We welcome President Barack Obama with open arms, not just out of customary habit among friends. South Koreans share the world’s interest in President Obama’s global activities because he embodies a new path for the United States in international relations as well as in ties with old allies like us.

Quality of life has been fundamentally transformed and revolutionized through the innovations spawned from the information revolution.

At every momentous turn in history we cannot help but ask if traditional beliefs and values like freedom, equality and justice will continue to have the same significance and validity in the new age.

America is no longer the world’s single superpower, amid declining military and political influence in world affairs. Moreover, it lost face in the aftermath of the Wall Street-sparked financial meltdown.

The nation faces a crossroads at which it must define its new role in a diversified global environment. And President Obama happens to be the man standing at the door to a new future for America and the world, holding the key.

The U.S. is a melting pot of various ethnic groups and cultures. It is the world’s first federal republic run by democratic procedure. The world has watched its trials and experiments during its turbulent journey over the last two centuries.

The first African-American president has meaning beyond politics, as it serves as a reassurance of the American dream. Americans undoubtedly have regained their pride and confidence through their choice in last year’s election.

President Obama’s platform for global peace and prosperity has been gathering support throughout the world. He has put his foot down on urgent issues such as climate change and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and drawn attention to other important problems such as the intensifying wealth gap both among and within countries. Obama has traveled the world campaigning for cooperation on these issues.

His pronounced stance has reinforced American leadership on the global stage and will likely mean positive progress for future Korea-U.S. relations.

The three East Asian countries President Obama is currently visiting are economies that have grown at a staggering speed, accompanying rising status and influence in the global community, becoming the envy of other parts of the world.

Read the full piece originally published in JoongAng Ilbo on November 17.

Dr. Lee Hong-koo is a trustee of The Asia Foundation, a former prime minister, and a former ambassador to the United States. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University.

South Korea is highly motivated to play the roles of host and chair of the G20 in 2010, following Britain’s chairmanship in 2009. This is a historic moment since it will be the first time that a non-G7 country has been engaged in leading global financial coordination efforts. There is much at stake for Korea and for the international community precisely because success will strengthen the credibility of the G20 process, while failure may underscore the need for further reevaluation and raise questions regarding the merits of the G20 as the premier forum for global financial governance.

Korea has indicated an aspiration as it takes on this task to balance between the developed and the developing economies. A fundamental objective for South Korea as a chair should be to ensure that the global financial system will be structured in such a way as to enable an operating environment in which developing countries are able to follow successful development paths that other countries, such as Korea, have already taken. Without the strong tailwind provided by the crisis itself, those responsible for steering the G20 will inevitably encounter greater resistance and trickier crosswinds that will complicate the task of navigating the vessel safely to shore.

There are at least four “rebalancing” challenges that Korea will face as it takes on its new responsibilities in 2010: a) Rebalancing between early “exit” (or transition) and countries that have continued need for stimulus; b) Promoting discussions of rebalancing between the U.S. as debtor and China as creditor, especially by facilitating discussion of exchange rates and other global effects of the need for the United States to increase savings while China expands consumption; c) Rebalancing between international oversight and the coordination of sovereign political processes – efforts to promote global financial stability are simultaneously at odds with and dependent on political understandings among G20 leaders; and d) Rebalancing between the G7 and the G20, including the question of whether the G20 leaders’ meetings will address global political issues beyond the core financial issues. Korea will need to consider this challenge as part of its stewardship of the G20 process.

Korea’s hosting of the G20 may also provide the context for developments at both a regional and national level. At a regional level, the possible development of an Asian caucus within the G20 may have an influence on the development of Asian regionalism in its various forms, including APEC, the East Asian Summit, and ASEAN Plus Three. This configuration, if it materializes, might have an influence on the development of Asian regionalism by placing regional coordination in the service of the global imperative of financial stability. Asian countries involved with the G20 process may find themselves in a position to link regional trends with global objectives.

Finally, the G20 agenda serves Korea’s own national needs as the current administration has stated its objective of promoting a “Global Korea,” or a Korea that is poised to play a larger role on the international stage. The chairmanship of the G20 is one tangible way in which Korea’s international role has expanded, but it will only be successful if Korea provides international contributions in proportion to its role in the global economy. Perhaps the best emergent example of this is the Korean government’s effort to promote “low carbon, green growth” as an organizing principle for the national economy, and to contribute to international engagement on these issues through various international forums.

Scott Snyder directs The Asia Foundation’s Center for U.S.-Korea Policy. Yesterday he presented on the topic of Korea’s role in the G20  at a roundtable conference in Seoul, co-organized by the Korea Institute of Finance and the Institute of International Finance. He can be reached at ssnyder@asiafound-dc.org.

With Hamid Karzai declared the winner of Afghanistan’s highly controversial presidential election, President Obama’s decision regarding future U.S. policy toward that country is considered imminent. As part of his deliberations, Mr. Obama has received the assessment of his military commanders, the advice of his top civilian leaders, and the views of NATO allies, among others.

Now there is one more piece of information that should be added to this mix, namely what the Afghan people are thinking.

A recent survey directed by The Asia Foundation (and available at asiafoundation.org) is a snapshot of public opinion in Afghanistan. It shows a nation in conflict – and conflicted – about the direction it is heading.

Trained Afghan pollsters interviewed 6,400 Afghans, almost equally divided between male and female, in all 34 of the country’s provinces, just before the Aug. 20 presidential election. It is the fifth public opinion poll conducted by the Foundation since 2004 and therefore provides a valuable perspective on the trends in the national mood of Afghans over time.

The survey indicates that, in many parts of the country, there is a perception of some improvement. There is a small increase over the 2008 survey (from 38 to 42 percent) in the number of Afghans who think their country is moving in the right direction and a small decrease (from 32 to 29 percent) in those who think it is moving in the wrong direction.

The principal reason for this optimism appears to be a growing sense that security is getting better (up from 31 percent in 2006 to 44 percent in 2009). Other reasons include reconstruction and rebuilding and the opening of schools for girls. Understandably, these positive features are not present in the eastern and southern areas along the Pakistan border where the Taliban insurgency is the most pervasive.

Despite these glimmers of hope, insecurity remains the most important reason for Afghan pessimism, cited by 42 percent of those polled. Almost 20 percent say they or someone in their family have been victims of violence or crime the past year. Nearly 1 in 10 of these victims report that this was due to the actions of militias and insurgents or foreign forces. The latter includes air strikes and ground actions by U.S. and NATO forces that have resulted in civilian casualties and generated a strong backlash among the Afghan people.

Read the full piece originally published in The New York Times on November 12.

Asia Foundation trustee Karl Inderfurth is the former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs and trustee Ted Eliot is a former Ambassador to Afghanistan.

To address such challenges, The Asia Foundation, in cooperation with KDI School of Public Policy and Management and the Korean Association of International Development and Cooperation, will hold a conference November 24-25 in Seoul to focus on development issues and strategies in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The gathering will provide the opportunity for information sharing and dialogue between Korea and the three participating countries regarding effective international cooperation for addressing development needs. H.E. Kul Chandra Gautam, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, will deliver the keynote address and H.E. Shin Kak-soo, Vice Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea will deliver opening remarks. Delegations from the three countries will include ministers of state, as well as government and non-government development program managers. Representatives of the Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Korean development NGOs, and other Korean experts on the region will also participate.

On Tuesday evening, November 24, Asia Foundation trustee and former Prime Minister Lee Hong-koo, on behalf of the Friends of The Asia Foundation in Korea, will host a reception at the Lotte Hotel in honor of the visiting delegations. The conference is open to the public. For more information, contact Ms. Lee Soomee at smlee@asiafound.org.

As part of its “Choose a Book, Change a Life,” campaign, in October The Asia Foundation invited people from across the globe to vote for their favorite storybook. More than 5,000 people participated in the book campaign in just two weeks. Copies of the winning book Dr. Seuss’ Oh, The Places You’ll Go! were delivered to each student in a rural school in the hills of Morwakee, Thailand. Watch a video of the delivery and check back on November 23 to vote for your favorite book again for these students in Bangladesh.

Kurunegala, the capital of Sri Lanka’s Northwestern province, derives its name from an elephant-shaped rock, reaching 316 meters at an altitude of 116 meters above sea level. Situated 94 kilometers from Colombo, the region is known for its huge, rocky outcrops that charm visitors with their resemblance to different animal shapes.

Its proximity to a number of famous sights and its temperate climate also makes Kurunegala a prominent transit town for travelers, especially tourists. An estimated 100,000 people travel through Kurunegala daily, far surpassing the town’s resident population of 40,000. Most of the visitors are long-distance travelers who stop to relax en route to other destinations. Although numerous restaurants cater to these visitors, the quality of service doesn’t always satisfy expectations. In order to better cater to the needs of this increasing influx of transit travelers, the Kurunegala Municipal Council and the private sector have collaborated to initiate and implement a way to effectively improve the quality of food and services in hotels and restaurants in the area.

“The system that was in place where the hoteliers are fined on the basis of routine checks by the Public Health Inspector was not found to be effective, as the hotel owners paid the fine, but continued to make the same mistakes,” says Dr. Gayani Dassanayake, Medical Officer of the Kurunegala Municipal Council. “So we thought of introducing a new system of grading, through which the hotels were to be graded based on performance.”

Now up and running, the new performance-based grading system includes a comprehensive questionnaire to measure safety and quality standards. Hotels were given marks on a 100-point scale and then given an overall grade of  A, B, C, or D. Certificates have been awarded by the Mayor of Kurunegala the Hon. Chandrasiri De Silva to hotel owners that earned a B or higher.

One of the unique features of this initiative is that it is a partnership between Sri Lanka’s public and private sectors. The two sectors met on a common platform through “working groups,” a mechanism initiated and promoted by The Asia Foundation, in which the business community and local authorities collectively identify challenges in their respective localities to more effectively work toward overcoming them.

The working group in Kurunegala, for example, actively supported the hotel grading initiative by helping to spread awareness of the new initiative and by recognizing and rewarding hotels that ranked high with certificates and plaques.

A number of hotel managers reported increases in occupancy rates as hotels improved services in order to achieve a higher ranking. In addition to an increase in revenue, some hotel owners noticed that the improved services resulted in a positive shift in clientele.

Also, some hotels that initially received a B or C have recently been upgraded to an A. The system has worked so well that the city is exploring the idea of extending it to places like teashops, bakeries, and restaurants to encourage quality improvement in those businesses as well.

By recognizing and rewarding higher standards in service, the grading system  has generated enthusiasm and competitiveness among the hotel owners, and has motivated them to strive to achieve the best possible standards. This is good for the hotels, the larger business community, and good for the guests.

Following the success of this initiative, two other localities, Kuliyapitiya Urban Council and Nuwara Eliya Municipal Council, with technical support from The Asia Foundation, have initiated activities based on similar private-public partnership to upgrade and improve hotel services, as well.

Anila SK is a Consultant in The Asia Foundation’s Sri Lanka office. She can be reached at anilask@asiafound.org.

The National Library of the Philippines stands in the center of Manila as a grand monument and national resource center to the country’s hero José Rizal, a doctor, writer, reformist, and proclaimed hero of the Philippine Revolution. Formally observed as the National Library in 1901, the library moved into its existing building, inaugurated by President Ramon Magsaysay’s successor, Carlos P. Garcia, on Rizal’s 100th birthday 60 years later.

From its humble beginning over 100 years ago, The National Library has grown to become a dedicated institution, tasked to manage 1,238 affiliated public libraries across the Philippines composed of one regional public library and four congressional, 49 provincial, 101 city, 577 municipal, and 506 Barangay or public community libraries throughout the country. All these libraries rely mostly on private donations and on various organizations for diversifying and increasing their collections. Unfortunately, many public libraries in the Philippines face severe shortages in reading materials, trained librarians, and little support from local governments. This has affected the quality of the public libraries, including the National Library.

In an effort to try to improve them and to support activities that promote education and promote literacy, the National Library invited librarians from across the Philippines to participate in its annual National Seminar of Public Librarians.

City librarians from Pagadian City convey thanks to Asia Foundation representatives for the books they received.

At this year’s seminar in early November, when The Asia Foundation’s Books for Asia program representatives arrived, a crowd of 600 started cheering and yelling in excitement. They were there to donate 18,000 new books to representatives of 460 libraries across the country as well as to the National Library collection in an effort to expand and improve access to educational materials.

Public librarians cheer as Books for Asia Director in the Philippines Efren Balajadia delivers a speech at the closing ceremony of the seminar.

One city librarian who attended, Ms. Samuela Oceña from Pagadian City remarked that: “We are overwhelmed for the books we have received from The Asia Foundation. The books are very useful to our poor communities especially to the students of elementary, high school and colleges who are deprived of good books.”

Since 1954, The Asia Foundation’s Books for Asia program has distributed over 13 million books and journals to public and private institutions across the Philippines. The program works diligently to provide books to all three of the island groups: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, addressing the resource needs from across the country. Read more.

Reynald S. Ocampo is The Asia Foundation’s Assistant Program Officer for the Foundation’s Books for Asia program in the Philippines. He can be reached at reynald@asiafound.org.

This week Barack Obama will make his first trip to Asia as President of the United States. In addition to paying state visits to China, Japan, and South Korea, President Obama will meet with 20 national leaders in Singapore to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Although member countries vary in economic clout individually, APEC economies collectively represent 55 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, 45 percent of global trade, and 40 percent of the world’s population.

When APEC was founded in 1989, the ostensible purpose of the grouping was to liberalize trade and investment and promote commercial links among member countries. APEC, however, poses no binding obligations and has no enforcement mechanism. APEC relies primarily on consultation and persuasion. Trying to make such agreements binding would be a non-starter given the diversity in size of APEC member economies and levels of political and economic development. Nonetheless, despite experiencing two financial crises in the past decade, APEC has been relatively outward-looking in its trade and investment policies. In fact, APEC has experienced a five-fold increase in trade since 1989. This increase has contributed to Asia forging a stronger regional identity than existed two decades ago.

But APEC has its critics. Many argue that since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, APEC has accomplished little in the past decade and is just “a talk shop.” In the past decade, APEC summit agendas seem preoccupied with other non-economic issues – in 1999 it was the crisis in East Timor; then the confusion over who won the 2000 U.S. presidential election; the 9-11 attacks in 2001; and, in ensuing years, security issues have dominated talks, with less discussion on how to liberalize trade, investment, and services. Perhaps this bears the question: Is APEC relevant? Would member countries have experienced strong economic growth through a significant expansion of trade and investment if APEC had not existed?

At the 1994 APEC meeting in Bogor, Indonesia, member countries agreed to an open trade and investment region in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for industrialized economies and by 2020 for developing economies. However, the Bogor declaration is an aspiration, not a binding agreement. While the goals embodied in the Bogor declaration (trade and investment liberalization, business facilitation, and economic and technical cooperation) may not be fully reached next year, the spirit of this declaration has resonated strongly. Tariffs among APEC member countries have been reduced since 1989 from an average of 17 percent to 5.5 percent. The APEC meeting in Bogor helped spur the successful completion of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the creation of its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO). All of this helped fast-growing economies like China and Vietnam gain accession to the WTO and promoted cooperation on a range of economic policy issues important to the Asia-Pacific region.

But during tough economic times, countries – be they developed or developing – tend to revert toward protectionism despite the rhetoric of continued commitment to free-market principles. Earlier this year when the U.S. House of Representatives inserted “Buy American” provisions into the $789 billion stimulus package, the Obama administration got the Senate to agree that provisions would not be administered in ways that are “inconsistent with international obligations.” Indonesia, a developing nation that aspires to have a greater voice in global affairs and is a member of the G-20, has imposed import restrictions on over 500 products, demanding special licenses and new fees on imports. As President Obama prepares to journey to Asia, trade friction between the U.S. and China has escalated, with the U.S. imposing high countervailing duties on Chinese-made oil well pipes and automobile tires. China has responded by launching anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations on imports of American poultry and auto parts. Trade friction between the U.S. and China will not be resolved at APEC.

APEC is considering the prospects and options to develop a Free Trade Area for the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which would include all 21 member economies. The development of such an agreement, especially an agreement that includes such sensitive areas as steel, petrochemicals, textiles, and footwear, will take many years and negotiations will be arduous.

Looking ahead, President Obama will host the 2011 APEC Leaders meeting in the U.S. How much will the American economy have rebounded in two years? Protectionist sentiment appears to be on the rise, but the APEC economies of the Asia-Pacific are of intrinsic importance to the United States. The fact that President Obama is spending more than a week in Asia underscores the administration’s conviction that Asia is crucial to American interests. The biggest contribution the Obama administration can make this week and when it hosts the APEC meeting two years from now is to restore the health of the U.S. economy by increasing our productivity and competiveness while remaining open to trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world.

John J. Brandon is The Asia Foundation’s Director of International Relations Programs in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at jbrandon@asiafound-dc.org.

When President Obama makes his first visit to China next week, he will meet a Chinese leadership with growing confidence in international affairs and observe an economy that is rapidly recovering from the global recession. At the same time, he will witness a country whose legal and political landscape is replete with contradictory trends and vexing anomalies. While official firewalls continue to impede free access to the Internet, for instance, the government has issued national Open Government Information (OGI) regulations that have enhanced government transparency and increased the information rights of individual citizens. And while China remains a one-party state that consistently ranks at the bottom of international indices on “voice” and political participation, government authorities are taking concrete steps, amidst growing public demand, to enhance opportunities for citizens to participate in the formulation of laws and government decisions that will affect their daily lives.

These reforms reflect broader governance trends that should be of interest to an America that is increasingly engaged with China. The reforms not only have the potential to bolster official responsiveness and legal compliance, including compliance with laws and regulations that are of interest to American business, but also could be an effective means of attacking the stubborn problem of corruption in China. Based on the logic that “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” the OGI reforms in particular should help to constrain the behavior of corrupt officials and allow citizens to better observe and monitor how public finances are being spent.

In May 2008, following several years of local experimentation, the Chinese government began implementing the country’s first national regulations on public disclosure of information. These OGI regulations grant individuals the important new right to request information from the government, and also instruct government agencies at different levels to disclose information of significant interest to the public – such as information related to government budgets, urban planning, food and drug safety, fees for public services, and the results of environmental investigations. The regulations have prompted a groundswell of citizen activity, widely covered by the domestic press, to take advantage of their new information rights. In particular, Chinese citizens and activists have been requesting information on how money collected from highway and bridge tolls is being used by local authorities, how government decisions have been made in cases of urban housing demolition or land requisition, and on how state companies have been sold or restructured in the recent past.

The absence of a clearly-defined demarcation between open government information, on the one hand, and state secrets, on the other, has resulted in official rejections of information requests from citizens. Yet, with mounting pressure from the general public and the media, this situation is beginning to change. Only last month, Guangzhou became the first city to disclose the budgets of individual government departments. The Shanghai government reportedly refused, claiming that the same type of information was a state secret, but has subsequently announced that it plans to release its budget information as well.

One of the most far-reaching efforts to create an open and participatory government system in China is currently unfolding in Hunan, a large and politically-important province in southern China where Mao Zedong was born. Developed by the Legislative Affairs Office of the Hunan provincial government, the Hunan innovations combine open government information initiatives with pioneering administrative procedure reforms that provide new opportunities for Hunanese to participate in local policymaking. In October 2008, for instance, the provincial government enacted the first-ever Administrative Procedure Rule (APR) in China. Patterned on a draft administrative procedure law that was developed between 2000 and 2003 and remains under consideration in Beijing, the Hunan APR encourages open government meetings and requires administrative agencies to seek comment from the public for all major draft decisions. It also includes detailed provisions for public hearings and notice-and-comment proceedings, and calls on agencies to explain which comments were adopted in a final decision, which were left out, and why.

In addition, the Hunan government recently approved implementing measures for the national OGI regulations which expand upon the national regulations and reinforce key provisions of provincial APR. Consistent with the provincial APR, the Hunan OGI measures were drafted through a consultative process that allowed contributions by domestic and international experts, and included a notice-and-comment period which gave local citizens an opportunity to contribute opinions and influence the final result. Meanwhile, the Hunan government has launched capacity-building efforts both to train provincial officials on open government procedures and to build high-tech information portals down to the county level.

Touch screens in Leiyang County, Hunan Province, used to access government information.

As these bold innovations take place at the provincial level, the central government has taken steps to increase public participation in national lawmaking when “important draft laws” are being developed. To this end, the National People’s Congress has released such draft legislation as the 2007 Property Law, which was of particular interest to the emerging middle class, and the 2008 Labor Contract Law, which expanded labor protections for China’s 140 million migrant workers. The draft Labor Contract Law provoked an especially strong public reaction, garnering nearly 200,000 comments from individual citizens. The American Chambers of Commerce in Beijing and Shanghai jointly contributed comments as well.

Public participation is also evident in the environmental sector, where citizen activism has influenced development plans and affected government policymaking. In a 2007 case in Xiamen, an oceanside city located in southern Fujian Province, a public outcry compelled the local authorities to move a planned chemical factory to a sparsely-populated island in another part of the province. The public opposition, initially manifested in text messages and Internet discussions, ultimately forced the government to convene public hearings and modify their original plans. This incident helped to encourage the enactment of the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment in Planning. Issued by the State Council in August 2009, the regulation requires the solicitation of public comments when development plans directly involve the environmental interests of local residents.

While these governance reforms and trends are encouraging, they also include important limitations. Public participation continues to be hindered by the discretionary nature of the consultative process: with the exceptions of Guangzhou and Hunan, where participation in rulemaking is now a formal requirement, Chinese officials are expected to release legal documents for public comment only when legislation is deemed to be in the “vital interest” of citizens. Similarly, the national OGI regulations contain wide exemptions on information disclosure pertaining to commercial secrets, individual privacy, or state secrets. These exemptions are vaguely defined and provide substantial leeway and excuses for local officials to avoid or reject information requests from citizens. Finally, Chinese courts lack independence and are not well equipped to handle administrative litigation cases (e.g., when citizens allege that local government agencies are unresponsive to information requests that are allowed under the national OGI regulations).

Yet, despite these problems and limitations, Chinese reforms in the areas of public participation and government transparency have come a long way in a relatively short period of time. In this respect, China appears to be exhibiting tangible change in areas that academics and development professionals identify as key elements of “good governance.” On the eve of President Obama’s visit to China, it is worth considering whether the realm of good governance could serve as a constructive platform for bilateral discussions and exchanges on ostensibly delicate issues. Chinese reformers are interested in many international experiences, and will of course tailor their future reforms to the evolving Chinese context. Through visits and discussions with American counterparts, however, they have already demonstrated a keen interest in U.S. examples of e-rulemaking, notice and comment, and government transparency. Ideally, such exchanges will continue and even be expanded in the future.

Jonathan Stromseth is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in China. He can be reached at jstromseth@asiafound.org.cn. In China, The Asia Foundation cooperates with a wide range of university and government partners, including the Hunan provincial government, to support administrative procedure reforms promoting public participation and open government information. The Foundation also supports programs that promote environmental protection, disaster preparedness, women’s empowerment, and constructive U.S.-China relations.

On November 15, after the APEC Leaders meeting, President Barack Obama will meet with the leaders of all 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for the first-ever U.S.-ASEAN summit. For the past 12 years, both the Clinton and Bush administrations resisted calls for a U.S.-ASEAN summit over concern that because Burma is a member of ASEAN, such a summit would amount to acceptance of bilateral talks with Burma. The Obama Administration has said they are not going to punish the other nine ASEAN members simply because Burma is in the room, and has been careful to say this is not a bilateral. Since taking office in January, the Obama administration has shown from the start that it wishes to engage Southeast Asia in a more comprehensive manner, through ASEAN, rather than as a set of 10 bilateral relationships. This is both significant and welcome.

When visiting Indonesia in February on her first trip overseas as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton visited the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta; the first time a U.S. Secretary of State ever visited the Secretariat in ASEAN’s 42-year history. She followed up on this visit by signing on behalf of the United States the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Thailand in July. This came at a time when the Obama administration was conducting its policy review of Burma in an effort to encourage Burma’s generals to foster political liberalization, human rights, and humanitarian assistance. While U.S. sanctions will (and should) remain in place toward Burma –one of the world’s poorest nations outside of sub-Saharan Africa – until positive developments take place in that nation, it is important that the U.S. is now willing to meet with all 10 ASEAN members.

For the past 20 years, many in Southeast Asia have said the U.S. treated the region with “benign neglect” or indifference. During this time, China deepened its own links across the region. By 1991, China established diplomatic relations with all 10 ASEAN members and has engaged in a set of multilateral dialogues with ASEAN countries, including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and APEC. China also participates in ASEAN + 3 and the East Asia Summit, two dialogues in which the U.S. does not participate. In addition, China has seen its trade with ASEAN countries expand exponentially – from $8 billion in 1991 to $207 billion in 2008. In comparison, U.S. trade with Southeast Asia in 2008 totaled $177 billion. 2007 marked the first time Southeast Asia’s trade was larger with any nation other than the U.S. since 1873, when Ulysses S. Grant was president.

Some in Washington are concerned that the U.S. could be eclipsed as a major player in Asia. However, both the U.S. and China have legitimate interests in Southeast Asia and influence in the region should not be viewed as a zero-sum game. It would be imprudent for any administration to put Southeast Asians in a position of having to choose between the U.S. and China or the U.S. or any other power. A far better approach would be for the U.S. to strengthen the functioning of its own democracy and economy, thereby setting an example to Southeast Asians and others around the world.

The U.S.-ASEAN summit this weekend will largely be symbolic. But important, nonetheless, as it leaves a strong political signature and illustrates that the U.S. values Southeast Asia and ASEAN as a regional organization. Hopefully, this first-ever summit will be institutionalized and held annually. While symbolism has its utility, there ultimately must be substance. There are urgent issues at hand and President Obama should seize this opportunity. The U.S. and ASEAN need to work together to constructively address transnational challenges – from food and water security, climate change, and energy security, to natural disaster preparedness and pandemic disease surveillance. For instance, 80 percent of 575 million Southeast Asians live 65 miles or less from coastal waters and the region’s sea level is expected to rise 27 inches before the end of this century. President Obama’s presence at ASEAN’s table, to hold open, constructive dialogue, will help ensure peace, stability, and economic prosperity in Southeast Asia as well as U.S. interests in this important region of the world.

John J. Brandon is The Asia Foundation’s Director of International Relations Programs in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at jbrandon@asiafound-dc.org.