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 horrific collapse three weeks ago of an eight-story garment factory building in Savar, just outside of Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, took the lives of more than 1,100 people, and was followed just last week by a deadly fire in another garment factory that left at least eight dead.

The garment sector in Bangladesh accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people. Photo/Conor Ashleigh

The tragedies have left a nation in mourning, shining a spotlight on the lack of safety for garment sector workers in Bangladesh. These incidents have drawn international attention on the urgent need for better working conditions for workers, starting with safer, more secure buildings.

While these events may serve as an immediate eye opener for consumers and manufacturers in the west, the critical need to improve factory safety in the readymade garment sector in Bangladesh should not come as a surprise. The country has long been under scrutiny because of recurrent industrial accidents that point to poor working conditions and poor safety standards in some of the country’s factories. Voices from within (including international buyers and local factory owners) and outside of the industry (international donors and civil society) have repeatedly called for measures to be taken to improve factory safety.

The death toll of what is one of the largest industrial accidents in Bangladesh fully justifies national and international outcries and the ire of the customers and business community, demanding that strong commitments and measures are taken. However, the worst thing that could happen to the readymade sector in Bangladesh, and to the millions of workers whose livelihoods depend on exports to western countries, is to see the label “made in Bangladesh” boycotted by consumers.

After China, Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest apparel exporter. The garment sector accounts for about 80 percent of the country’s exports and employs more than 3 million people, mostly women. If it is true that cheap labor is the main driver of the sector’s growth, it is also fair to say that this growth has provided economic opportunities to millions of women who would have very few other options to escape extreme poverty. The garment sector, despite what seems like an extremely-low paying industry in western standards, has positively transformed the lives of many women in Bangladesh.

Maintaining the livelihood of the workers and their families should, however, never be to the detriment of their safety. Strong commitments need to be made and measures implemented not only to improve safety, but to make safety and decent working conditions the heart of the industry’s competitive advantage. This is not only the responsibility of the employers; it is the responsibility of each of the players in the value-chain: consumers, international buyers, leaders of the garment sector and professional associations, Bangladesh’s government, the international community, the civil society, and the workers themselves.

Consumers have an essential role to play in requesting information on the conditions in which their clothes are produced and in putting pressure on brands to better control the working conditions in the factories they are sourcing from. Western retailers are, of course, well positioned to press for reform, and to impose good working conditions as a prerequisite for their orders, before considering the price. Many world-famous brands have already called for more stringent labour safety standards. On May 8, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative convened a conference call with U.S. buyers in Bangladesh’s garment industry to discuss U.S. government engagement to improve workers’ rights and working conditions, and to review how the private sector can assist in these vital ongoing efforts.

The question now is whether these “good words” will translate into effective action with real and sustainable results.

The different parties have already put forward some suggestions and resolutions, including the need for independent safety and fire inspectors, the requirement that factories are certified by a group of engineers, and the establishment of a “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) which the manufacturer will have to fulfill, among others. Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus also suggested in an op-ed in the Dhaka Tribune on May 9, the establishment of a Garment Workers Welfare Trust and of a “good compliance label” that consumers could reference as a guarantee for labor compliance. On Monday, Bangladesh’s cabinet approved changes to the nation’s labor laws that are expected to increase the benefits for garment workers and make it easier to form trade unions.

Another recommendation is to draw from the experience of Better Factories Cambodia, a program managed by the International Labour Organization, in close collaboration with the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia (GMAC) and the country’s trade unions. The program aims to improve working conditions in Cambodia’s export garment factories and combines independent monitoring with finding solutions, through suggestions to management, training, advice, and information. In Bangladesh, the implementation of such a program would require four key elements:

• that international buyers join forces with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) to advocate for the immediate passage of labour law amendments to lay the basis for the establishment of such a program;

• that Bangladesh’s government shows a strong political will to enforce the labour laws and a strong commitment to international labour compliance;

• that workers are more organized (which implies greater freedom of association), better informed and included in the design and implementation of the program, and;

• that the BGMEA, the government, civil society, and labour groups coordinate efforts with each other and with the international community.

Only a large mobilization of all parties can help ensure that tragedies of this kind don’t happen again. All parties need to send a clear message to factory owners that decent working conditions is a prerequisite for sourcing products from Bangladesh, or from any other country in the world. In the near future, consumers need to buy “made in Bangladesh” clothes, not “despite” the bad working conditions of some of its factories, but “because” of a clear commitment of its whole industry to meet international standards.

Sadly, it is too late for the hundreds of workers who perished in the tragedy of Savar, but what better testimony to their memory than to learn from this tragedy and use it to drive safety standards and changes in attitude that will lead to a safer, more just garment industry.

Véronique Salze-Lozac’h is The Asia Foundation’s director for Economic Development Programs based in Bangkok. She can be reached at veronique.salze-lozach@asiafoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

These were the elections which many did not expect to see in Pakistan. Despite persistent and widespread rumors right up until the actual day of elections that they would be cancelled or postponed, Pakistan’s General Elections took place as scheduled on May 11. Around 50 million citizens took part in this historical event: the first time (with the new federal government expected to assume office at the beginning of June) that a successful transition from one democratically elected government to another has taken place. The turnout was the highest since 1970, as millions defied terrorist threats of polling day violence, already the bloodiest election campaign in the country’s history, and bravely waited in line to vote. Violence did disrupt elections in a few parts of the country, notably in Karachi, and contests in some polling stations will be re-run. But in the great majority of constituencies, polling took place peacefully.

According to early figures, almost 60 percent of the 86 million registered voters cast their votes in the 2013 elections, and while detailed gender disaggregated data are not yet available, female participation in the electoral process is reportedly higher than in the past. Photo/DFID

According to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), almost 60 percent of the 86 million registered voters cast their votes in the 2013 General Elections, and while detailed gender disaggregated data are not yet available, female participation in the electoral process, both as candidates and voters, is reportedly higher than in the past. Overall, the elections attracted double the number of candidates compared to 2008, and although pre-poll violence targeted some parties more than others, hampering their campaigning and throwing the “level playing field” into doubt, the issues at stake in today’s Pakistan clearly galvanized an unexpectedly large number of citizens to cast their votes. Civil society organizations supplemented official efforts to register voters, particularly women, and spearheaded voter education.

A young Pakistani voter displays the distinct ink-mark that signifies she voted.

But the greater engagement of the electorate in the polls, the large participation of younger and other first-time voters, the official recognition, among the most marginalized of groups, of transgender voters and the many debates and discussions among friends, workmates and even family members, attest to the increasing interest among the citizens of Pakistan in the political process and to more serious efforts by the political parties to reach out to them. Of course, there are still improvements that can be made to ensure that future elections are run more smoothly and engage an even greater range and diversity of Pakistan’s population. For example, more needs to be done to enable and encourage women to vote – there are still polling stations where no female votes were recorded, reports that women were actively barred in a few areas, and the number of successful female candidates remains very small.

Allegations of poll rigging have been made, and at the time of writing, a large number of cases are before the ECP. It may take time to resolve these, but the evidence of the 41,000 observers deployed throughout the country by member organizations of the Free & Fair Elections Network (FAFEN), currently being sifted and collated, will be crucial in determining just how free and fair the elections have been. But as voters proudly display the indelible ink-mark on their thumbs which prove that they have voted, and many have their individual stories to tell about how they came to vote as they did, one voice lingers vividly in the mind:  “Today I am a proud Pakistani –in spite of all the difficulties, these elections did take place, and that gives ground for hope.”

Gareth Aicken is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Pakistan and Ameena Ilahi is the deputy country representative there. They can be reached at gaicken@asiafound.org and ailahi@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Against a backdrop of heightened insecurity and increasing violence in the lead-up to Pakistan’s general elections, slated for this Saturday, more than 43,000 trained, non-partisan volunteers are gearing up to observe approximately 70,000 polling stations in all 272 constituencies across Pakistan. If general elections take place according to schedule, May 11 will prove to be one of the most significant events in Pakistan’s history, and would mark the first time in the country’s 66 years that a legitimate and democratic transition of power took place.

With the completion of the government’s five-year term, Pakistanis have a renewed sense of optimism and longing for change. In the face of serious threats, citizens, civil society groups, international bodies, and political parties have continued with election preparations, resolute that a true democratic system can transpire in Pakistan through open and fair elections. At the opposite end of the spectrum, though, is a powerful and abiding force of terror, the ultra-conservative militants, determined not only to disrupt elections, but to derail the path to democracy, which they have come to associate with all things un-Islamic.

Election observation is a critical prerequisite of the democratic process, ensuring that elections are held in a free, transparent, and non-violent environment, guaranteeing the rule of law, and more importantly, building confidence among citizens in the electoral process itself. The last is particularly vital given Pakistan’s volatile political history, where democracy has been repeatedly undermined by rampant corruption, feudalism, military dictatorship, and more recently, ongoing violence and terrorism targeting secular parties, ethnic and religious minorities, and political opponents, particularly PPP, ANP, and MQM, who have lately been under attack.

Within this political context, safeguarding the rights of voters during elections is an imperative. The Asia Foundation and our local partner, the Free and Fair Elections Network (FAFEN), are preparing election observers and monitors, and have developed a comprehensive, systematic electoral process, from pre-election monitoring to Election Day observation and post-election results tabulation. Election observation is based on historical trends and lessons learned from 2008 election monitoring, such as information on voter turn-out rates, constituencies with low female participation, and areas of high security risk. The Foundation has worked to strengthen the capacity of long-term observers to assure quality of pre and post-election observations, initiate voter mobilization campaigns in polling areas across the country where female voter turnout was negligent in previous elections, and monitor short-term observers.

Women engage in an election awareness campaign at Jamshoro Sindh. 43,000 election observers will be deployed across Pakistan on Election Day.

Observers, accredited by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), will work alongside international observation missions to determine the extent to which the election processes comply with Pakistani and international standards, including the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Pakistan in 2010. These short-term volunteers will actively observe polling stations using standardized checklists to document non-compliance of electoral laws, rules, and regulations. This Election Day is expected to have the largest number of observers ever deployed in Pakistan’s election history.

To say that the future of Pakistan rests on these elections is no understatement. Yet the ongoing violence, which has certainly challenged the country’s already fragile democratic institutions, presents a very real threat to voters and election officials despite enhanced security vigilance and planning. Only a strong, defiant voting population committed to asserting its democratic rights can offset these challenges, because ironically, the most effective tool in combating terrorism is a robust and flourishing democratic platform in which citizens are empowered through active engagement and participation, and guaranteed equal rights under the law. Here’s hoping May 11 will begin with fair voting and culminate in strengthened, transparent, and accountable governance in Pakistan.

Ameena Ilahi is The Asia Foundation’s deputy country representative in Pakistan and Ali Imran is a senior program officer there. They can be reached at ailahi@asiafound.org and aimran@asiafound.org, respectively. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Against the background of Mongolia’s famous blue sky, around 1,215 delegates from 104 countries gathered in Ulaanbaatar to participate in the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies (CD) from April 27- 29, 2013, organized under Mongolia’s Presidency of the CD, which started in July 2011.

1,215 delegates from 104 countries gathered in Ulaanbaatar to participate in the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Photo/Tenzing Paljor

After an opening ceremony on April 27 led by Mongolian Prime Minister N. Altankhuyag, who highlighted the country’s democratic achievements and a group picture in front of the Chinggis Khaan statue at Sukhbaatar square, participants broke off to attend the fora of the five CD pillars: Civil Society, Youth, Parliamentary, Women, and Business. The Asia Foundation, through the USAID-funded “Supporting Mongolia’s Presidency of the Community of Democracies” Project, provided assistance to both the Parliamentary and Women’s forums.

At the joint meeting on the final day, chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia, President Tsakhia Elbegdorj spoke of his country’s long road to democracy as well as how new democratic practices such as direct democracy and citizen participation increasingly are gaining momentum in Mongolia. He reiterated Mongolia’s role as a friend and its willingness to assist other countries that are transitioning to democracy. Thailand’s Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, spoke about the democratic struggles that her country has undergone and emphasized that these are not yet over, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi expressed her gratitude for the support of the international community to the people of Burma in their fight for democracy, emphasizing that Burma has made the choice to transition towards democracy but still has a long way to go to become a full-fledged democracy. She also reminded that democracy brings with it not only rights, but also responsibilities and should be seen as a continuous learning process. She was later presented with the Geremek award in remembrance of the late Professor Bronislaw Geremek, one of the co-founders of the CD. Other speakers included Nobel Prize Laureate Tawakkol Karman from Yemen, UN Under-Secretary General, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Bill Burns, the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security, Baroness Catherine Ashton, and the Vice President of Nigeria, Namadi Sambo.

During a plenary session on “Threats against Civil Society and Freedom of Expression,” several speakers outlined the worrisome trend by which many governments around the world are imposing restrictions on civil society and the use of internet. Parallel thematic sessions were held on “Democracy Education,” “Corruption and other Threats to Democracy,” “Arab Spring after 2 Years: Lessons and Challenges,” “Democracy and the MDGs,” and “Online and Press Freedom.”

Journalists interview the Minister of Health, N. Udval, at the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Photo/Tenzing Paljor

The Parliamentary Forum for Democracy (PFD) provided a space for legislators to share their experiences and best practices. This is just what a legislator from Libya was seeking. He noted how during the country’s recent revolution, freedom was the only concern; now his fellow parliamentarians face the harder challenge of building institutions and practices in line with the democratic values he and his fellow citizens fought for.

This year’s PFD focused on the debilitating effects of corruption. Legislators heard how corruption is a complex issue, resulting from weaknesses in laws, regulations, monitoring, enforcement, deterrence, institutions, and the political will to address it. Participants created a five-point plan for parliamentarians to address corruption:

• An anti-corruption paradigm shift to place more emphasis on the outcomes and results of anti-corruption efforts rather than focusing on the laws and institutions that address anti-corruption;

• Coalition strengthening among parliamentary and anti-corruption networks;

• Peer-to-peer review by parliamentarians across countries to allow for informal comment and positive advice on how a state can improve its anti-corruption efforts;

• Ensuring access to information legislation allows for citizen monitoring of all aspects of government income and expenditure; and

• Ending secrecy clauses in government-private sector contracts.

The Women’s Forum, organized by the Women’s Caucus of Parliamentarians, the National Committee on Gender Equality and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focused this year on the challenges women face in political representation at the national and local level, challenges still common in many of the countries represented. Parallel sessions on “Democracy and Women’s Socio-Economic Rights and Empowerment,” “Women’s Role in Preventing Corruption and Promoting Transparency,” “Democratizing and Engendering Culture,” and “Stronger Systems, Institutions and Processes for Stronger Voices” provided a platform for further discussion on women’s positive role in addressing issues such as poverty, human rights violations, conflicts, and corruption.

The forum developed a statement calling for action by the members of the CD in four key areas:

• Endorsing women’s property rights, ensuring access to finance, and ensuring equal wages, as well as recognition of unpaid work;

• Increasing research and independent monitoring of the impact of corruption using a gender lens, and strengthening of women’s anti-corruption networks;

• Creation of a culture of gender equality, free from gender-based stereotypes and gender-based violence in all sectors of society, including media, education, and domestic life; and

• Increasing and honoring gender quotas for elected and nominated positions within national and local governments and political parties, and actions to ensure fair financing of political campaigns of women and men in part through campaign finance and political party reform, including political party financing.

After the fora, plenary sessions were held on “Harnessing Open Governance for Democracy,”  “Supporting Democratic Transitions: Insights from the CD Task Forces in Moldova and Tunisia and Lessons for Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan,” and “Women and Democracy.” At the closing session, representatives of each of the five pillars of the Community of Democracies presented the resolutions prepared during the different fora and the Ulaanbaatar Declaration of the CD was adopted. Mongolia also handed over its presidency of the CD to El Salvador, which will assume leadership on July 1, 2013.

Mongolia can look back at a very successful presidency over the last two years, during which it gave new impetus to the CD and was able to make significant progress in the priority areas of its presidency. The 7th Ministerial Conference provided an opportunity to showcase to the world the important progress Mongolia has made since its democratic transition in 1990 and share important lessons learned with current and aspiring democracies around the world.

Watch a new video, developed by The Asia Foundation, that features interviews with Mongolians across the country on what democracy means for them, how democracy has developed since Mongolia’s democratic transition, and views on the CD. The video has been produced in support of Mongolia’s Presidency of the CD through funding from the Embassy of the United States in Mongolia. The Asia Foundation was the first international nonprofit organization to be invited into Mongolia following the democratic transition in 1990. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Foundation in Mongolia since it opened its office on October 1, 1993.

Meloney C. Lindberg is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Mongolia, Jeremy Gross is a Foundation consultant based in Indonesia who has worked in Mongolia to support the Ministerial Conference, and Tirza Theunissen is the program and operations manager. They can be reached at mlindberg@asiafound.org, jg1@cbn.net.id, and ttheunissen@asiafound.org, respectively.

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.

As discussions on the federal budget and sequestration continue here in Washington, D.C., The Asia Foundation’s Washington office sponsored an event to discuss how various Asian nations are approaching and, in some cases, expanding their development assistance programs.

The two panels brought together seven experts representing senior government officials and policy specialists from five countries – Korea, China, India, Indonesia, and Japan – to discuss the development landscape in Asia at an event co-hosted by USAID. Although the series of discussions on “Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation” (AADC), a partnership between The Asia Foundation and the Korea Development Institute (KDI), has taken place since 2010, this was the first event in the U.S., and it was very well attended with over 100 participants at the half-day seminar.

On the first panel, Asian government representatives from Korea, India, Indonesia, and Japan each presented their country’s approach to development cooperation. These countries of course offered a range of experiences and objectives:  from Japan, with a well-established aid program, and Korea, the first country to transform from being an aid recipient to now an OECD DAC member and provider, to India, focused on South-South Cooperation, and Indonesia in the beginning stages of institutionalizing its cooperation program. Yet, despite these different perspectives, several similarities between the approaches emerged, including:

• Focus on Asia regionalism and an emphasis on helping neighboring countries;

• “Demand-driven” approach to providing technical assistance; and

• A strong interest in capacity-building and knowledge-sharing as part of their development cooperation strategies.

During the second panel, experts discussed challenges in light of the expiration of the global Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. A wide range of issues were presented, including inclusive growth, access to health and education, conflict mitigation, and improved security, and international policy coherence. Speakers also noted that large, emerging actors including China and India are looking beyond 2015 to 2020.

It was very clear that both the Asian participants and our co-hosts from USAID felt that the discussion was productive, provided a useful information sharing opportunity, as well as a chance to engage the development policy community, especially during the same week as the World Bank and IMF meetings in Washington. USAID’s assistant administrator for Asia, Nisha Biswal, expressed a desire to learn and engage with Asian emerging donors to develop new partnerships. Participants noted that the “traditional donors also need to learn from emerging donors.”

As traditional development agencies  such as USAID and UNDP rethink their role and reflect on their assistance programs and the way forward, it’s clear that the Asian emerging actors are excited to be “giving back” and have much to contribute to this discussion. The Foundation is pleased to offer a platform through AADC where these critical issues can be discussed and where Asian solutions to Asian problems can be highlighted.

Following the event in Washington, D.C., panelists travel to New York City to participate in discussions at the UN Secretariat. We will soon be posting a video which was live-streamed from the D.C. event. The Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation (AADC) dialogue series is a partnership between The Asia Foundation and the Korea Development Institute (KDI). This program in Washington, D.C., is organized by The Asia Foundation and USAID, with additional support from UNDP and AusAID.

Anna Bantug-Herrera is The Asia Foundation’s associate director in the Washington, D.C., office. She can be reached at abantugherrera@asiafound-dc.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

As Mongolia makes final preparations to host the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies from April 27-29, 2013, an air of excitement and buzz is palpable here in the capital, Ulaanbaatar. Among the hundreds of high-level delegates from the government, civil society, and the media attending – both from abroad and from Mongolia – Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as Yemen’s Tawakoll Karman are also expected.

Ulaanbaatar will host the 7th Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Photo/Kristin Kelly Colombano

The Community of Democracies is a global intergovernmental coalition of over 100 democratic countries, with the goal of promoting democratic rules and strengthening democratic norms and institutions around the world. The Community was initiated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, Professor Bronislaw Geremek, and former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, inviting all democratic countries to the inaugural conference in Warsaw hosted by Poland in June 2000. The Governing Council is the highest decision-making body and presently consists of 24 member countries including the United States and Mongolia.

The Community of Democracies aims to be a global platform for democratic countries, who together with civil society and parliamentarians seek to strengthen democracy both at the national level and in the international system. Its mission is to support democratic transition and consolidation worldwide and help bridge the gap between principles and practice of democracy and human rights.

Mongolia has been holding the Presidency of the Community of Democracies since July 2011. As a country that has successfully mastered the process of democratization while undergoing simultaneous political, social, and economic transformation, Mongolia serves as an example for other countries aspiring to achieve democracy in a peaceful manner. During its two-year presidential term which will end in June this year, Mongolia has focused on promoting education for democracy, strengthening regional cooperation, fostering collaboration with civil society, advancing women’s empowerment, and countering corruption. In July 2013, El Salvador will assume the Presidency of the Community of Democracies.

The 7th Ministerial Conference will consist of plenary sessions on topics such as Harnessing Open Governance for Democracy and Supporting Democratic Transition, as well as parallel sessions of five specific fora: Women’s Forum, Parliamentary Forum, Civil Society Forum, Corporate Forum and Youth Forum. At the end of the conference, a resolution on the outcomes of the various plenary sessions and fora is expected to be adopted.

Through the “Supporting Mongolia’s Presidency of the Community of Democracies Project,” funded by USAID, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and the Embassy of the United States in Mongolia, The Asia Foundation has been working to support the Mongolian Secretariat of the Community of Democracies. Last year, in partnership with the Presidency of the Community of Democracies, the Foundation together with the Zorig Foundation and MonAme Scientific Research Center organized the International Women’s Leadership Forum on July 7-9, 2012. The forum brought together over 100 participants, including former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to discuss ways to promote women’s entrepreneurship, access to natural resources, and leadership in the private sector. This year, through the generous support of its U.S. donors, the Foundation is supporting both the Women’s Forum and Parliamentary Forum and is also providing assistance on public outreach to inform citizens about the Community of Democracies in Mongolia. Stay tuned next week for further analysis and coverage of the event.

Tirza Theunissen is The Asia Foundation’s program and operations manager and Chinkhand Dorj is the communication and outreach officer in Mongolia. They can be respectively reached at ttheunissen@asiafound.org and chinkhand@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Recent vituperative comments by the North Korean regime can normally be dismissed as the ravings of a state that either misinterprets their negative external impact, or as rhetoric that is intended for consumption by a remarkably unsophisticated internal audience. Yet amid this dross from North Korea there is often repeated a term that foreigners frequently neglect or dismiss and to which attention should be paid. That is the call for “dignity.” Indeed, this call for “dignity” is a common sentiment that is usually ignored but was included, for example, in the 2008 inaugural speech of President Lee Myong Bak, as part of his policy for a more prominent role for South Korea within the realm of international relations. More recently, Lieutenant General Qi Jianguo of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in a January 2013 article in an official Chinese journal wrote, “If a nation loses its dignity, how can it speak of freedom?” Previously, the term was often used by the Burmese junta in its anti-foreign statements. It appears that the quest for “dignity” is a relatively common aspiration collectively amongst peoples who have felt diminished as a state, right down to the level of the individual.

It is perhaps significant that the term has been used by the leadership of states that in the past were humiliated by arrogant colonial rule, or in the case of China, the one hundred years of “semi-colonial” status. Unequal treatment, in treaties or otherwise, creates resentments and long memories. Such memories linger, and heightened nationalism on the side of the oppressed is a normal consequence.

“Dignity,” from the Latin dignitas – the inherent right to be valued or esteemed – is something more profound and important than “respect,” which itself is more substantive than “face,” which is often considered an Asian concept but in reality is a human universal desire for respectability. It is the basis on which much of our lives operate, or on which we hope that they would. Humans try to ensure dignity in our normal activities through protocols and good manners, means to codify dignity so that everyone understands what is expected, and thus dignity is maintained – we are being treated as we should. As established customs erode in globalized societies, such as the United States, these unofficial and often unarticulated rules are modified or ignored, leading to confusion. So, one can be accused of “dissing” someone – not providing the proper demeanor or response, and thus not providing the dignity sought. This can become more acute when cultures cross. Many African Americans during the 1992 Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles accused Korean businessmen of “dissing” them – destroying their dignity – by not looking them in the eye as one would do with an equal in American culture, even though direct eye contact between strangers is considered completely inappropriate in traditional Korean culture.

Unfortunately, this stated or inchoate cry for dignity in international relations is sadly often ignored. The stronger power usually overtly or indirectly destroys dignity by attempting to force conditions or acquiescence upon other governments for numerous reasons; they are often labeled as “evil empires,” “pariah regimes,” “rogue states,” or “outposts of tyranny.” However egregious their mistakes or violations of what have become (Western) international norms, those other governments, at least within the realm of normal bilateral relations, are deprived of the dignity that could potentially allow them to transform themselves on their own volition and at their own speed. They are not, of course, being treated as equals – with the dignity that one would expect from others. This dialectic is, in effect, paternalistic – the powerful parent chastising a child. In such circumstances, the public airing of such views, however justified, means that to acquire internal dignity – with or among their own peoples – the weaker government must respond negatively to such criticisms. For if it does not, that government has the potential to lose internal political legitimacy – dignity.

Public negative characterizations of such governments are designed to affect positive change of some sort, yet they can often have the opposite effect, though one opposed to this position might argue that the government in question does not have legitimacy to begin with. Yet that is not necessarily the case. External “pariah” status does not always equate to internal vilification. Authoritarian leaders can be popularly, and even fairly, elected.

Sometimes there are requests, even demands, for access to the elective process of a country. From the more benevolent “observer” status to that of “monitor,” implying, implicitly, that the state in question cannot be trusted to conduct fair elections, just as students are supervised during examinations to prevent cheating. Dignity is thus denied. This is not to argue that efforts should not be made to change individual government’s negative and/or abusive behavior, both domestically and internationally. Quiet arguments for change should be made when the effects of some governments’ actions are destructive. Incentives can be proffered, and negative responses discussed. But the use of the ill-phrased “carrots and sticks” approach is demeaning. As a former Burmese foreign minister said, “We are not donkeys.” So the phrase itself is another, and not a singular, example of the demeaning rhetoric used that in fact undermines the foreign policy goals it seeks to achieve. During wartime, some in the United States have claimed that if enough force is used, the “hearts and minds” of the people on the receiving end will follow. One wonders what evidence exists for such assumptions, especially when one recalls “shock and awe.” Indeed, the very opposite seems more than likely – suspicion and distrust will follow.

The use of sanctions for “benevolent purposes” against another state are often cited to convince the government in question to reform. Those who impose such sanctions no doubt have some powerful stimulus – either of a military or economic nature, or even moral suasions. The very act of advocating such sanctions or imposing them, however, rests on the underlying assumption that the particular state in question does not have the status, strength, moral position or concepts that would induce them to change on their own. However, the very act of imposing sanctions, in effect, deprives such governments of dignity. Furthermore, by implementing sanctions, is not the opportunity of achieving the desired goals limited? This position is nothing new in Western or other societies who have become, as others have sometimes pointed out, the ethical or political missionaries who are out to convert the unwashed heathens – those individuals or regimes who by their very status are lacking the dignity that only we can confer. To maintain internal dignity, regimes must go out of their way to deny such characterizations and to strike back with rhetoric that simply exacerbates the unpleasantness of the relationship. So these actions, in a good Hegelian way, produce the opposite reactions that defeat their purpose. Even some modern missionaries have learned that conversion by example is often more effective that verbally beating people around the head.

The need for dignity in international negotiations is an essential component for dealing with unpleasant or enemy regimes if one is to attain some of the objectives of such negotiations. This lesson, alas, is seldom learned.

This article was originally published in the East-West Center’s Asia Pacific Bulletin.

David I. Steinberg is Distinguished Professor of Asian Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.

Last week, the Asian Development Bank released its annual “Asian Development Outlook” report for 2013, with Asia’s success story of unprecedented growth in the last decades forecast to grow by 6.6 percent in 2013 and 6.7 percent in 2014. This remarkable growth is fueled by what seems to be an insatiable and possibly dangerous appetite for energy, the focus of this year’s report.

Energy consumption is indeed helping to power Asia’s economic expansion, and this trend is only growing. Asia consumed 34 percent of the global energy supply in 2010; by 2035, that share will increase to more than half.

Energy consumption is indeed helping to power Asia’s economic expansion, and this trend is only growing. Asia consumed 34 percent of the global energy supply in 2010; by 2035, that share will increase to more than half. However, this does not come without a cost.

Many Asian cities are among the worst cities for air pollution in the world, from Ulaanbaatar to New Delhi to Beijing. In China, the government – which only in recent years has become more candid about the environmental consequences exacted by its growth strategy – released statistics from its own Ministry of Environmental Protection which estimated that the cost of environmental degradation to the country was $230 billion, or 3.5 percent of the nation’s total GDP. This environmental degradation and its impact on climate change is becoming a real threat to Asia’s growth and to its population. Southeast Asia, for example, has been designated by the UN as “highly vulnerable” to the impacts of climate change and natural disaster, as the majority of its population and many of its major cities are located in low-lying coastal areas. According to the ADB, continuing “business as usual” emissions increases are expected to trigger a loss of 6.7 percent combined GDP by 2100 in ASEAN countries. In this context, Asian economies will have to manage energy access, both among countries in the region and between the rich and the poor. Without effective management, rising disparities may lead to wider development gaps and exacerbate social and political tensions in the region.

Regional cooperation may hold the key to addressing Asia’s energy challenge, as it already has on the economic front. Asia has clearly benefited from improved intraregional trade and regional economic integration. Intraregional trade and trade with China now accounts for more than 37 percent of ASEAN’s total trade, up from 26 percent in 2000. Moreover, ASEAN is moving forward on its plans for an integrated ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015, which will create a single market and production base that will enable member economies to benefit from improved efficiencies in their value chains and economies of scale. Such reforms have helped contribute to strong economic performances by ASEAN member economies in 2012 and strong projections for the near future. Although South Asia is less integrated than Southeast Asia, significant headway has also been made toward improved intraregional economic cooperation in the region. For example, earlier this year, Pakistan granted Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to India, a major breakthrough for trade relations between these two countries. Regional integration has been credited as a key factor in insulating the sub-region, and Asia overall, from the effects of the global slowdown or stagnation experienced in EU and the U.S.

Similarly, efforts to foster regional cooperation on the energy front may lead to major payoffs for meeting Asia’s energy challenge. Currently, cross-border energy markets and infrastructure connectivity have been neglected on the regional arena. As the ADB report states, “The lack of cooperation is all the more glaring as jointly promoting energy savings and energy security would not require new technology or pose the high cost and financial risk developing it might entail. … What is missing is political commitment in Asian countries to cooperate in energy markets and build the necessary infrastructure.” Examples of areas ripe for regional cooperation include cross-border coordination on the mode of electricity transmission for maximum efficiency, political consensus on the sharing of hydroelectric power, transportation connectivity, development of interconnected natural gas systems, and co-investment on renewable energies.

All of these projects will require strong political will at the national and regional levels. There are technical as well as policy challenges to overcome in order for an integrated Asian energy market to emerge. As the environmental and health costs to rapid economic growth become too large to ignore, regional cooperation will no longer be optional for political and economic actors. The private sector will also have a prominent role to play in the delivery of sustainable development solutions for the region. Ultimately, the objective for Asian development must underscore coordinated and responsible approaches, with nations working together to bring about sustainable prosperity for all.

Véronique Salze-Lozac’h is The Asia Foundation’s director for Economic Development Programs based in Bangkok, Nina Merchant-Vega is associate director, and Katherine Loh is a senior program officer. Salze-Lozac’h can be reached at VSalze-Lozach@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and not those of The Asia Foundation.