One theme of discussion with awe and seriousness among the Economics fraternity here in the Unites States of America is the development record and development performance of the countries in East Asia.

Even the World Bank did a regional study on East Asia first in 1993, followed by 1997, 2001 and another one is under preparation now.

Before I proceed further I would like to mention the names of these countries for two reasons specifically.

First, quite often we forget the names and groupings of these countries.

Secondly, whenever the Government of India frames rules for trading with Myanmar, specifically through Moreh in Manipur, it insists on certain conditions which ignores the reality of Myanmar as a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) – which quite often make quite many of us as to whether the Government of India is trying to befool the Manipur public.

The countries of East Asia are the members of the ASEAN, plus China, Hong Kong (China), Taiwan, Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan.

The term Emerging East Asia commonly used now in development discussion refers to East Asia without Japan, while Developing East Asia implies Emerging East Asia without Hong Kong (China), South Korea and Singapore. The ten member countries of ASEAN are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

Now Why Interest:

Having mentioned the names of the countries let me come as to why so much interest is being evoked by these countries.

First, development so far has been thought to be fugacious; what the developed countries of the west had experienced were periodic spells or rather cycles of growth and development. Now these countries have proved that development experience can be a long lasting one by shedding its ephemeral character.

Secondly, one country after another, except of course Myanmar and North Korea, is experiencing tremendous growth.

China has been ruling the roost for more than a decade now; the latest is the example of Vietnam.

Vietnam right now has been growing at a very fast rate, next only to China. Its growth rate has already instilled a large positive attitude to future potential and welfare prospects of the forthcoming generations.

Here it must be remembered that these countries had experienced a deep financial crisis during 1997-98. It was during this period that the world thought East Asia would go the Latin American way; Latin America experienced stagnation and a lost development decade after the debt crisis of the mid-1980s.

But East Asia has proved all the predictors wrong and bounced back with gusto as if the financial crisis had never happened. After 1998 and by 2005, the usual indicator of growth, gross domestic product has been doubled.

In other words, East Asia has taken less than ten years to double its income. During this period, the total number of poor people in these countries has been reduced by 300 million, i.e., by 12 times the total current population of Manipur.

In this Context

It is in this context that India has started hobnobbing with the idea of greater economic relationships with East Asia. Well India has no alternative but to go for this.

First, India's share in intra-Asia trade is lower than any other comparable or nearly comparable East Asian or Asian country. This is happening at a time when the multilateral globalization is not a reality while regional globalization is becoming an increasing reality, particularly so due to the breakdown of Doha round of WTO negotiations.

Secondly, there is already a strong move for the emergence of an East Asian Community under the leadership of Japan, and having comparable economic strengths with the European Union and the North American Free Trade Association.

Further the ASEAN countries are also working with the objective of putting this group at the centre of all international economic happenings.

Still further, though both China and India are dialogue countries of ASEAN, China has established a much stronger and firmer relationship with ASEAN while India, due perhaps to her distrust with her North East provinces, has been adopting a rather off/on kind of approach.

This must be the reason for the recent rebuff to India from the ASEAN leader, Malaysia. ASEAN signed its first framework agreement with a dialogue country with China in November 2002, and the promised Asean China Free Trade Area has already become a reality.

It is in these circumstances that Myanmar also has started economically looking up in recent years. With little interventions in transport and communication and agriculture sectors, the country has the potential to pick up in its growth rate, and it is already doing so.

Manipur's Future:

For all these years, we have been insisting that trade is an economic phenomenon and should be allowed to play such a role in the development of Manipur. But the government of India just could not free itself from its so-called security perspective of defence and home ministries until of late under global economic compulsions.

So now the central government has decided that Moreh trade would no longer be a border trade, but a full-fledged trade; this is exactly what we have been insisting for nearly a decade. Well there is still a hitch.

I always tell my friends and emphasize in university policy discussions a principle: If you love someone, love fully. If you are giving certain benefits, give without reservation.

India now insists that the rule of origin principle should be applied implying no third country products would be traded. This amounts to killing the very approach ab initio.

First, it is a reality that Myanmar is a full-fledged member of ASEAN, and in such associations any member country's product is as good as a product of the home country. So insistence on the so-called rule of origin principle tantamount to bluffing oneself for India cannot be unaware of such simple economic logic.

Secondly, India knows pretty well the current production structure of Myanmar economy, and maybe trying to take undue advantage of the situation. This also India cannot for China is already there, besides ASEAN, for Myanmar.

Final Appeal: Well what I am fundamentally trying to say are three points.

First, trade is an economic phenomenon and should be seen as such only if we really want to reap the positive benefits of it.

Secondly, India should give up its historical distrust of Myanmar.

Lastly, if the Centre really cares for Manipur, care it fully and allow the economic phenomenon to unfold itself.