda

Australian development experts were keen to hear Asian perspectives on the post-2015 development agenda. 2015 marks the deadline set by world leaders in 2000 to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, a set of eight targets and indicators for addressing global poverty. Since the launch of the MDGs, Asian countries have been both leaders in achieving the targets as well as critics of their relevance in a rapidly changing global context. Asian and Australian experts noted current challenges like rising inequality, climate change, management of global public goods, and peace and security – which beg attention yet fall outside most aid frameworks.

Many Asian countries regard the G20, with its focus on economic growth and significant membership from Asia, as a viable platform for championing a 21st century development agenda targeting these emerging challenges. A recent study by the Korea Development Institute and the Centre for International Governance Innovation offers a revised set of goals which are designed to finish the job of the MDGs, fill the gaps, and tackle new challenges. These comprehensive goals which include inclusive growth, quality infrastructure, security, and civil and political rights, would comprise a shared global agenda and be applied to all countries, developing or developed.

Despite the different development cooperation approaches pursued by Asian countries in comparison to more traditional donors, the discussions in Australia revealed that there is increasing consensus around the challenges facing the Asian century. As the world discusses the future of international development post 2015, the need and value for an inclusive partnership, which includes the vital contributions and participation of Asian actors, is undeniable.

Anthea Mulakala is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Malaysia and regional adviser for donor relations. She can be reached at amulakala@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

A sea change is unfolding in the world of foreign aid. Emerging powers, particularly China and India, are challenging longstanding aid principles held by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other established donors. Ironically, amid this shifting landscape, opportunities exist for increased cooperation between established and emerging aid providers, including in the field of governance. Such cooperation would not only help to address pressing humanitarian challenges in Asia, but could improve the quality and impact of aid throughout the developing world.

The current global aid architecture has evolved over decades as established donors – members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – have sought to achieve consensus on how aid should be disbursed and for what purposes. Since the late 1990s, these donors have dramatically increased spending on governance and counter-corruption programs in recipient countries. This shift has been fueled by compelling studies that establish positive correlations between good governance, on the one hand, and both economic growth and aid effectiveness, on the other.

Yet, after expanding steadily since 1997 and peaking at US$128.5 billion in 2010, total assistance from OECD donors fell in 2011 in real terms and is projected to stagnate in coming years due to fiscal constraints in donor countries. In contrast, aid from emerging donors is growing rapidly in the form of South-South cooperation. Chinese aid has increased by about 30 percent per year over the past decade, with 45 percent disbursed in Africa and a third in Asia. India recently established a new aid agency and is already a major donor to neighboring countries such as Burma (also known as Myanmar) and Sri Lanka.

In November 2011, the OECD convened the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, launching a broader and more inclusive global partnership on development cooperation to include South-South partners. Above, The Asia Foundation co-hosts an official side event in Busan on Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation.

But these donors prioritize spending on infrastructure, not good governance. They emphasize mutual benefit with development partners and link aid more explicitly to economic objectives, such as securing energy resources or opening new markets for products. They also provide assistance through a broader array of financial instruments. China is at the forefront of this group, combining concessional loans, export credits, and debt write-offs with special trade arrangements and commercial investments, often in support of infrastructure development.

The ready money offered by emerging donors presents a dilemma for established donors because it allows recipient governments to reject aid that comes with demands for improved governance. In this evolving context, the idea of promoting a division of labor is gaining currency, with emerging donors focusing on “hardware” (infrastructure) and the West concentrating on “software” (good governance). Although this idea has intuitive appeal, it could be fraught with contradictions and lead established and emerging donors to work at cross-purposes in providing aid, even within the same country.

In short, this isn’t the time to prescribe simplistic solutions or impose old or new orthodoxies, but to allow for a period of experimentation while identifying possible avenues of cooperation and areas of common ground. How might this be done?

First, a starting point in Asia could be disaster risk reduction, including experience sharing on effective governance approaches for promoting disaster preparedness. Since the devastating Wenchuan earthquake of May 2008, China has been developing a nationwide system of community-based disaster preparedness that encourages local governments to engage Chinese enterprises and charity groups in preparing for and responding to disasters. In the course of creating this system, Chinese policymakers carried out bilateral exchanges with American agencies to observe how the United States integrates public-private partnerships into its own disaster management system.

China and the United States could now expand these exchanges to encompass foreign aid cooperation in Southeast Asia, which remains extremely vulnerable to natural disasters despite its economic success. Such initiatives would be consistent with plans by the U.S. Agency for International Development to help build resilient communities through disaster risk reduction and support for governance. It would also provide China an opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness of its own domestic models.

Second, and looking further ahead, development practitioners should identify forms of governance aid that find appeal beyond the established donor community. One approach is to link institutional reforms more closely with actual development outcomes. Through evidenced-based programming and advanced monitoring and evaluation techniques, it is increasingly possible to show how specific institutional changes are associated with results that everyone believes are important – for example, how improved accountability mechanisms can lead to better public service delivery of health, education, and even infrastructure.

Ultimately, the world will benefit if established and emerging donors can find common and cooperative approaches to foreign aid that enhance effectiveness and attack global poverty with combined resources. Ideally this cooperation would begin between the United States and China, the world’s largest bilateral donor and its fastest rising power.

During a trip to Asia last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to ease growing perceptions of U.S.-China rivalry, and said the United States hopes to work more closely with China as it expands its role in the region. Collaboration on regional disaster assistance is a ready opportunity. It would not only send a reassuring signal that real cooperation is possible, but could set the stage for cooperation in other areas of foreign aid in the future – in Asia and beyond. For both Washington and Beijing, the door is definitely open.

Jonathan Stromseth is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in China. He can be reached at jstromseth@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Earlier this month, I attended the 2012 IMF-World Bank annual meeting in Tokyo for the first time and, as expected, talks about the eurozone crisis dominated discussions. However, some very compelling conversations revolving around Asia’s role in this environment and beyond were taking place on the sidelines. This provided an interesting backdrop for one of the most remarkable, historic events that I’ve witnessed in my life: the October 15 landmark signing of the Framework Agreement on Bangsamoro between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), potentially putting an end to 40 years of violent conflict that has plagued the southern Philippines.

On October 15, the world witnessed the landmark signing of a peace accord between the government of the Philippines and the MILF, potentially ending a 40 year violent conflict in the southern Philippines. Photo/Karl Grobl

One contentious question seemed to surface every time the subject of “Asia’s role” was raised in Tokyo: Why has rapid economic growth not necessarily been accompanied by similar levels of political and institutional development in Asia over the past four to five decades?

For example, the much-lauded success of the “Asian Tiger” economies initially gave many commentators from western countries pause for thought – how could such levels of development take place in so brief a period? Was it a serious rejoinder against the conventional wisdom of orthodox ideas on development? In fact, prior to the regional economic crises of the late 1990s, some western leaders were suggesting that there were perhaps lessons to be drawn from Asia in effective national management. This position changed considerably in the wake of the crises, where charges of cronyism, nepotism, and corruption were leveled against several countries in the region. Many analysts identified the “democratic deficit” – the lack of proper institutional and social reform required for effective democratization – as a serious impediment to political and institutional development in the region. It’s a tough call. While many experts have argued that Asia must embrace reforms required to strengthen its democratic, legal, and financial systems in order to move forward, the U.S subprime mortgage crisis and the eurozone crisis seem to suggest that there are very little “international best practices” available for Asia to learn from.

On the other hand, Asia’s two “giants” – China and India – have shown keen interest to lead the way for development in Asia. Under the context of South-South Cooperation, both countries are playing a major role for economic development in the South. For example, in the last 50 years, China’s foreign aid to Africa has amounted to $7 billion, which is 30 percent of the total amount of its foreign aid expenditure. China has also subsequently been well in advance of the G8 by cancelling $10 billion of the debt owed by African states and at the second Sino-Africa business conference in December 2003, China offered further debt relief to 41 African countries, as well as opening the prospect of zero-tariff trade.

India’s foreign aid program has also seen major involvements in Sri Lanka, Burma (also known as Myanmar) and Afghanistan. Recently in July, India has unveiled its global aid agency – the Department of Partnership Administration (DPA) with a whopping $15 billion budget for the next five years, placing it as the second largest donor from Asia. Smaller nations such as Malaysia and Singapore have also chimed in, sharing models that seemed to work brilliantly in Asia. Both these countries have provided training in various areas which are essential for a country’s development such as public administration, good governance, health services, education, sustainable development, agriculture, poverty alleviation, investment promotion, ICT, and banking. Collectively, Malaysia and Singapore have trained more than 100,000 government officials from around 150 countries over the past three decades.

With the debate over “Asia’s role” still fresh in my mind, I travelled from Tokyo to Manila to witness the signing of the Framework Agreement. Malaysia has brokered the peace initiative between the two parties since 2001. In his speech at the Rizal Hall in Malacañang on October 15, President Benigno Aquino III praised Malaysia’s sincerity in promoting a peaceful settlement to the long simmering Bangsamoro issue. Coming from a president of a neighboring nation that still has territorial disputes with Malaysia, this was very accommodating. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Abdul Razak responded, saying Malaysia was honored to have played a part in resolving the conflict in a peaceful manner, adding that Malaysia was also willing to help build institutions in Mindanao so that the Bangsamoro will be stronger than before. Among others, Najib said that Malaysia was willing to help in land development, “so that farmers in Bangsamoro who were formerly freedom fighters could reap the harvest of peace.”

For Southeast Asia, the event at Malacañang might just open up a new chapter of regional relations. ASEAN countries, infamously known for their non-interference approach, might just have enough stock now to start participating with their neighbors to address conflict resolution issues. As the former Secretary General for ASEAN, Surin Pitsuwan, rightly pointed out during an interview in Kuala Lumpur on October 20, the achievement in the Philippines is a good example for other peace initiatives in Southeast Asia.

There is no denying that the complex relationship between the MILF and the Philippine government are also descriptive of situations in other countries around the region – albeit in different ways. A useful exercise would be to examine the various experiences in comparative terms and share some of the similarities and differences that exist. This would give an opportunity for better understanding and provide a more effective basis for conflict resolution domestically or regionally, as well as allowing for a more meaningful interaction between states, regionally or in a broader context.

In most circles, Asia is not exactly known for political openness. Debate and discussion on issues related to democracy and politics have had limited exposure, certainly in the public sphere. This is also true of discussion and dialogue that cut across cultural and religious boundaries in a historically and culturally informed way. Genuine concerns and grievances, generally, when they cross these basic boundaries are curtailed. Informed and rigorous public debate critical to the development of democratic culture has been underdeveloped, possibly due in part to the lack of public space for open discussion, and the underwhelming role of public and private agencies in fostering dialogue.

Nevertheless governments are opening up to civil societies, the internet has allowed greater public participation in policy-making, and public scrutiny on governance isn’t as much of a taboo subject anymore. In Southeast Asia, over the last two decades, countries such as Indonesia and most recently, Burma, have showed that there lies enormous courage and possibility for change.

From issues of international economic development to conflict resolution, October 2012 was a month full of great expectations in Asia. If Asia’s past history offers any indication, there is no doubt Asia will live up to it.

The Asia Foundation is a member of the International Contact Group (ICG) for the peace process between the MILF and the Government of the Philippines. Read more. 

Herizal Hazri is The Asia Foundation’s deputy country representative in Malaysia. He can be reached at herizal@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Today is World Refugee Day. This year’s commemoration coincides with ongoing ethnic violence targeting Rohingya Muslims in western Burma (also known as Myanmar). Ethnic clashes in Rakhine State have left at least 50 dead and 30,000 displaced. Sparked by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman, the violence has driven thousands of civilians into neighboring Bangladesh. In turn, Bangladesh has turned away boat loads of refugees and arrested scores of others with the intention of forcibly repatriating them.

It has now been 61 years since the adoption of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 45 years since the rights it enshrines were extended to peoples whose displacement occurred after 1951 and whose geographical origins fall beyond the territories of Europe. The Convention defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” It extends a broad array of rights to refugees, emphasizing non-discrimination and, centrally, non-refoulement (the principle that no refugee shall be returned to a country where he or she fears threats to life or freedom). Today’s UN General Assembly (GA) counts 193 state members but just 147 of them are party to either the 1951 Convention, the 1967 Protocol, or both. Of the 47 Asian state members of the GA, just 18 have signed these agreements.

World Refugee Trends
The plight of the Rohingya is tragically common. In late 2010, there were over 10.5 million refugees worldwide. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) maintains detailed tabulations of both refugees and other populations of concern, including people in refugee-like situations, asylum seekers, internally displaced people, and stateless people. These groups aggregated to nearly 34 million in 2010, a mass comparable in size to the population of Canada. With nearly half of refugees originating in Asia, Asia outstrips all other regions in its contribution to this global crisis.

The figure below Plots UNHCR refugee counts by region between 1960 and 2010. Contrary to popular perception, there are many fewer refugees of African than of Asian origin and that has been the case for at least the past 30 years (older waves of data should be interpreted more cautiously).

Refugee flows track major historical events with morbid precision. The sharp ascent in Asian refugees during the 1980s reveals the exigencies of millions in Pakistan throughout the protracted Soviet war in Afghanistan. The years after the Soviet collapse yielded a stagnant overall trend until 9/11 spurred another uptick. Yet already in 2002 there were over 1.5 million fewer refugees than in 2001. Again, this difference is explained by the repatriation of Afghans who had fled to both Pakistan and Iran. These two countries harbored a combined total of over four million refugees in 2001. After falling to about two million by 2003, the figure crept back up by 2007 and remains at about three million today. While the equally salient struggles faced by refugee populations from other Asian countries should not be understated, the vast number of those displaced by conflict in Afghanistan dwarfs all comparable groups (see figure below).

Socio-Economic Consequences
Beyond understanding what drives refugee movements, it is important to grasp the short and longer-term implications for both the refugees themselves and for the communities hosting them. While Bangladesh has been broadly criticized for its handling of the Rohingya community, it struggles to meet the basic needs of its own impoverished population. Javier Baez, an economist at the World Bank, published a paper last year assessing the human capital and health consequences of hosting refugees. He found that when a region of Tanzania was flooded by 500,000 refugees, local (non-refugee) children suffered significant negative long-term consequences related to schooling and literacy as well as to health and mortality. A working paper by Professor Edward Miguel of U.C. Berkeley and co-authors found that children whose health was improved with de-worming drugs went on to complete more schooling, to work more hours as adults, and also to earn higher wages.

Bangladesh is already host to at least 200,000 Rohingya refugees dispersed within its society and an additional 30,000 in refugee camps. Over 40 percent of camp residents and nearly 30 percent of Bangladesh’s native population are under the age of 12. If provided with basic healthcare and education, these groups could grow up to make substantial contributions to the state’s development, improving the lives of both Rohingya and Bangladeshi communities along the way. Groups like Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) are working to achieve that goal. It is in the long-term economic interest of neighboring countries, trade partners, the public and private sectors, and aid donors to increase support for such efforts.

Reid Hamel is a program associate with The Asia Foundation’s Economic Development Program. She can be reached at rhamel@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Rapid economic growth in Asia and other developing regions of the world is triggering a sea change in international aid. Countries that were once beneficiaries of assistance are now emerging as donors themselves, while traditional donors are reassessing their objectives and modalities in order to stay relevant. Nowhere is this more evident than in India.

Per capita income in India has more than doubled in the past decade with an estimated 267 million people, or 22 percent of the population, now considered middle class. Photo by Karl Grobl.

India is widely viewed as an economic success story, which is certainly true on one level. Growth for the current year is projected around 7 percent, and was averaging 9 percent before the last global economic downturn. Per capita income has more than doubled in the past decade with an estimated 267 million people, or 22 percent of the population, now considered middle class. At the same time, approximately 450 million people, or almost 40 percent of the population, still live below the poverty line. The juxtaposition of India as a rising Asian power, yet also a country with significant development challenges, is reflected in its aid policies.

Although India has long been wary of foreign aid, it has had many international benefactors over the years, including large rival programs of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War. The Soviet Union invested in state-run steel and power plants, while the United States favored softer assistance for agriculture, health, and education. In 2003, in an effort to streamline aid, but also to signal its growing international prominence, India asked all but five countries – Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – to discontinue their aid programs. Among the political imperatives was a desire to bolster India’s campaign for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Currently, India’s economic success, on the one hand, and budget pressures within donor countries, on the other, is threatening the longevity of the remaining aid programs. Critics ask why a country with a burgeoning middle class, space program, and gross national income of $4.16 trillion annually should receive foreign aid. Britain is India’s largest bilateral donor, with an annual program of GBP 280 million (over $445 million). In 2010, Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee famously described this as a “peanut” in the country’s total development spending, sparking an international row. While both governments have since reiterated their commitment to the program, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has refocused its strategy to adjust to India’s evolving circumstances. Its current five-year plan targets India’s poorest states, with special attention to women, girls, and the role of the private sector in reducing poverty. DFID is supporting new forms of financing, such as vouchers and incentive schemes, and is looking at ways that Indian experience and expertise can be used globally on issues ranging from climate change to disease control.

With a budget of approximately $100 million in fiscal year 2012 that is expected to decline in future years, the U.S. government’s aid program in India is far smaller than Britain’s. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administers the program, is aggressively seeking to reinvent itself in India, seeking a “smooth pivot” that responds to the new environment. Like DFID, one of USAID’s goals is “to partner with Indian public and private sectors to identify innovations and best practices that have a significant impact in India and globally.” USAID and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) have each contributed $7.5 million to the Millennium Alliance, which is investing in innovations from civil society, academia, and the private sector. They plan to work together to raise $50 million more in the coming year. USAID is also planning “triangular” cooperation with the Indian government on programs in Kenya, Liberia, and Malawi, and the establishment of centers of excellence for international training within India.

India’s own aid program (which the government prefers to call “development cooperation” in the spirit of south-south partnership) has been in existence since the 1950s when it began offering assistance to Nepal. The program expanded during the 1960s to include its flagship Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) scheme, which provides training in Indian institutions for nationals of 158 countries, deputes Indian experts abroad, and funds projects, study tours, equipment donations, and disaster relief. Indian development cooperation currently exceeds $2 billion annually, about half of which goes to Afghanistan. In an effort to better coordinate its efforts, and as a precursor to the establishment of a full-blown development cooperation agency, the government has recently moved to create a Development Partnership Administration within the Ministry of External Affairs to liaison with the multiple ministries and divisions involved.

The challenges that India faces in managing its growing development cooperation program are shared with the governments of other emerging economies such as Brazil, China, and South Africa. On March 5-7, over 30 development experts representing more than 10 countries will convene in Delhi for the fifth round of the Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation Dialogue series. Countries represented include a range of both emerging and traditional donors, as well as recipient countries, from inside and outside the Asian region. The dialogue series is supported by the Korea Development Institute and The Asia Foundation, with the Delhi meeting hosted by the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), a think tank affiliated with the Government of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. Participants will discuss approaches to pro-poor growth, lessons from Asian countries’ experiences as both beneficiaries and donors, and how those compare with the approaches of traditional donors belonging to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The goal of the ongoing dialogue is to broaden sharing and perspectives among both emerging and traditional donors, assisting them to navigate the complex and rapidly changing terrain of development cooperation.

Nick Langton is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in India. He can be reached at nlangton@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

This story is one that I have shared many times before. Years ago, I found myself walking through a stunning village in Bazarak, Panjshir Valley – home of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud – over 50 miles from Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. I was there to help monitor preparations for the 2004 presidential elections. Just after 10 a.m., when we (I had three other colleagues with me: a driver, guide, and interpreter) arrived, I was brought to the village head’s house. The site was unforgettable: a cozy traditional house, basic setting, no electricity but a generous supply of natural fresh water, possibly from melted ice flowing down from the Hindu Kush Mountain range. As soon as I walked into the house, I was introduced in Pashtu: “Herizal Hazri, election worker from Malaysia.” A stocky man (the village head) immediately shook my hand, and said through our interpreter, “Malaysia is good. … Mahathir is our leader!” (Yes, I did think of testing his conviction but again, as a foreigner, I knew better than starting a debate, especially with a village head!)

I was surprised; but not because he adored Malaysia and its former prime minister so much, but rather that this short exchange of words was happening here, in a remote village in the Pansjhir Valley, with no electricity, no internet, and largely buffered from the outside world due to war, or more precisely: many wars. I thought to myself, if only I had travelled here to measure the effectiveness of Malaysia’s foreign policy, my ratings will be largely boosted by this conversation.

Seven years later, this moment stuck with me as I sat down to co-write a chapter on Malaysia’s foreign policy and South-South Cooperation for the new book, Emerging Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation, jointly produced by the Korean Development Institute and The Asia Foundation which was just released at the Fourth High Level Forum in Busan.

It is not too much to claim that South-South Cooperation is an important tenet in Malaysia’s foreign policy. Since its independence in 1957, Malaysia’s involvement in promoting greater cooperation and solidarity among newly independent countries of Asia and Africa has been a prominent feature of its modern political history. While Malaysia did not participate in the inaugural Bandung Afro-Asian Conference in 1955, it quickly played an integral role in the formalized South movements such as its active membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the G77 caucus within the United Nations.

Malaysia’s commitment in championing the cause of the developing South became even more prominent by the early 1980s when ASEAN, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), NAM and the Commonwealth took center stage in the nation’s foreign policy. The Mahathir Administration (1981-2003) had consistently championed the South’s cause and Mahathir charged internationally as one of the leading advocates for the developing world. He was the voice of conscience of the plight of the developing countries. Since then, over the last three decades, Malaysia’s rise as an active player in promoting self reliance of the developing countries through cultivating partnership among them, as well as consistently and at times vocally expressing the South’s agenda internationally.

Malaysia’s major initiative for South-South Cooperation was made prominent through the establishment of the Malaysian Technical Cooperation Program (MTCP). MTCP is synonymous with Mahathir even though the program was officially launched before his appointment as prime minister. He had the vision of the importance for the South to be economically and politically strong and independent, thus not having to be overly dependent on the West. Under Mahathir, Malaysia’s foreign policy has changed from one that was decidedly pro-Western and anti-Communist to one that is openly identified with Third World concerns and aspirations. It was during Mahathir’s premiership that Malaysia sought to play a more prominent role in international affairs, especially at the United Nations, in the Commonwealth as well as among the developing countries in the context of South-South cooperation.

Since its inception, more than 2,000 participants from 136 countries have participated in the various programs administered under the MTCP annually. Today, the program continues to draw interest and participation from a multitude of countries, ranging from the African continent, Europe, Latin America, and Oceania. Many of the participants have return to their home countries and contributed to their own path of development. It is not surprising for one to meet a senior academic or civil servant in South Korea who will share wonderful experiences of being trained in Malaysia many years ago under the MTCP.

Mahathir’s successors, namely Abdullah Badawi and (current) Najib Razak, have both maintained Malaysia’s commitment to the developing South. In October 2009, Prime Minister Najib launched a UNESCO-Malaysia trust fund to enhance South-South Cooperation. This new initiative was focused to capacity building in education and science for the benefit of the Least Developed Countries, Small Island States and in support of the Priority Africa agenda.

Malaysia’s assistance program was initiated with a small but noble goal of extending a hand in friendship – through training assistance and capacity building. This imperative continues to drive the MTCP and other Malaysian government’s initiatives for South-South Cooperation. Malaysia has learned a great deal through the course of furnishing assistance to more than 140 countries. Today, as Malaysia is gearing toward becoming a fully developed nation status herself, its foreign assistance framework is facing a new challenge: finding a new framework where Malaysia can provide deeper and sustainable partnerships for international development. This is even more challenging at times when the global economic system is showing much fatigue.

Whatever the future may be for Malaysia’s foreign assistance program, the nation has proven its commitment to international development. From the busy metropolis of Seoul to the serene valleys of Pansjhir, Malaysia is known and remembered for its commitment to the developing world.

Herizal Hazri is The Asia Foundation’s program director in Malaysia. He can be reached at hhazri@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

When times are tough, it’s difficult to settle into a charitable mood. At the mention of global aid, people grumble that we can’t even afford to care for our needy at home. But as with individual lives, a nation needs to look beyond immediate concerns in forging a path for the future. The tougher times are, the bolder and more resolute we must be in upholding our responsibilities. Having ascended to donor country status, we cannot sidestep or neglect our role of offering aid to countries that lag behind in economic progress.

We live in a borderless global community interlinked by networks created by globalization, not to mention our connectivity in terms of computers and communication. No countries can survive cut off from these global fetters. A country’s problems and challenges are no longer restricted to its own borders. They become global problems and concerns that require regional or international solutions.

War and peace, struggles for democratization, sustainable economic development, and environmental challenges are common endeavors members of the entire world community in the 21st century must address together for the viability of the planet, regardless of where they live. We learned from our own experience a century ago that self-exile and estrangement from the global mainstream can cost a country its very sovereignty. This is why we have endeavored over the years so desperately to get into the front-runners’ group in global society.

Wealth inequalities can trigger social unrest and conflict in wealthy as well as poor countries when economies around the globe are in synchronized trouble. Advanced and developing economies alike are battling the risks that undermine stability and growth. Inequalities not only within individual countries but among different countries and continents threaten global peace and prosperity.

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, under the auspices of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, will be held in late November in Busan. It aims to bring together donors and developing countries to consider ways of improving and reaffirming commitment to effective aid.

Over 2,000 people, including top government officials from 170 countries, will be attending the conference. Nearly 200 signatory countries to the United Nations Conventions to Combat Desertification met in Changwon, South Gyeongsang last month to address desertification, land degradation, and drought problems that affect lives of two billion people.

Our economic size and social maturity demand that we show more interest and make greater efforts in the areas of global aid and the fight against land degradation. We have already reached a social consensus to set an example by sharing growth at home with less fortunate countries abroad. Our choices and actions in this regard will give a boost to our national prestige and dignity – as well as benefit our national interests and welfare.

Since liberalization from Japanese rule a half-century ago, Korea has received colossal amounts of aid – $12.78 billion – from the international community. In 1995, the country changed its status from World Bank aid recipient to donor, and in 2009, Korea became the first major recipient of official development assistance from the OECD to turn into a major donor. The country’s first ODA of $5.7 million in 1991 has expanded to exceed $1 billion in less than two decades.

But the country’s overseas donations are still below the UN recommended target and the OECD average. Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman and well-known philanthropist, singled out Korea as exemplary because of our global commitment to providing international aid.

We must be more sincere and active in overseas assistance and aid, but according to our means. Our society has the extraordinary and unfinished mission of unification. Instead of trying to match other advanced economies in the scale of aid we give, we must try and concentrate on providing substantial aid in the areas where we can help the most.

We must enhance the effectiveness of aid by providing skills and technology for reforestation, ecology protection, education and medical care for children in impoverished societies. The world is becoming a tougher place in which to live. We have seen how the sincere devotion of a single man – Father John Lee Tae-seok – can bring about change not only in a small community but in an entire country from the late Korean priest’s honorable work in Sudan. Inspired by the selfless work of Father Lee and others like him, let us be wise and generous in supporting the development efforts of other societies in our global community.

Lee Hong-Koo is former prime minister of Korea and a member of The Asia Foundation’s board of trustees. This article first appeared in Korea Joongang Daily, and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Over the last several months, the Korea Development Institute (KDI) and The Asia Foundation have held dialogues on Asian approaches to development cooperation. The idea for the dialogues, which brings together development experts from Korea, China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, grew out of concern over the absence of perspectives from Asian development partners in the international discourse on aid effectiveness and aid architecture.

The Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in Ghana in 2008 recognised the increasingly complex and crowded development cooperation arena of the 21st century. The Accra Agenda for Action advocates for a more inclusive approach to the diversity of actors, particularly those involved in South-South cooperation, and encourages them to adopt the Paris Principles. Countries like China, India, and even Malaysia have been engaged in South-South cooperation and technical assistance for decades, yet the global aid architecture is largely a product of the consensus among OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors around what aid is for, where it should be directed, and how it should be managed. For some rising Asian donors, this consensus is not always shared.

First, though often characterized as new or emerging donors, many of these countries have a long history of development cooperation that for many years has simply fallen under the radar of traditional aid frameworks. India, for example, has been providing technical assistance and training to third countries since 1964. China has been aiding Africa since the 1950s. Malaysia’s Technical Cooperation Programme has been in operation since 1980.

Second, these countries share the unique experience of being both aid recipients and aid donors, often simultaneously. This experience provides them with a unique understanding of other developing countries and has shaped the partnership philosophy and delivery of aid by these donors. In particular, these Asian countries emphasize the importance of country ownership, country-led development cooperation, and respecting the sovereignty of their partner countries with few conditionalities or strings attached. They view their approach as distinctly non-western and free from a colonial psyche.

Third, these countries wish to share their own success as an alternative path for developing countries. They place an emphasis on shared and sustained growth through infrastructure, trade, industry, and human resource development, as well as responsive and responsible governance. Since 1950, there have been only 13 economies that have grown at an average of 7 percent a year or more for 25 years or longer. Except for India, all of the Asian countries represented in the recent dialogues are in this group (Commission on Growth and Development 2008). Korea’s “developmental state” model used Official Development Assistance (ODA) to help transform the country from one of the poorest in the world to an Asian tiger. Similarly, Singapore’s investment in human resources transformed the natural resource-poor city state into an economic wonder in the two decades following its independence in 1965. As a result, training as capacity-building is a common type of bilateral assistance across these countries. All six development cooperation programs invest heavily in providing training and technical advice that draws on the experience of their own development success. Importantly, however, they do not propose that that there is an Asian development “model.”

Fourth, development cooperation tends to be more explicitly tied to economic and foreign policy objectives with these Asian partners than it is with traditional donors, such as the UK, whose development agenda is clearly poverty focused. “Prosper thy neighbour” is a shared cooperation objective of these countries. Not surprisingly, the largest recipients of Indian assistance are Nepal and Bhutan. Thailand has concentrated its assistance on its neighbours as a tool for foreign policy and regional integration. Malaysia’s fourth Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, used the country’s technical cooperation program as a means of strengthening the collective self-reliance of southern countries as a counterweight to western influence. In the 1990s, China expanded its geographic focus and made an explicit choice to focus its aid on African countries, to promote both African development and mutual economic benefits. This multi-objective orientation has resulted in complex “aid management” in these countries. While Korea and Thailand have dedicated “aid” agencies, India, Malaysia, Singapore, and China do not. With or without dedicated agencies, cooperation is often managed through multiple government departments.

The dialogue series also explored Asian cooperation partner perspectives on aid architecture, specifically the Paris Declaration, aid modalities and development frameworks like the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Strikingly, these Asian partners rarely use contemporary aid terminology in describing their approaches or priorities. “Aid” is rarely used to describe their cooperation partnerships and most do not consider themselves “donors.” Surprisingly, MDGs are not used to describe either the goals or indicators of development cooperation for most of these Asian partners. This may be due to the apparent disconnect between the MDG framework and the economic growth agenda. For this reason, Asian partners may be drawn to the G20 Development Working Group agenda, which may provide a closer fit with their approach and practice.

Significantly, China, India, Thailand, and Malaysia have signed the Paris Declaration, but only as recipients, not as donors. Singapore has never signed, and, along with India and China, is not interested in joining the DAC. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant non-traditional partners like India and China will sign the Paris Declaration as donors. These Asian countries also find the process-oriented framework of the Paris Declaration of little relevance to their approach. Furthermore, the Paris Declaration is premised on aid flows from north to south, and therefore is less useful to assess the range of south-south cooperation that encompasses trade, investment and development cooperation. However, recent efforts by the Working Party for Aid Effectiveness’ Task Force on South-South Cooperation and the G20 may provide an important bridge between the North-South and South-South cooperation modalities by creating space for greater knowledge-sharing and learning from the experienced non-traditional development partners.

Lastly, as most of these Asian countries manage their international cooperation through a myriad of government and private sector institutions, it is both impractical and difficult to apply the Paris Declaration indicators which refer to more structured and institutionalized transfers of aid.

In the run up to 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (held in Busan, South Korea end of this year), the KDI and The Asia Foundation will provide a forum for these Asian countries to articulate their views and present their case for a more inclusive dialogue in Busan. The next dialogue in Colombo in June 2011 will invite recipient/partner countries to articulate their experience with both traditional and non-traditional development assistance.

This post originally appeared on the Lowy Institute for International Policy’s blog, Interpreting the Aid Review.

Anthea Mulakala is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Malaysia and regional advisor for donor relations. She can be reached at amulakala@asiafound.org.