I. Liberalization and Crisis in East Asia after the Cold War
During the Cold War, the United States provided a lot of assistance to East Asia, supported the economic development of the region, opened its own market, and maintained a trade deficit with the region for a long time. However, with the end of the Cold War, especially when the United States turned its focus to economy, the ideological factors in American East Asia policy gradually faded out. For a long time, the huge trade deficit between the United States and newly industrialized countries and ASEAN has made American neo-protectionists insist on economic freedom and open the East Asian market. The United States has taken measures such as threatening to raise domestic import tariffs to force South Korea, Taiwan Province Province and other economies to open their markets to American products more quickly and widely. Under the pressure of the United States, the trade restrictions on American products in this region were partially or completely cancelled. The United States has taken measures to limit its penetration into its own market. The United States terminated the zero-tariff preferential policy for some countries and regions in East Asia to enter the American market, and adopted VERS voluntary export restraints measures to force the appreciation of Taiwan dollar and Korean won. In addition to the pressure from the United States, globalization has also prompted governments in the Asia-Pacific region to seize opportunities to maximize profits. [1] At home, the rapid economic growth in East Asia in the past 20 or 30 years has driven industrial expansion and created a number of new traders and well-educated middle classes. As a result, society has become more complex and diversified, and they naturally demand the government to implement economic reform and even political liberalization. After the Cold War, under the international and domestic pressure, East Asia has successively implemented economic reforms, especially financial liberalization. For example, in order to turn Bangkok into a regional financial center, the Thai government has adopted some financial liberalization plans, cancelled various preferential policies for bank deposits, reduced restrictions on capital investment, changed the rules for obtaining loans from commercial banks and other financial institutions, lifted restrictions on foreign trade, and allowed foreign banks to purchase and issue US dollar loans in the region. The Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea and other countries have also taken similar financial reform measures. The interest rates of central banks in Southeast Asia are generally high, which makes it difficult for investors to repay loans, producers to maintain market competitiveness and consumers to maintain a high level of consumption. At the same time, the high domestic interest rate has also led local financial institutions to borrow a lot of funds with relatively low interest rates from abroad. Then lend it to domestic enterprises at high interest rates to obtain high interest returns. In this way, once the asset bubble breaks out, the non-performing loans of banks and other lending institutions will expand rapidly, which will also lead to their collapse. In South Korea, by the end of June, only $665,438+0 million of loans were officially classified as non-performing loans, but in fact, investigations from independent institutions estimated that it had exceeded 65,438+05% of this figure. [2] By 1995, Thailand's short-term debt rose to $4 1 100 million, and by 1997, the non-performing loans of Korean enterprises were estimated at $50 billion, and the chaebol were also involved in the debt. The highest interest rate of the top ten bonds is between 359%- 12 14.7%. [3] In addition, the external debt of countries in the region has also increased dramatically. According to statistics, in less than two years, foreign loans have reached 1.20% of Thailand's foreign exchange reserves, almost 200% of Indonesia's and South Korea's foreign exchange reserves. [4] Under the background of the lack of effective supervision and control by the government, due to the flow of external capital and the increase of non-performing loans, the development of domestic economy will become fragile. In this way, the old mechanism (such as the government's intervention mechanism in the economy) was abolished after the Cold War, but the new system (such as effective supervision and intervention system) was not established, or the old system during the Cold War was preserved, which could not adapt to the new environment of economic liberalization and was not enough to solve the newly liberalized economic problems, making the economic development after the Cold War face a crisis. After the Cold War, the government's unrestrained financial liberalization led to the bankruptcy of the bubble economy, which eventually triggered the East Asian financial crisis that began in Bangkok from June 65438 to July 0997.
During the Cold War, in order to resist the imperialism in East Asia, the United States provided a lot of military and economic assistance to the region, opened its own market, and even sacrificed part of its economic interests to promote the economic development in East Asia, which actively promoted the formation of the economic system in Japan and Southeast Asia. After the end of the Cold War, the United States no longer has the concern of geo-cold war, so it demands economic liberalization in this region and greater openness to American products. The United States will never give all the benefits to East Asia again, but mainly consider its own economic interests in this region. It can be said that the liberalization of economic activities is undoubtedly the most important factor leading to the crisis in the absence of supervision of economic activities. [2] Before the crisis, Thailand and other economies did not get enough warning. When the crisis hit the local area, the United States did not provide assistance to East Asia as timely as it did to Mexico two years ago. Instead, it only asks the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help Thailand and other affected countries and regions get rid of economic difficulties. The IMF's insistence on balanced budget, high interest rate and reduction of government expenditure has made East Asia's economy worse and deepened social unrest. In just a few months, the "prescription" of the International Monetary Fund has doubled the unemployment rate in Thailand and Indonesia. The unemployment rate in Korea also rose from 2.3% in 1997 to 6.7% in 1998. [5]
It can be seen from the changes of American attitude towards East Asian economy before and after the Cold War that the Cold War made the United States support the development of East Asian economy at the expense of some American interests while pursuing national interests, so as to safeguard its security interests in East Asia. Once the cold war ended, the United States did not consider security when pursuing national interests, but freely demanded economic liberalization so that American products could enter the region as much as possible. The East Asian financial crisis, like the sudden end of the Cold War, broke out suddenly and dealt a heavy blow to the East Asian economy. Of course, this does not mean that the prosperity of East Asia will end with the end of the Cold War. We should look at the economic development of East Asia from a long-term, dynamic rather than short-term static perspective. After all, the Asia-Pacific region is rich in natural and human resources, especially with the rise of emerging economies such as Japan and China. Second, the geo-economic integration in East Asia after the Cold War.
During the cold war, East Asia experienced the same experience. The capitalist camp in East Asia is full of fear of capitalism. The United States dominated the economic development in the Asia-Pacific region under the pretext of the Cold War, and then Japanese investment swept across East Asia. Most local governments have also formed a centralized government, implemented a government-led economic development model, and changed from import substitution to export-oriented development strategy. * * *' s experience means that they have many similar challenges in dealing with future economic problems. [2] This has strengthened cooperation and exchanges between regions and promoted the development of regionalism. In fact, the Cold War largely concealed the emergence of regionalism in East Asia. In particular, through a series of bilateral treaties signed with East Asian allies, the United States tends to ban direct links within East Asia. However, once the Cold War ended, multilateralism began to become the mainstream of East Asia, and the regionalism thought of East Asian economic development would appear. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum was founded at the end of the Cold War. Although it links countries and regions on both sides of the Pacific, it reflects the fact that regionalism has been lurking in the Cold War.
In the early 1990s, East Asia lacked interest in government-led regional integration, and most countries and regions did not advocate solving problems in economic development through regional cooperation. At this time, East Asian regionalism was mainly market-oriented economic cooperation, which was mainly promoted by the investment and trade of Chinese and Japanese enterprises in the region. The lack of enthusiasm for government-led regionalism in this region was most obvious in the late 1990s. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir's proposal to establish the East Asian Economic Organization Group (EAEG) met with a cold response from neighboring countries and regions. Of course, it is also largely because of fear of being squeezed out of the region by the United States. Finally, with the consent of the United States, EAEC became a branch under the APEC framework.
Compared with Europe and North America, East Asia is dwarfed in economic cooperation and regional integration, not to mention political cooperation. Historical factors, great differences within the Asia-Pacific region and different degrees of contact between the region and the outside world prevent them from adopting a common voice in international negotiations and reaching consensus on a series of major issues within the region. APEC has achieved some success in East Asian regional integration, but it is more like a debate club than a negotiator representing one side's interests, and its resolutions are hardly binding on all its members. Its members include the United States, Canada and even some countries in South America, and they naturally emphasize their own interests instead of considering Asia. Therefore, it is difficult for APEC to become a real Asia-Pacific economic entity. [6] For another example, after the establishment of 1967 ASEAN, it evolved into an anti-* * organization, which mainly played a role in security issues. Although ASEAN countries strive to promote intra-ASEAN trade and investment, they are mainly engaged in economic and trade exchanges with other regions, and there is little economic interaction between them. If Singapore is excluded, intra-ASEAN trade accounts for only 5% of ASEAN's total trade. After the Cold War, the trade and investment between East Asia and other parts of the world developed rapidly. The United States has long been the most important export market for most countries in the region, and it is likely to continue to be so for a long time to come. The economies of East Asia and Europe still surpass intra-regional trade and investment. Japan's economic activities in this region are very important to most countries and regions in the Asia-Pacific region, but Japan still mainly takes the United States as the destination for foreign exports and investment, and is less dependent on this region. The growth of triangle trade and investment between Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia will lead to the growth of economic interaction within East Asia, but in fact, this is only a contiguous regional integration, not representing the whole of East Asia. Similarly, the development of trade between Hong Kong and the Mainland will also lead to an increase in the number of foreign trade, but in fact this only means a higher degree of economic integration between Hong Kong and China.
After the Cold War, the degree of economic integration in East Asia was relatively low. Although APEC has developed, it is still a loose cooperative organization, but all this has changed with the outbreak of the East Asian financial crisis. Most governments in East Asia resent the IMF's improper handling of the crisis and the US government's opposition to the establishment of an "Asian Monetary Fund" to deal with future crises. Only by choosing other ways can East Asian governments better cope with the future crisis, and promoting the real integration of the region should be the best solution to the economic problems in the region. After the Cold War and before the crisis, APEC developed greatly, but after all, it was not an economic organization representing East Asia, and its role in promoting regional integration was limited. However, after the crisis, East Asian governments actively promoted economic cooperation within the region. In addition, in the global regional economic competition, the great pressure from the European Union and the North American Free Trade Area also gave birth to the development of regional integration in East Asia.
ASEAN 10+3(APT) is a successful model of regional economic cooperation in this region. After the war, almost all ASEAN countries introduced capital and technology from Europe, America and Japan to develop their own traditional industries such as coal, petrochemicals and household appliances. The products exported by various countries are also very similar, which leads to no big expansion of intra-ASEAN trade for a long time. As one of the "Four Little Dragons in Asia", China, Japan and South Korea will bring unlimited business opportunities to ASEAN. 1996 In order to participate in the Asia-Europe Meeting held in Bangkok in March of that year, ASEAN invited China, Japan and South Korea to join as representatives of Asia. 1997 was held at the first 10+3 informal meeting of heads of government of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur. Since then, 10+3 meetings of heads of government and meetings attended by ministers and officials of various countries have been held regularly every year. ASEAN 10+3 (China, Japan and Korea) provides a favorable platform for solving East Asian economic problems, promoting economic cooperation and promoting regional economic integration. For example, ASEAN has set up an Asian securities market, so that money from the Asia-Pacific region can enter other economies in the region in the form of public securities or private securities without going through the United States. At the same time, APT also provides a platform for the development of ASEAN-China Free Trade Area, ASEAN-Japan and ASEAN-Korea Free Trade Area. At present, APT should be the best form of Asia-Pacific economic integration. At least APT leaders have made it clear that the aim of this organization is to establish East Asia Free Trade Area. [7] Due to the influence of geographical and historical factors in East Asia, East Asian integration cannot reach the level of EU integration soon, but in the short term, people expect East Asia to first abolish tariffs internally, realize the liberalization of trade and investment, and at the same time retain tariffs externally to cope with economic competition in other parts of the world; In the long run, with the formation of internal production networks in East Asia, the increase of internal trade and investment flows, and the competitive pressure from the European Union and the North American Free Trade Area, APT may become an important economic organization in the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, it is also possible that there will be a more unified integration organization than APT in the future, such as East Asia.
Third, the marginalization of the United States in East Asia and the rise of regional economy after the Cold War.
For a long time after the war, the United States maintained absolute economic hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region for a long time, affecting the economic trend of Asia-Pacific countries. Even after the 1970s, due to the drag of the Vietnam War, the rise of emerging Asian economies such as Japan and South Korea, and the relative decline of American national strength, its absolute economic hegemony in East Asia remained unshakable, and the United States still maintained great advantages in aid, trade and investment. Since 1970s, with Japan's economic penetration in Southeast Asia, the United States and Japan have become the most important import and export markets in ASEAN. Comparatively speaking, for geopolitical reasons, the United States imports more manufactured goods from ASEAN than Japan. On the other hand, Japan imports more raw materials, energy and other primary products from ASEAN for its own economic interests. After the Cold War, in addition to the economic development of the original capitalist camp, with the implementation of China's reform and opening up, China's development as a late-developing country further consolidated East Asia's position as the core region of the "Pacific Century". With the sustained and rapid economic growth in East Asia and the expansion of trade and investment opportunities, the United States is increasingly dependent on the Asia-Pacific market. For example, in 1986, about 36% of East Asian exports entered the American market, while only 23% of American exports entered East Asia, but by 199 1, exports to the United States only accounted for 24% of the total East Asian exports, while the dependence of the United States on the East Asian market rose to 27% of its total world exports. [9] In addition, because domestic savings in the United States are difficult to meet basic investment needs, the United States has become increasingly dependent on emerging economies in East Asia during this period. For example, the United States sells a large number of US Treasury bonds to wealthy investors in East Asia, such as Japan and Taiwan Province Province, and the investment of American private enterprises also comes from East Asia.
It can be said that after the Cold War, East Asia's economic dependence on the United States decreased, while the United States' economic dependence on East Asia increased relatively. The role of the United States in the East Asian economy is decreasing, its influence is decreasing, and its role as a bystander on the east coast of the Pacific Ocean is increasing. Because of this, the United States began to return to Asia in the second half of 20 1 12, and its strategic focus shifted eastward with the escape from the ten-year Iraq war. When talking about Asia, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that "the United States is back" and made it clear that the United States will pay more attention to its investment in the Asia-Pacific region, especially the military. Obviously, the strategic focus of the United States will shift to Asia in the future. However, the shift of the strategic focus of the United States to the Asia-Pacific region is mainly confined to the geopolitical and military fields. 1985 After the signing of Plaza Agreement, Japan paid more attention to other Asia-Pacific regions. Japan's total investment in manufacturing in East Asia increased by 65,438+00.8% every year in the early 1980s, while from 65,438+0985 to 65,438+0988, Japan's investment in Asia increased by 65,438+07% every year. [ 10]
In addition, according to a recent survey data, the proportion of Japanese-funded enterprises' products sold back to Japan in Asia has increased from 9.6% in 1980 to 16.7% in 1987, which is much higher than the return rate of Japanese overseas investment of 9. 1%. [1 1] In the 1990s, the economic interaction between countries and regions in East Asia was strengthened, and the direct investment in "Greater China Economic Circle (Chinese in South China and Southeast Asia as a whole)" also developed rapidly. The development of new investment model in this region will naturally promote the further development of intra-regional trade. The interaction between investment and trade in East Asia has further promoted the economic integration in this region, making it easier to create a self-reliant and powerful sub-regional economy. According to the data released by relevant research institutions, the economic growth rate in East Asia will reach 1.6% for every one percentage point increase in global growth rate in 1970s. But in the 1990s, the global growth rate of 1% could only lead to the economic growth rate of 0.3% in East Asia. The internal economic interaction in East Asia has increased, reducing the dependence on the American economy. [9]
After the Cold War, although the United States still plays a very important role in the economic field, especially in the military and political affairs in East Asia, its economic marginalization is a reality that cannot be ignored, and the enhancement of economic interaction within East Asia has reduced the region's dependence on external economies, especially the American economy, and further promoted the economic integration of the region. For a long time, under the influence of nationalism, due to historical, linguistic and territorial problems, there have been many contradictions and disharmonies in East Asia, and even contradictions among countries in this region will affect economic cooperation and the cohesion of local economy. It can be said that East Asia has long been regarded as a region composed of different countries and regions, divided by the long-term opposition between different historical, cultural and nation-states. However, this view is increasingly incorrect. Although East Asia can't be unified like the European Union in a short time, the internal governments in East Asia have now strengthened their diplomatic ties and realized that they have many common interests. [9] The rise of East Asian economy, the enhancement of economic integration and the improvement of internal cohesion in the region will further enhance the voice of the region in regional and international economic and political affairs, and the region will certainly further broaden the scope of cooperation and turn to political and security cooperation on the basis of economic cooperation mode. In the long run, the isomorphism of East Asia will inevitably become a long-term trend in this region.
This paper is taken from China Paper Network, and its original address is/4//4 /4/view-4905944.htm