In Asia: Weekly Insight and Features from Asia

In the 60 years since The Asia Foundation began, the global development landscape and accompanying aid architecture has changed dramatically. Tackling the challenge of global poverty reduction seems to be on track. In the early 1980s, more than half of people in developing countries lived in extreme poverty. Today, this figure is around 16 percent and falling. Asia is largely responsible for these dramatic figures. Asia has experienced one of the most rapid paces of development in human history and, hence, it is no wonder that political and economic pundits have dubbed this era “The Asian Century.”

Many countries in Asia also share the unique experience of being aid recipients and donors, often simultaneously. Asian countries as donors are now contributing to significant shifts in global aid architecture.

Alongside this success, however, the Asian Century faces looming challenges. These include climate change, the global financial crisis, food security, humanitarian crises resulting from devastating natural disasters, and persistent pockets of conflict and fragility. For many countries in Asia, the challenge is how to maintain a positive development trajectory, while tackling these challenges and avoiding the middle-income trap. It is fitting that the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) is being held in Asia. As host, South Korea provides a valuable, concrete example of how aid can be an effective catalyst of development.

Many countries in Asia also share the unique experience of being aid recipients and donors, often simultaneously. Asian countries as “donors” are now contributing to significant shifts in global aid architecture. Two decades ago, aid from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development‘s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries constituted 80 percent of total aid. Today this amount is closer to 50 percent. Contributing to this change in composition of global development assistance is the significant increase in assistance from non-DAC countries, notably China and India.

Read more »

It is entirely appropriate that the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness is being held in the city of Busan, South Korea. In many ways, Busan symbolizes the story of Korea’s transition from poverty and aid dependence to aid donor and host of the most important global meeting on development cooperation. Forum participants from around the world are marveling at the glass and steel towers and the busy port. But go back a few decades and the picture was very different.

Thousands of delegates descended on Korea's major port town, Busan, this week for the HLF4. Photo: Flickr user: LWY

During the Korean War (1950-53), Busan was the only major port that did not quickly fall into North Korean hands. Through that port, war material and humanitarian supplies flowed into the devastated country. For many soldiers, aid workers, and journalists, Busan (then spelled Pusan) was their first view of this largely unknown country, and the first impression was almost universally negative. The surrounding hillsides were covered with the shanties of millions of refugees who flowed into the enclave. Nevertheless, with massive external assistance, Korea went on to recover its lost territory and begin the arduous task of rebuilding.

During the 1950s and 60s, the international community, especially the United States, stepped in to support Korea’s reconstruction and development with direct budget support and technical assistance. Then, aid flowed through the port of Busan in the form of the “three whites” (sugar, flour, cotton) that met the immediate needs of the people and helped re-start the economy.

Read more »

In a recent speech at the Overseas Development Institute, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stressed the important role that leadership plays in development.

Now, as the Forum draws to an end, the importance of leadership proves a crucial and timely message, and one that is closely tied into the growing debate about development “ownership”; for it is important to remember that ownership requires “owners.” Such owners, however, cannot be confined to the top leadership of central government, as ownership also requires action and support from leaders at the sub-national level, as well as across all sectors, including the private sector and wider interests in civil society. The new challenge for development that has been addressed in Busan – and will, hopefully, continue to be addressed beyond it – is how the international community can help to facilitate or broker processes through which these leaderships can work better together to share ownership of locally appropriate and legitimate institutions and policies.

But, while policy-makers recognize that leadership matters, they are also prone to ask the questions: “So what?” and “What can we do about it?” In light of such unanswered questions, the Developmental Leadership Program (DLP), an international policy initiative directed by an independent steering committee of partner organizations, including The Asia Foundation, funded primarily by AusAID,  works to better understand and promote the role developmental leadership plays in fostering sustainable economic growth, political stability, and inclusive social development.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

Just yesterday, on November 15 in Kabul and Washington, D.C., The Asia Foundation released the results of its 2011 Survey of the Afghan People.

The annual Survey of the Afghan People is the most comprehensive and credible nationwide poll of public opinion on topics related to national mood, governance, security, and development in Afghanistan. In 2011, the survey polled over 6,300 respondents from all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.

The Asia Foundation interviewed 6,348 adult Afghans, across all 34 provinces of Afghanistan in face-to-face interviews for the 2011 Survey. Above, surveyors poll a resident in Bamyan Province.

With funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), The Asia Foundation has implemented the survey since 2004. Over this period, the survey has generated a treasure trove of data and information, and the changes over time in the views and mindset of the people of Afghanistan.

The opinions of average Afghans matter a great deal in a country that continues to face enormous challenges in governance, security, and livelihoods. Good understanding among national leaders and international “influencers” of the views of the general population are also crucial as the struggling nation attempts to define its national vision while being buffeted by the inconstant waves of international intervention and regional competition.

Read more »

In Asia’s editor, Alma Freeman, interviewed 2011 Survey of the Afghan People co-author and former Asia Foundation program director for Law, Human Rights, and Women’s Empowerment in Kabul, Najla Ayubi, for her reaction to the findings of The Asia Foundation’s 2011 Survey and what they might mean for women’s rights, peace talks, and more. Ayubi is currently the Afghanistan country director for the Open Society Foundation.

As a survey author, what surprised you most about this year’s findings?

The high support for peace and reconciliation was a very surprising and important finding in this year’s survey. It’s surprising to see that 82 percent of the people support peace and reconciliation, which has interesting implications for the peace process. I also found it surprising that 74 percent of the respondents said they have confidence in religious leaders and 70 percent of respondents say that religious leaders should be consulted on problems facing an area. Also, 46 percent say that the country is going in the right direction, and only 35 percent say it is going in the wrong direction. That’s positive news, but since last year, the percentage of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction has increased by 8 percent. In 2009, that figure was 29 percent. To me, this reveals an unstable attitude of the people on whether their country is moving in the right direction.

Women respondents report lower levels of support than men for reconciliation with armed opposition groups. What do you make of this?

Women have been marginalized by the Taliban and other armed opposition groups for decades. That’s why woman don’t have much empathy for the armed opposition groups, and are not as supportive as men for the so called peace and reconciliation process which is going on with the government. In many cases, they feel they won’t get any benefit from this type of negotiation – specifically, they worry their rights will be compromised, and for me as an Afghan woman, I’m also afraid that my rights will be compromised during these peace talks. Two of the biggest issues that affect women’s lives here are the lack of freedom of movement to work outside of the home and access to education. In the current peace talks, how this will be factored in is totally up in the air. It’s very clear that women support peace, but not the kind of approach that risks compromising their rights.

Also, women are only symbolically part of the peace talks: some women have been put in high-level positions, like at the High Peace Council or at the local, provincial level in peace talk committees, but they aren’t able to actually represent women’s voices and interests there. For example, some of the women representatives in the High Peace Council have said that in many cases when there is a peace talk trip inside of the country, they are not allowed to be part of the delegation. The male representatives say that due to the security situation, women aren’t able to come. But this makes me ask, if the security is a problem for women, why is it not a problem for men? If the men can go and be protected by security forces, then why can’t the same be done for women? It’s more of a stereotype or patriarchal thinking that women are not eligible to be in peace talks rather than anything having to do with their ability.

Read more »

Religious leaders received the highest vote of confidence and optimism of the Afghan people among local governance institutions, according to The Asia Foundation’s 2011 Survey of the Afghan People. Seventy percent of respondents say that there should be regular consultation with religious leaders about problems in their area, while 74 percent rank religious leaders as one of the three most trusted institutions. This trend is the highest since 2006, when 61 percent of respondents said there should be regular consultation with religious leaders.

In Afghanistan’s history, the only consistent, “24-7″ local governance institution available to the public has been the religious leaders, known as mullahs or imams. They are positioned in the heart of each village and community in the Masjid (mosque) which exists in every village and even in some larger houses. In fact, one cannot find a single village and community in the country where there is no Masjid. As such, religious leaders have played a critical role in all stages of an Afghan’s life – from childhood to adult. When a child is first born, her first move from the cradle is to see an imam who recites the words of Azan into the child’s ears. When a child is 2-3 years old, she starts going regularly to the Masjid to learn the Quran and other faith-related books from religious leaders. A new marriage is not complete until the imam confirms the marriage contract between the bride and groom. Religious leaders also read letters from far-flung family members for people who can’t read. Finally, an imam is the last one to speak at a funeral ceremony.

Read more »

For the first time since 2007, respondents in The Asia Foundation’s 2011 Survey of the Afghan People cited reconstruction and rebuilding as the most important reason for optimism.

The level of optimism for reconstruction and rebuilding is high across all 34 provinces, but particularly so in the West, Central/Kabul, South East, South West, and East regions and urban areas. The level of optimism is nearly the same for men and women, as well as all ethnic groups, except Hazara who reported slightly lower figures.

Respondents in the 2011 Survey who reported the need for reconstruction as a reason for pessimism is at the lowest level since the Foundation first conduced the survey in 2004.

The finding highlights a link that respondents perceive between the direction of progress in the country and the ability of government to provide essential services and support for development projects. Respondents report the highest level of satisfaction with the availability of education for children, with almost three quarters (73%) saying this is quite good or very good in their local area. A similarly high proportion of respondents say the same about the availability of clean drinking water (70%) and freedom of movement or their ability to move safely in their area or district (70%). More than two thirds (69%) of respondents say the security situation is quite good or very good in the area where they live.

On the other hand, people are least satisfied with the availability of jobs. More than two thirds (70%) of respondents say the availability of jobs in their local area is quite bad or very bad. Almost two thirds (65%) say the same about the supply of electricity. Although procurement of electricity is an ongoing focus of President Karzai’s administration, including some success at bringing in electricity from neighboring countries, local potential for greater electricity supply has not been tapped. The delay has resulted in lost of revenue for the country and potential infrastructural construction job opportunities.

Read more »

On November 19, leaders of the 18 nations that comprise the East Asia Summit (EAS) will meet in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss a broad array of political, security, and economic issues. For the first time, the United States will participate as a full-fledged member. For much of the post-Cold War period, the U.S. approach to institution-building in Asia has been episodic at best and distant throughout. However, since President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, his administration has sought to develop a more comprehensive and integrated approach toward the Asia-Pacific, and the United States joining the EAS represents a “forward-deployed diplomacy” where it can increase its involvement in, and influence over, traditional and non-traditional security issues of common concern where all member countries pursue rules-based, pragmatic solutions to these challenges – from maritime security, nuclear non-proliferation, disaster management, and humanitarian relief to energy and food security, environmental protection, infectious diseases, and trafficking-in-persons.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her recent article in Foreign Policy: “Just as Asia is critical to America’s future, an engaged America is vital to Asia’s future.” So in what framework will the United States be operating in at the EAS? The Obama administration made a clear decision that it wanted to be involved in regional architecture where the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) served as the “fulcrum,” to borrow Secretary Clinton’s word. This served ASEAN’s purpose of wanting to engage all extra-regional powers (including the United States) peacefully within the framework where the association is at the core of Asian regional architecture.  Moreover, U.S. participation in EAS serves as an opportunity to balance an increasingly perceived Chinese assertiveness in regional affairs. As some astute Southeast Asian observers have commented to me: “We want the U.S. to lead from behind as it did in Libya and is currently doing in Myanmar.” Some Americans may take exception to the idea of the U.S. “leading from behind,” but one should think that the United States is being discreet, not desultory.

The United States’ desire to be more involved in Asian multilateral institutions comes at a time when it has been strengthening treaty alliances with Japan, Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, as well as expanding and deepening its bilateral relations with Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia. By engaging Asian nations both multilaterally and bilaterally, the United States has helped dissipate, but not completely dispel, a widespread belief in the region that it does not have an enduring commitment to the region.

But, over time, ASEAN’s centrality to Asian regional architecture will need to translate into results. A key challenge in the coming years will be for ASEAN to manage increasing demands from the United States, China, and others. The United States wants the EAS to focus exclusively on political/security issues and let APEC address economic and trade issues. However, China wants the EAS to deal with both economic cooperation and security questions, and insists that all discussion be handled according to principles of mutual respect and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. How will ASEAN, as the “fulcrum of regional architecture” in Asia, form a common position on important issues facing the EAS, APEC, and other regional architecture that may or may not include the United States?

Answers to these questions will not be resolved on November 19. But, hopefully, the summit in Bali will begin a process for fostering cooperation on issues that constructively address significant regional needs throughout the Asia-Pacific.

John J. Brandon is The Asia Foundation’s director of the Regional Cooperation Program in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at jbrandon@asiafound-dc.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

President Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president ever to attend an East Asia Summit (EAS), to be chaired by Indonesia in Bali on November 19. This summit comes at the end of a major Asia-Pacific tour for President Obama, beginning with APEC in Honolulu, a visit to Australia, and continuing on with the 19th ASEAN Summit and EAS in Bali – in what is a clear effort to shore up American presence in the region. This Obama tour, and particularly the EAS component, is strategically significant for both Indonesia and the United States. Indonesia has actively supported the addition of Russia and the United States to the EAS. Their induction last year, followed by Obama’s presence at the EAS this year, indicates not only the increasing importance of East Asia globally, but also serves to strengthen the political clout of the EAS as a regional forum.

Diplomatically, Indonesia is playing a bit of a balancing game – seeking to broaden the perimeters of ASEAN influence to include global players like the United States and Russia, while at the same time trying to keep ASEAN (especially during this year when Indonesia is chair) firmly in the driver’s seat. Indonesia’s motivation to broaden the stakeholders in the region is not simply about giving regional architectures more heft, but is also driven by the imperative to balance China’s dominance in the region.

The China factor appears to be prominent among U.S. policymakers’ thinking as well. The Obama administration has been visibly playing catch-up in seeking to establish a more active U.S. presence in East Asia, and particularly in Southeast Asia. Obama signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 2009 which paved the way for the United States to join the EAS; his administration has held multiple high-level bilateral meetings with ASEAN leaders over the past three years, and of course, Obama himself visited Indonesia in November of last year.

Read more »