Global Lens

The effects of rising temperatures on the Himalayas in a new report: the continent's main water supply risks running dry in 2100. With consequences for an area where the Yangtze and Yellow River, Indus, Ganges and Mekong are born

Asia will lose its main water reserve by 2100. This is the alarm raised by researchers at the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in Kathmandu, who in their latest report predict a reduction in the Himalayan glaciers up to 80% of the current volume. The estimate is based on forecasts of a 4C rise in global temperatures, well beyond the limits promised by the Paris climate accord but close to actual projections unless significant action is taken.

The Hindu Kush area, object of the research, hosts what is today the largest ice reserve in the world after the two Poles. Here there are 15 thousand glaciers for a total of 100 thousand square kilometers of surface, from where the Yangtze and the Yellow River begin their journey, as well as the Indus, the Ganges and the Mekong. An area so vast as to directly affect the 240 million people who live on the plateau and another 1.65 billion along the river basins. 

According to ICIMOD forecasts, the melting of the glaciers will cause a peak in the water supply to the valley by the middle of the century, and then slowly begin to decline. From that moment on, the availability of water will begin to decrease and there will no longer be sufficient reserves upstream for the maintenance of local ecosystems.

From the dependence of energy systems on hydroelectricity to the instability of water resources for agriculture, the melting of glaciers will have and already has an epochal impact on the continent. This is in a region where 80% of rainfall is concentrated in the four months of the monsoon season, today increasingly intense, short and hot. In 2021, the president of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Mami Mizutori called drought "the next pandemic". Too bad, he added, that there is no vaccine for drought. 

Water scarcity comes into play in an area where investment in hydroelectricity has exploded over the past two decades. One hundred dams are now operational in the sixteen countries reached by the waters coming from the plateau, while another 650 dams are expected to be built in the next few years. Enthusiasm for the opportunities stemming from this seemingly sustainable source was soon dampened by record heat waves year after year. A prolonged peak in temperatures which, as has been happening in Vietnam for over five weeks, has led to the gradual closure of some of the country's main hydroelectric plants.

But the attractiveness of water resources to support the rampant energy demand of new industrial centers has generated very different narratives in the community of international investors. From the Irrawaddy for Myanmar to the Mekong for Laos, there are many companies and institutions that would like to take the opportunity to transform these countries into the "batteries of Asia". The water potential of Asia's major rivers is often referred to as a "missed opportunity" or "largely underexploited".

A gradual conversion of global supply chains in South Asia and Southeast Asia is contributing to this due to rising Chinese labor costs and international tensions. No less important are the tax breaks adopted by governments to attract foreign investors, as well as the numerous trade agreements. All measures that are expanding access to Asian markets and, by facilitating regional exchanges, make it possible to relocate an entire production chain on the basis of the fiscal or economic benefits of the various countries.

The contraction of the polar ice cap is to energy exploration in the northern seas what the melting of glaciers is to Beijing's infrastructure and mining ambitions. In fact, it is the People's Republic, in particular, that is betting on the growing accessibility of the Himalayan plateau. Recently some researchers have identified a vein of rare earths that could extend for a thousand kilometers along the southern border of Tibet, a factor that could both strengthen China's dominant position on one of the most strategic markets of our time, as well as re-emerge tensions with neighboring India.

In fact, a greater presence of human activities on the Himalayan plateau is already bringing to light the territorial claims of the various governments of the region. This is the case of the Tibetan county of Lhunze, one of the largest rare earth basins located in an area still contested by India and where infrastructure investments more than doubled between 2016 and 2019. The escalation of a conflict linked both to new mineral resources may soon be just the preview of a more bitter battle for water resources. Barring the Indus Waters Treaty signed by India and Pakistan, there is no regional mechanism dedicated to the redistribution and rights to use the waters of rivers flowing through multiple Asian states. 

The massive presence of Chinese dams upstream of the Mekong is just one example of how marginal the water emergency is still considered which, sooner or later, will no longer be just a problem for a few farmers. Its marginality, the report concludes, is also due to the lack of knowledge on ecosystems beyond data: the human dimension, underlines the document, is essential for understanding what consequences and what solutions are being put in place. Local populations are adapting, but they are doing so through autonomous and small-scale forms of support and redefinition. But the climate crisis is transboundary, and its effects on the already complex relationships between the actors of the region are - still - to be seen.

We publish here an excerpt from a speech by Ng Eng Hen, Singapore's Minister of Defense, at the Shangri-La Dialogue 2023

Rising military spending, shifting military and trade alliances, and de facto nativist economic policies are strong winds of change. How do we weather the storms to come? For Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific region, the US-China relationship is central to stability. That is the core, but the penumbra of relationships of other countries outside this core is also important for stability. No country, I think, wants war, but our working assumptions and scenarios must be that unplanned incidents can occur. Channels of communication, both formal and informal, must exist so that when these unplanned incidents occur, those channels can be used to deescalate and avoid conflict. Despite the Cold War, the strategic arms limitation and anti-ballistic missile treaties were signed between Brezhnev and Nixon in 1972. The salient point is that such channels of communications must be built over time. It will be too late to start or activate them only in moments of crisis. Seasoned diplomats compare unfavourably the lines of communication between the US and Soviet Union in the Cold War with what exists today between the US and China, now at its ebb. It is not our place and certainly not my intention to comment on the diplomatic efforts of other countries, but I state these observations on declining touch points between the American and Chinese military establishments knowing full well that Singapore and other ASEAN states are not disinterested bystanders. Both the US and China have said that they do not want ASEAN countries to take sides, but ASEAN member states, with a vivid recollection of great power rivalry in our past and the devastating consequences, are acutely concerned that worsening relationships between these two powers, US and China, will inevitably force difficult choices upon our individual states. For ASEAN, both through bilateral ties and individual member states, and collectively with the US and China through the ADMM-Plus, we have sought inclusivity and engagement as key platforms for pre-emption and confidence building. Within the ADMM framework, we continue to pursue multilateral exercises that involve all our eight-plus partners. These interactions strengthen practical cooperation like the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) to reduce the risk of accidents and miscalculations. At the heart of our engagements, as fully exemplified in the Shangri-La Dialogue, is the desire to seek peace even as we security chiefs strengthen our militaries to protect our individual nations. At times, the progress seems painfully slow, but we owe it to our citizens and the next generation to persist and forge breakthroughs.

Read the full speech here

During the Asia-Pacific Security Summit in Singapore, the centrality of ASEAN, whose countries are calling for more dialogue at the international level, was reaffirmed

Editorial by Lorenzo Lamperti

"South-East Asia has paid more than others for the devastating consequences of the clash between great powers. We do not want this to happen again'. Ng Eng Hen, Singapore's Minister of Defence, made this clear in his speech during the last plenary session of the Shangri-La Dialogue, the Asia-Pacific's top security summit held in the city-state from 2 to 4 June. Singapore and the ASEAN region in general once again confirmed itself as a crucial crossroads of global diplomacy. At a complicated time, to say the least, between the war in Ukraine and tensions between the US and China, the South-East is making its voice heard, asking world leaders for wisdom. "Military spending is also increasing exponentially in the Asia-Pacific," says the Singaporean minister. "It is not a source of instability per se, but in the absence of proper dialogue between the powers then it risks leading to a rearmament race that can destabilise the entire region." During the meetings, which were also attended by the US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the Chinese Defence Minister, Li Shangfu, the 'centrality of ASEAN' and the goodness of the ASEAN way was mentioned several times. And all the representatives of the South-East Asian countries emphasised their willingness to maintain relations with both Washington and Beijing, promoting multilateralism based on trade and international rules. But also and above all on dialogue. "Both Austin and Li assured that the US and China are not asking ASEAN countries to choose sides, but we also hope that these two countries can talk to each other again," said Ng Eng Hen. "Both have been in the Asia-Pacific for a long time and both will not leave. We have to find or rediscover a way to ensure stability and security for the region'. The same concept was also expressed by the IISS, the international institute that has been organising the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore for the past 20 years, where the intelligence chiefs of several countries, including the United States and China, also met behind closed doors. Proof, once again, of how Singapore and the South-East provide an exceptional platform for confrontation. If the future of the world will be written (also or especially) in this region, perhaps it would be worth listening to it.

Article by Vittoria Mazzieri

Regional investment targets, ideological allies, security partners, players in territorial claims: since the beginning of diplomatic relations, Southeast Asian countries have assumed changing and complex roles in Beijing's eyes. In terms of geographic proximity and economic cooperation, ASEAN occupies a priority role in Chinese foreign policy

Deng Xiaoping's 1979 trip to Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore marks an important point in relations between Beijing and the countries of Southeast Asia. The "little helmsman" was amazed by the socioeconomic progress in an area he had mistakenly regarded as economically backward. As noted in an essay on the subject by Singapore's Nanyang Technological University professors Zhou Taomo and Hong Liu, what particularly struck Deng was the city-state south of Malaysia. In the aftermath of his meeting with then Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the People's Daily moves from describing Singapore as the "watchdog of American imperialists" to painting it as an "island of peace," a "garden city worth studying." Deng, on the other hand, receives yet another confirmation of the need to abandon the ideological lenses with which the Communist Party has hitherto interpreted relations with Southeast Asia.

Relations between the Asian giant and the city-state demonstrate the People's Republic's changing relations with the area traditionally known as Nanyang 南洋, "South Seas." In addition to the domestic political context, Beijing's relations with the region have been influenced by issues related to the identity of diasporic communities (in Singapore, 75 percent of the population is ethnic Chinese), territorial disputes, and various infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The first years after the People's Republic's emergence are characterized by a moderate and flexible approach: Beijing advocates a "third way" that can offer an alternative to the two Cold War blocs even to countries ideologically unrelated to the Communist Party. The promulgation of the Five Principles for Peaceful Coexistence in 1954 presents a new framework of international relations based on mutual respect for territorial integrity and the principle of non-interference, even for ideologically unrelated countries. The Sino-Indonesian Dual Nationality Treaty, signed the following year, ends the policy of granting nationality to all ethnic Chinese. China thus encourages overseas communities to adopt the nationality of the countries in which they live, thereby aiming to assuage the concerns of some Southeast Asian countries, fearful that communities of Chinese could be used by the Party to engage in subversive activities. 

Over the years ethnic Chinese minorities became the target of heavy-handed discriminatory policies: in 1959 Indonesian President Sukarno revoked the license to operate retail businesses from all "foreigners," mostly Chinese. As a result, in some places, the feeling of belonging to the motherland is strengthened. With the onset of the Cultural Revolution, groups of ethnic Chinese students began wearing Mao Zedong badges in schools in Rangoon, in present-day Myanmar. A wave of large-scale ethnic riots and a drastic deterioration in bilateral relations ensue.

Since the late 1960s, Chinese foreign policy in general has tended to radicalize, partly because of the economic recession following the disastrous Great Leap Forward. The establishment in 1967 of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), founded by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand from an anti-communist perspective, is perceived by Mao Zedong as a tool of imperialism. Ideologically neighboring countries are asked to recognize as the main targets of the revolution, in Premier Zhou Enlai's words, "imperialism, feudalism and comprador capitalism." An approach that would change dramatically in the aftermath of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. As explained in an article for ISPI by Ngeow Chow-Bing, director of the Institute of Chinese Studies at the University of Malaya, in this scenario ASEAN assumes strategic importance for Beijing to contain the expansionist aims of the government in Hanoi (with which relations have deteriorated irretrievably) over Indochina and the entire region.

The record-breaking economic development affecting the People's Republic since the 1990s is a key element in the expansion of its soft power influence, as Joshua Kurlantzick, fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, has written. China's economic performance attracts the interest of developing countries and also has the effect of enhancing the reputation of Chinese communities living in the region.

It is during those years that what official Chinese rhetoric describes as the "golden decade" of relations with ASEAN (which as of today, in addition to the founding countries, also counts Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, East Timor, Laos, and Vietnam) begins. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Beijing made the symbolic decision not to devalue its currency, offering itself as a guarantor of stability. In the following years it initiated relevant multilateral agreements: the Chiang Mai Currency Exchange Initiative, the 2002 Free Trade Agreement, and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which stabilized territorial disputes, in the same year. 

But with Xi Jinping's rise to power, Chinese foreign policy acquired a more proactive and assertive profile. The deterioration of relations over the past decade, especially with the Philippines and Vietnam, is inextricably linked to territorial claims in the South China Sea area. Since the 1970s, disputes with Vietnam over the Spratly and Paracelsus Islands have turned into a regional, or even global, dispute. Of little or no use was the 2002 Code of Conduct, which while celebrated at the time as a means of ensuring a "peaceful, friendly and harmonious environment in the South China Sea," did not include provisions on enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms. 

Tensions, therefore, grew, even reaching Indonesia for the first time in 2016. In the same year, a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague rejected Beijing's claims, represented by the so-called "nine-point line." Beijing did not accept the decision recognizing Manila's rights to exploit resources within the 200 nautical miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Rather, it accused Washington of pushing the Philippines to resort to the court to "sabotage relations between China and ASEAN countries."

Despite its maritime claims, China has never stopped courting countries in the region. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the historic agreement sealed in 2020 after eight years of negotiations and entered into force in January 2022, has served Beijing to consolidate economic cooperation in the area. But mutual trade relations cannot be explained without bringing up the Belt and Road Initiative, the ambitious new Silk Road launched in 2013 that counts Chinese investments worth about 85 billion a year. As early as the early 2000s, Southeast Asia emerged as an important regional target for Chinese foreign direct investment. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic crisis, ASEAN rose to the top spot among BRI investment destinations. 

The initiative has met with varying degrees of acceptance in countries in the region. Despite tensions over territorial disputes, many nations involved have continued to desire Chinese investment in infrastructure and manufacturing. Unlike its more welcoming neighbors, Hanoi has taken a cautious approach: the Vietnamese strategy seems to aim to avoid confrontation with China while averting the risk of economic dependence. To date, the only BRI project implemented in the country is the Cat Linh-Ha Dong tramway, which has attracted widespread criticism because of its high cost.

The derailment of a high-speed train of the ambitious Jakarta-Bandung rail project shows that safety risks can undermine the People's Republic's credibility. A recent report by Malaysian lending institution Maybank suggests that the post-pandemic recovery may be less strong than expected. Projects could suffer setbacks because of growing government distrust of, for example, social and environmental costs: in 2014, Chinese-owned bauxite mining operations in Vietnam's central highlands sparked widespread protests over environmental damage and noncompliance with local laws. For other countries that have been more actively engaged in the BRI, such as Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar, fears about the "debt trap" periodically return from economists and observers. 

Overall, Southeast Asian countries remain essential to Beijing for numerous reasons. For example, as partners toward whom China can accelerate the spread of "soft" infrastructure such as health services and the digital economy. Or as useful players in subverting international balances and increasing the relevance of the Asia-Pacific. Against the backdrop of tensions with the United States, the People's Republic aims to present itself to ASEAN countries as a non-assertive actor, willing to pursue "mutual respect," "dialogue," and "win-win" synergies, as claimed last year at the launch of the Global Security Initiative (GSI). On the other hand, China's investments are shaping up as unmissable resources for developing countries in the region: the GSI's sister initiative, the Global Development Initiative (GDI), represents Beijing's willingness to name itself a central role in multilateral development promotion. ASEAN has become the largest regional group to benefit from it, nabbing 14 projects out of a total of 50 from the first batch of the GDI Project Pool.

 

The region has rapid growth and expanding economy suggest that the region can become a model for managing competition between major powers

"South-East Asia is far from a monolith: its countries have different foreign policies and objectives, some of them at odds with each other. But the region's rapid growth and expanding economy suggest that its countries will become more powerful over time and, with them, probably more able to avoid external interference. South-East Asia may have been defined in the past by conflict between great powers, but today it may become a model for managing competition between great powers'. Thus judges an analysis by Huong Le Thu, published in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. South-East Asia has worked hard to maintain and expand diplomatic and security stability. In addition to the ASEAN-led multilateral security architecture, the region has established many plurilateral and bilateral agreements with third states. These are ad hoc groups, such as the joint patrolling of the Mekong River by China, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. According to Foreign Affairs, as geopolitical tensions rise, the already large number of these partnerships is set to increase. These complex and often overlapping agreements are central to Southeast Asia's efforts to engage with all, but without making exclusive commitments to any. Southeast Asian states are also becoming more active in groups that include participants from outside their neighbourhood. Last year, for example, Cambodia hosted the high-profile East Asia Summit, Thailand held the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and Indonesia chaired the G20. Individually, Huong points out, some South East Asian governments have learnt that competition between the US and China has advantages. The clash between Beijing and Washington may scare politicians in the region, but it has led both governments to try to win the hearts and minds of non-aligned countries. This has helped South East Asian countries, home to young populations and cheap labour, reap all kinds of economic benefits. Vietnam, says Foreign Affairs, has benefited enormously from the US breakaway from China, as American companies have moved production to Vietnamese factories. Indonesia has also received an investment boost from US companies, including Amazon, Microsoft and Tesla. The region is also becoming increasingly critical for global supply chains. And it may point the way forward for continued prosperity.

Increasing cooperation between Southeast Asian countries and global platforms such as the G7. And beyond. With the hope that more and more governments will follow the bloc's "third way"

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is increasingly involved in global decision-making mechanisms. A very timely example is the historic first meeting between G7 justice ministers and those of the regional bloc. A joint meeting is scheduled for July, with Japan, the host country and G7 chair. A similar Japan-ASEAN meeting is scheduled for the same days. On the other hand, since the start of the war in Ukraine, it has sharpened the distance between the West and some countries. ASEAN, with its third way of neutrality and pacifism, can serve as a crucial connector in this global phase. Southeast Asians fear that the use of force to change the status quo, as Russia did in Ukraine, will spread to the Asia-Pacific. Most of all, they fear getting involved in disputes where they do not belong. "ASEAN must remain independent and a zone of neutrality amid the escalating rivalry between the U.S. and China," Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said in recent days, stressing that ASEAN was formed to promote peace and stability in the region. "This position continues. We do not want the region to be the basis for military competition. This position has been quite consistent, although we remain friendly with all countries," he explained. Recent multilateral agreements that threaten to set the stage for an arms race are frowned upon. In 1995, 10 ASEAN member states signed the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, or Bangkok Treaty, which designates the region as nuclear weapons-free. The treaty also includes a protocol open for signature by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. So far no one has signed it, but we are finally seeing the first movements. Recently, China expressed its intention to sign the protocol for the ASEAN Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty. But it will not be easy to get everyone to join. The bloc's hope is that by participating more and more frequently in global platforms, the world will increasingly choose to follow that third way it has been indicating for several years now.

How ASEAN Survives—and Thrives—Amid Great-Power Competition

We offer below an excerpt from the latest essay by Kishore Mahbubani, published by Foreign Affairs

The defining geopolitical contest of our time is between China and the United States. And as tensions rise over trade and Taiwan, among other things, concern is understandably mounting in many capitals about a future defined by great-power competition. But one region is already charting a peaceful and prosperous path through this bipolar era. Situated at the geographical center of the U.S.-Chinese struggle for influence, Southeast Asia has not only managed to maintain good relations with Beijing and Washington, walking a diplomatic tightrope to preserve the trust and confidence of both capitals; it has also enabled China and the United States to contribute significantly to its growth and development. This is no small feat. Three decades ago, many analysts believed that Asia was destined for conflict. As the political scientist Aaron Friedberg wrote in 1993, Asia seemed far more likely than Europe to be “the cockpit of great-power conflict.” In the long run, he predicted, “Europe’s past could be Asia’s future.” But although suspicion and rivalry endured—particularly between China and Japan and between China and India—Asia is now in its fifth decade of relative peace, while Europe is once again at war. (Asia’s last major conflict, the Sino-Vietnamese war, ended in 1979.) Southeast Asia has endured a measure of internal strife—in Myanmar especially—but on the whole, the region has remained remarkably peaceful, avoiding interstate conflict despite significant ethnic and religious diversity. Southeast Asia has also prospered. As the living standards of Americans and Europeans have languished over the last two decades, Southeast Asians have achieved dramatic economic and social development gains. From 2010 to 2020, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), made up of ten countries with a combined GDP of $3 trillion in 2020, contributed more to global economic growth than the European Union, whose members had a combined GDP of $15 trillion. This exceptional period of growth and harmony in Asia is not a historical accident. It is largely due to ASEAN, which despite its many flaws as a political and economic union has helped forge a cooperative regional order built on a culture of pragmatism and accommodation. That order has bridged deep political divides in the region and kept most Southeast Asian countries focused on economic growth and development. ASEAN’s greatest strength, paradoxically, is its relative weakness and heterogeneity, which ensures that no power sees it as threatening.
Keep reading on Foreign Affairs

Political tensions and economic competition are slowing down the race towards the green transition. The war in Ukraine is changing Russian fossil fuel routes, but supply agreements are particularly advantageous for partner countries such as China

2022 was a black year for climate diplomacy. Although the 2021 Conference of the Parties (COP26) seemed to have rekindled decision-makers' focus on the climate crisis, the natural disasters that followed, the war in Ukraine, and a further slowdown in the markets have contributed to a completely different trend this year. COP27 saw presidents from some of the major global economies rushing past on their way to the G20 summit in Bali, while delegations from the most fragile countries only got the promise of funds for loss and damage, i.e. economic compensation for suffering the worst effects of climate change. Although not reaching the agreed quota of USD 100 billion, this decision was hailed by many as a first milestone towards climate justice. However, as new models by climate researchers demonstrate, the damage resulting from the climate crisis is far greater than has been calculated so far. Today, many of the world's most endangered cities are in Asia, including several major regional capitals such as Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, and Manila.

The meeting between US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on the side-lines of the G20 summit has revived the rollercoaster of climate diplomacy, creating a sense of cautious optimism following commitments from the world's two biggest polluters. However, Washington and Beijing's actions are not yet consistent with their narrative of each country’s 'leading' role in the green transition. Looking east, China's promise to offer alternative models of sustainable development is still far from supporting the most urgently needed reforms. Neither the more heterogeneous ASEAN bloc nor the advanced East Asian economies seem ready for a rapid energy transition and achieving carbon neutrality. The first target is 2030, when Japan promises to have cut emissions by 46 per cent compared to 2013 figures, China aims to peak its emissions, and South Korea is bound by the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent compared to 2020. China is missing from the latter mechanism, and has also released itself from the loss and damage fund.

South-East crossroads of interests 

Another interpretation of China's decisive role sees Beijing as the leader of a 'positive competition' with Washington, where the two countries seek to gain status (and budget) from their dominance in multilateral forums and in the market for energy transition technologies. But recent US manoeuvres targeting the semiconductor sector and manufactured goods produced in Xinjiang (which mainly include solar panels) risk turning competition into rivalry. What is certain is that China's promises combined with economic interest are having an impact on the countries most dependent on Chinese funding in the fossil fuels sector. One example is Vietnam, which must now consider whether to build new coal-fired power plants in the absence of Chinese capita due to Beijing's promised ban on foreign investment in the sector. Nevertheless, Southeast Asia's energy demand continues to rise, having grown more than 80 per cent in less than twenty years, and the easiest and most immediately available options are the most polluting energy sources, which continue to occupy more than 80 per cent of the region’s energy mix. Financial incentives also accompany the more practical availability of cheap natural resources, as in the case of Indonesia, which is the world's third largest coal exporter. Furthermore, the war in Ukraine is changing Russian fossil fuel routes, with supply agreements which are particularly advantageous for partner countries such as China.

Southeast Asia is at the crossroads of the interests of new investors avoiding China and older relationships rooted in the economic fabric of different countries. Japan, the main investor in Thailand in 2022, has long been eyeing the opportunity to build electric cars and components necessary for the energy transition. There is also a strong interest in new sustainable agricultural supply chains, as well as in businesses that can transform the tourism sector according to parameters more consistent with the UN agenda for sustainable development. In this case, the challenge is much broader than merely addressing the energy dossier, because it requires deep reflection on the environmental and social impacts of sectors that have driven the economies of several countries in the region over recent decades.

The challenges of sustainability between India and Central Asia

Far from the spotlight of climate diplomacy, but extremely important for its economic and demographic weight, India has to reckon with the challenges of uncontrolled modernisation. The unbridled growth of its cities is not matched by reasoned urban planning (think, for example, of private vehicle traffic), while water resources and soil health have plummeted since the 1950s. The evidence on the ground is not yet matched by an awareness of playing a proactive role at the climate negotiation table. Even for New Delhi, competition with China is a priority. Furthermore, while on the one hand the Indian government forms new working groups for the enforcement of multilateral agreement directives, on the other hand it moves to repress environmental organizations and activists.

Finally, Central Asia focuses on climate change adaptation measures rather than demanding more responsibility from the big polluters. While in some places like Kazakhstan the race for economic leadership in the region seems to overshadow environmental promises, in other countries such as Kyrgyzstan there is a strong concern about extreme climate phenomena and food security. The competition over water resources, which has recently emerged with clashes along the Kyrgyz-Tajik border, also opens dangerous scenarios of climate change as an accelerator of conflict in the region. The main promise, as stated by the leaders involved in the UN environment agency's project on climate security in Central Asia, is to work together with international organizations to build a socially and economically sustainable adaptation strategy. Here too, however, the role of a prominent player like China could influence the design and electrification choices of newly urbanized areas. Looking at the resources in the area (water sources along the border with Xinjiang, natural gas wells), another side of the coin becomes visible: predatory scenarios that are not new in Asia, such as the case of the Chinese dams along the Mekong Delta.

China, Japan, the United States, Europe, and Italy: relations with Southeast Asia are increasingly being seen as globally strategic

If there is a clear trend in the global commercial and geopolitical landscape, it is the willingness of the major powers and all the more developed or emerging countries to deepen their relations with ASEAN. Southeast Asia is increasingly seen as an indispensable center of economic and diplomatic cooperation. Just look at what has happened recently and what may happen in the near future. In 2022, the first year of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) coming into effect, China recorded a 15 percent year-on-year increase in trade with ASEAN, which firmly holds the position as China's top trading partner. In 2023, it is foreseeable that the pace may even increase, in step with Beijing's accelerating growth. President Joe Biden's participation last November at the ASEAN summit in Cambodia, on the other hand, confirmed that the United States has also stretched the pace in a region that is also crucial for strategic reasons. The investment plan announced by the White House is finally moving in the direction of U.S. involvement not only on the defensive and military side, but also on the infrastructural and environmental side, given the focus on energy transition involving all ASEAN countries. Moving very decisively are certainly not only the superpowers. Japan, for example, has long been an established presence in Southeast Asia. Ever since 1977 and the launch of the "Fukuda Doctrine," named after the then prime minister who during a famous trip to the Southeast expressed Tokyo's commitment not to become a military power and to build a relationship of mutual trust with ASEAN and its member countries. Since then, Japan has become one of the bloc's major trading partners and investors and a major source of infrastructure funding. Now the country is seriously considering elevating its relationship with ASEAN to a comprehensive strategic partnership, putting it on par with China and the United States. South Korea recently launched its first Indo-Pacific strategy, which reserves deepening relations with ASEAN as one of its pillars. The region is also set to become the largest destination for foreign direct investment from Taiwan. The European Union, for its part, has realized that its interests increasingly coincide with those of ASEAN, and the possibility of a free trade agreement between the two blocs no longer seems so remote. A development that would also benefit Italy, whose businesses are looking with increasing interest toward the Southeast.

Editorial by: Alessandra Schiavo, Deputy Director General/Central Director for Asia and Oceania Countries at MAECI

The 1st EU-ASEAN Summit at the level of Heads of State and Government was held in Brussels on December 14. The event celebrated the 45th anniversary of the Dialogue Partnership between the then EEC and ASEAN, as well as its gradual strengthening. Since 1977, the bi-regional relationship has grown exponentially, with the respective members now facing multiple risks and a radically changed international framework: climate change, health vulnerability, post-Covid recovery, energy crisis, food security, as well as intense competition on the political and security fronts.

Against this backdrop, ASEAN has emerged as a key player for the European Union, interested in promoting the values of pluralism and tolerance against crises that undermine stability, such as the aggression in Ukraine and the heinous coup in Myanmar.

The gained realization that only by working together can peace be preserved and shared prosperity generated, the EU became ASEAN's Strategic Partner in 2020, with an increasingly fruitful dialogue on security matters. The EU is also the Association's third largest trading partner. In October, the EU-ASEAN Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement, the first interregional air transport agreement, was signed. At the Summit, the Team Europe Initiative on Sustainable Connectivity with ASEAN (joined for Italy by CDP) was presented; Partnership Comprehensive Agreements with Thailand and Malaysia were also signed.

The Summit concluded with a Joint Final Communiqué, which emphasized economic cooperation and on connectivity, sustainable development, green and digital transition, and identified a point of consensus on some of the thorniest international issues. It was attended by the Presidents and Prime Ministers of EU and ASEAN countries (except Myanmar), as well as the heads of the two Regional Organizations. With the participation of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Italy intended to renew its growing attention to ASEAN, a pivot of stability in the Indo-Pacific and a part of the world that is increasingly essential for geostrategic balances and to which we are increasingly committed. Not surprisingly, the Summit was also an opportunity to enhance the Development Partnership between Italy and ASEAN (in its political-security, economic, cultural and development cooperation volets). A bond that is cultivated through concrete and capacity-building initiatives, and that finds in the annual "High Level Dialogue on ASEAN-Italy economic relations" (whose next edition, in 2023, will be hosted by Thailand) a crucial moment of synthesis.