នៅខាងក្នុងគណៈកម្មាធិការត្រីភាគី៖ ឥស្សរជនដែលមានអំណាចកំពុងប្រជែងជាមួយការកើនឡើងរបស់ចិន

 Enigmatic group linking Asia, the U.S. and Europe opens up on eve of 50th anniversary

The Trilateral Commission convened for two days in Tokyo on Nov. 19 for its first in-person meeting in three years. Members discussed China, India and the new global order. (Photo by Ken Kobayashi)

TOKYO -- On Saturday morning, some of Asia's best-known politicians, corporate leaders and academics gathered at a hotel conference room just steps away from the Japanese prime minister's office.

At each place on the table was a large envelope that contained the detailed biographies of the roughly 50 attendees and a white folder with the words "The Trilateral Commission."

First time attendees were elated. One Japanese professor told one of the panels he "truly appreciated" the invitation, because "The Trilateral Commission has been a big enigma to me."

"Some websites say that all the significant events in the world have been predetermined by the Trilateral Commission," he said to laughter from the veteran attendees. "We don't know who's in, what they are saying," he said.

That, however, may start to change.

This year's meeting in Tokyo -- the first since the pandemic started -- is a moment of unprecedented glasnost for the secretive organization, which will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year. Created during the depths of the Cold War to steer the "trilateral" U.S.-Japan-Europe security partnership, its deliberations, and the influence it supposedly wields, has been the subject of much speculation.

The invitation-only nature of the gathering -- not to mention the high profile participants -- has been one of its attractions over the last half-century, insiders admit. The Asia Pacific Group includes a young Japanese politician viewed as a future prime minister, multiple former Finance Ministry officials tasked with shepherding the yen -- collectively known as the "Currency Mafia" -- as well as a relative of the Japanese Imperial family.

But the image of exclusivity and power is also a liability. The commission has become a bugbear for critics who believe it to be some sort of star chamber of unelected and unaccountable elites. The rise of populism has seen politicians promoting theories about clandestine conspiracies and shadow government. While in office, U.S. President Donald Trump himself frequently inveighed against "unelected deep state operatives" as he put it in one tirade in 2018.

On Saturday, however, the proceedings of the commission were opened to three reporters from Nikkei Asia. They were permitted to attend the meeting of the commission's Asia Pacific Group on Nov. 19 and 20, on the condition that the discussants would not be quoted by name. This was the first time in its five decades that members of the press have been allowed to sit in for all of the sessions at the Asia Pacific Group.

The effort by the Asia Pacific Group to disclose the discussions is not necessarily aimed at demystifying it to critics, however. Instead, the press has been invited to highlight a rift that may be emerging between Asia and the other wings of the organization.

"We feel that the U.S. policy toward Asia, especially toward China, has been narrow-minded and unyielding. We want the people in the U.S. to recognize the various Asian perspectives," said Masahisa Ikeda, an executive committee member of the Trilateral Commission. Ikeda has been named the next director of the Asia Pacific Group, and is scheduled to assume the position next spring.

Collective wisdom

Each new candidate for Commission membership is carefully scrutinized before being allowed entry. As a rule, members who take up positions in their national governments -- which is uncannily common -- give up their Trilateral Commission membership while in public service. Those include U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

This revolving door between the commission and senior government ranks has always been fodder for conspiracy theorists. Its first director in 1973, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later became U.S. President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. The very existence of the commission, meanwhile, seems predicated on the question of whether governing should be left to the people. It is a question the commission itself has tackled head-on since 1975: Is democracy functioning? Or does someone need to guide it?

That year, three scholars -- Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington and Joji Watanuki -- wrote a report for The Trilateral Commission titled "The Crisis of Democracy." In it, Huntington wrote that some of the problems of governance in the U.S. stem from an "excess of democracy."

"In many situations the claims of expertise, seniority, experience and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority," he controversially wrote, giving the analogy of a university where teaching appointments are subject to approval by students. Such a school "may be a more democratic university but it is not likely to be a better university," he stated.

In similar fashion, "Armies in which the commands of officers have been subject to veto by the collective wisdom of their subordinates have almost invariably come to disaster on the battlefield," he added.

Social critic Noam Chomsky has repeatedly criticized the Trilateral Commission for being undemocratic. But this sentiment -- that experts with experience and expertise can steer society toward a better place -- lives on in the commission.

A new sentiment has now emerged from the Asia Pacific Group: Without input from Asia, the U.S. may lead the world into a dangerous confrontation.

Getting smart

The spirit of democracy was clearly on display on Saturday in a speech by Rahm Emanuel, the U.S. ambassador to Japan -- and in the criticism of the speech that followed. "Democracy vs. autocracy: You are going to see 2022 as an inflection point in the success of democracy," Emanuel said, pointing to the U.S. midterm elections, the French presidential elections and the elections in Israel -- where in all instances the election results were accepted.

"Go convince the kids in Tehran that autocracy's best days are ahead. Go convince the kids that have fled Hong Kong that the best days for autocracy are ahead," he said. While democracy is sloppy and messy, "the institutions of the democratic process, the political stability of the United States, NATO, the European countries, have held," the ambassador said.

Emanuel implied that the days of trusting Beijing are over. He reminded participants that Chinese President Xi Jinping once looked U.S. President Barack Obama in the eye, and promised he would never militarize the islands in the South China Sea -- but went on to do just that.

"At a certain point you either play the fool or get smart," Emanuel said.

After answering several questions from members, the envoy left. But in the coffee break that followed, some attendees disagreed.

"What is the ambassador saying?" a former Japanese official said on background. "We must engage China. If we force countries to choose sides, the Southeast Asian nations will choose China. The key is to not force them to choose," he said.

In Washington, the concept of engaging China -- the hope that if China were to be invited to international institutions like the World Trade Organization, then China would look more like Western nations -- is dead. The attempt to do so during the Obama administration is now considered to have been a failure.

The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has taken a starkly different approach. In its first National Security Strategy, released in October, the Biden administration noted that China is "the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it."

The U.S. recently announced sweeping new restrictions preventing China from obtaining advanced computing chips and chip-making equipment.

But the idea of engaging China is not dead in the eyes of the Trilateral Commission, especially in the Asia Pacific Group, which included members from Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam.

"I feel very much embarrassed and disappointed to see the complete void of Chinese participation in this meeting," said a former Japanese financial official, who demanded that the secretariat explain why this happened. COVID-19 and the recently held national congress of the Chinese Communist Party may have been the reason nobody from China agreed to join, the secretariat explained. There are nine Chinese members of the commission and all were all sent invitations, the secretariat told Nikkei.

A veteran member from the Philippines agreed, saying there is no point talking about Asia without the participation of the region's largest country.

The member expressed concern about dividing the world into two camps. "When two elephants fight, the ants get trampled. And we're feeling it. When two elephants fight to the death, we will all be dead. And the question is: What for?"

Too much democracy

If the Tokyo gathering demonstrated anything, it is that Asia's elites are nervous that the world is heading in the wrong direction, fueled by the intensifying competition between the U.S. and China and the decoupling that awaits. And the problem, in the view of many of the participants, is America. Huntington's injunction against "an excess democracy" is still embedded in the thinking of many of the Trilateral Commission's members. But this time, it's the U.S. penchant for exporting its ideology that is the main concern for many.

A South Korean professor told Emanuel in the Q&A that there are concerns in Asia about the zero-sum thinking in U.S. foreign policy toward China. "We have to develop some deliverable strategy to persuade and engage un-like-minded countries as well."

A former Japanese diplomat noted that the world's current problems are as much the result of a change in America as they are the result of China's behavior. From North Korea's missile launches to the Ukraine war, "Every single issue we witness today is coming from a change in the international structure," he said, noting there are two elements to this shift. "One is a very clear decline of U.S. deterrence. Two, no longer can globalization and the interdependency of nations be a source of stability."

There were also members who noted how the liberal international order that Washington advocates is different from the original liberal order that was formed after World War II. "The original order, led by the U.S., sought a multifaceted extensive international system based on multilateral institutions and free trade among the democratic bloc," a South Korean academic said. The Six Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons was one such example of the original order, the academic said, noting that the U.S., China and Russia were all at the table.

More recently, "The U.S. has been encouraging companies to move back home or to allied or friendly countries," she said. "Under such moves, only like-minded countries are grouped in a mini-lateral way because the smaller and more flexible arrangement seems more effective for them."

Ironically, it is China that is calling for an international order closer to the original concept, standing for a so-called global community with a shared destiny for mankind, she said. "Nevertheless, few countries believe that multilateralism advocated by China has universal values. This is because there is little trust for China."

An Indian first-time participant talked about the need for the international community to adapt to a rising Asia. "Most of the global institutions, the anchor point, the center of gravity has always been in the West. That clearly needs to shift. The Asia-Pacific needs to be the anchor point and there is no way you can wish China away."

The discussion expanded further than just geopolitics. A South Korean economist noted that his country would inevitably have to choose between the U.S. and China for tech purposes.

"There is an increasing number of dual-purpose products in the manufacturing sector," he said. "Therefore, if you want to stay ahead in competitiveness, you have to choose which tech ecosystem you want to belong to. The choice that we are pressured into is not politics but also very much economic pressure."

Inequality was a major topic of discussion. One Indian economist stressed that decoupling -- the further separation of the Chinese and U.S. economies -- cannot be the answer. Of the millions of Chinese who have been lifted out of poverty in the last four decades, he said "It was interdependence that pulled people out of poverty -- at the cost of losing manufacturing in advanced economies. We need to push the benefits of interdependence."

James Kondo, an executive committee member, told Nikkei that Asia is the "biggest beneficiary" of globalization.

"Asia has risen from poverty by becoming the factory for the Western consumer market, but this has led to new inequalities in the West," he said.

Asia, therefore, will continue to push for globalization, which is a decidedly different posture from the West, Kondo said. "Views toward the future are asymmetric. Asia has to demonstrate that Asia's dynamic growth will be the source of growth for Western businesses."

The next China

During the two-day gathering, it became clear that one bloc of participants strongly support Emanuel's views: India.

India's view of China saw a marked shift in June 2020 when a clash with Chinese troops in the Himalayan border area -- mostly hand-to-hand combat -- resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers.

"India has taken a very hard line on China. In fact, whatever Ambassador Emanuel said, 90% would be echoed by the Indian official circles," an Indian foreign policy analyst said.

"India has gone out of its way to drive Chinese investment out of the country. China's foreign direct investment to India fell 74% last year. Not because China didn't want to invest, but the Indian government did not want Chinese companies to be inside the country," he said, citing the border clashes in the Himalayas as the reason for the souring sentiment.

"There is no interest on the Indian side for dialogue with China," the analyst said. He noted that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping 11 times in six years, only to see increased provocations by the Chinese.

An Indian Commission member echoed that sentiment. "For everybody focused on the Ukraine war, I urge you to look at the fact that there are 120,000 soldiers from India and China in an eyeball-to-eyeball faceoff for the last three years. It is not only North Korea that needs to observe a rules-based order. It is also powers like China that need to do so."

Takeshi Niinami, chairman of the Trilateral Commission's Asia Pacific Group, told Nikkei Asia on the sidelines of the event that "There is so much value in hearing different perspectives. The lack of Chinese attendance is the missing part. We want the Chinese to take part." Niinami serves as chief executive of Japanese beverage maker Suntory Holdings.

Educating America

The origins of The Trilateral Commission go back to an effort in 1972 by David Rockefeller, the head of New York's Chase Manhattan Bank, to include Japan in the Bilderberg Group, an annual gathering of intellectuals to foster dialogue between Europe and North America and to prevent another world war.

When rejected by the Dutch royal family, which chaired the Bilderberg Group, Rockefeller created a new gathering with Japan as a member.

"The original intent was to educate Japan to be part of the Western alliance," the above-mentioned former Japanese diplomat, who has long been a Trilateral Commission member, explained. But now, it is important for the Asia Pacific Group to inform the U.S. and Europe about the views in the region on the great power competition, he said.

The Trilateral Commission is different from the World Economic Forum in Davos, which is a more general, open debate, and is different from the United Nations, which includes everybody, the former official said. "The Trilateral Commission has a clear mission."

One of the merits of the commission may be to detect early trends. From this meeting, one unspoken theme seemed to be on the minds of some members. "Is India going to be the next China?" a South Korean academic whispered during a coffee break.

Not all countries are complaining about the return of geopolitical competition. While East and Southeast Asia feel forced to choose by U.S.-China decoupling, India, for example, has benefited massively from a bidding war between Moscow and Washington for its allegiance. During the sessions, Indian members spoke of the windfall benefits the U.S.-China competition is gifting the subcontinent.

"India has been getting a triple discount on oil," the Indian analyst explained. While India purchased discounted oil from Russia, the U.S. looked the other way, trying not to alienate New Delhi for geopolitical purposes. "As the Russian share of our oil market increased, the Saudi Arabians and the Iraqis, who are also interested in India for geopolitical and market reasons, began to undercut the Russian price," he said.

"At one point we were getting discounted Russian oil, further discounted oil from Saudi Arabia and a third discount from Iraq."

Other countries like Bangladesh would not be offered a similar discount, he added. "India is arguably one of the few countries that can play the geopolitical game."

The U.S.-led trend of friend-shoring, or moving factories to like-minded nations, may also benefit India.

The new leverage is giving India more clout. Explaining why India pulled out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in 2019 [a trade agreement championed by China], an Indian member said: "We were determined not to give China a back door free trade entry into the Indian market ever again."

India, which has a tradition of non-alignment, has been using its neutrality to its full benefit. One India member said the Quad framework -- partnership with the U.S., Australia, and Japan -- is gradually becoming more efficient in realizing New Delhi's ambitions.

A South Korean academic said: "India can't continue to be on the sidelines of international institutions. Otherwise India will be the next China," imposing their own values and priorities on the world.

One veteran of The Trilateral Commission -- a former Philippine cabinet minister -- said it would be up to the next generation to make a breakthrough. Four David Rockefeller fellows -- future candidates for membership in their twenties -- were present at the Tokyo gathering. The veteran posed them a question.

"Just in the past week, we edged toward a nuclear confrontation," he said, referring to the missile blast in Poland, that was initially suspected to be a Russian-made missile, but was more likely a Ukrainian air-defense missile that landed in NATO territory by mistake.

"And we edged toward that because of the type of zero sum games that us elders are playing. Is this what you want for your future? You don't want a situation in the future where everybody's edging toward the cliff and being macho about it without realizing that this is a zero-sum game that could wipe out the planet. It is beyond climate change," the veteran said.

Nikkei Asia