'The US involvement will be very important,' Japan's Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yorihisa Matsuno told reporters on a flight to Thailand, referring to what Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama plans to tell his Asian counterparts at the meetings.

Mr Hatoyama plans to stress that the US-Japan alliance would remain the foundation of Tokyo's diplomacy, Mr Matsuno said.

The talks are part of a three-day leaders summit which got off to a rancorous start on Friday, marred by diplomatic tension, a budding trade feud and a few no-shows in the 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean).

That bloc meets on Saturday with China, Japan and South Korea in an 'Asean+3' forum that gives Asia's economic titans, China and Japan, a chance to jockey for influence over trade agreements and investment opportunities in Southeast Asia, a region of 570 million people with a combined US$1.1 trillion economy.

Japan's newly minted government sees its influence bound to an East Asian Community, an idea for a new regional trading bloc inspired by the European Union and including India, Australia and New Zealand, along with Asean countries.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd plans to push another idea at the summit centred around a new forum of Asia-Pacific nations and the United States for dealing with economic, security, environmental and political crises, according to Australian media.

Washington has expressed concern over being excluded from such groupings, especially as Japan's new leaders vow to steer a diplomatic course less dependant on its closest security ally, while seeking to deepen ties with Asian neighbours.

US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters in Beijing this month that 'critical dialogues that touch on security, economic, and commercial issues should involve the United States'.

Uncertain US role
Accounting for nearly a quarter of global economic output, an East Asian Community could overtake Asean's existing trade ties with Japan, China and South Korea, but would also compete with the 'Group of 20', which anointed itself last month as the pre-eminent forum for global economic coordination.

Exactly how Washington would participate is uncertain.

Asked if US involvement meant Washington will be a member of the Community, a Japanese government official told reporters in Thailand on Saturday: 'It remains unclear. We have to see how multilateral meetings will turn out today.'

In Tokyo, the move is seen as an attempt by Japan to ease growing worries about friction over the long-planned reorganisation of the US military presence in Japan, the first big test of ties between Washington and Japan's month-old government.

China has been cool to the idea of a community, wary it could promote Japanese influence at a time Beijing is rapidly expanding trade, investment and diplomatic links across Southeast Asia - from building sleek new government offices in the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh to working closely with reclusive Myanmar.

'China wants to establish healthy relations with the new government in Japan, so it is not going to object to discussing this idea,' said Shi Yinhong, a regional security professor at Beijing's Renmin University.

'But everybody understands the idea of an East Asia Community is extremely far off,' he added.

Leaders from across Asia arrived at the beach resort under a blanket of security, including a security force of 18,000 backed by a handful of military gunships, with host Thailand determined to avoid a rerun of embarrassing mishaps at past summits.

The summit was initially scheduled for December last year but was postponed when anti-government protestors shut down Bangkok's airports. It was moved to the Thai resort area of Pattaya in April but was subsequently aborted when a rival protest group broke through police and army lines and stormed the summit venue.

■ China, India hold 'productive' talks amid spat: official
＊ AFP 2009/10/24 

HUA HIN - Chinese premier Wen Jiabao and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh held 'productive' talks in Thailand on Saturday but did not discuss their ongoing diplomatic spat, an official said.

The pair met on the sidelines of a regional summit in the coastal resort of Hua Hin grouping the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.

At the bilateral talks, which lasted 45 minutes, there was a 'good discussion, a productive meeting and they agreed to further strategic and co-operative partnership', an Indian delegation official told AFP.

Mr Wen and Mr Singh also sought to 'build trust and understanding', the official added, but he said they did not discuss the disputed Indian border state of Arunachal Pradesh or the Dalai Lama's upcoming visit there.

Beijing has voiced its opposition to next month's trip planned by the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, as well as a recent visit by Mr Singh to the border state while he was on the campaign trail before local elections.

The two nations fought a war in 1962 in which Chinese troops advanced deep into the border state and inflicted heavy casualties on Indian troops.

India says China occupies 38,000 square kilometres of its Himalayan territory, while Beijing claims all of Arunachal Pradesh, which covers 90,000 square kilometres.

Despite trading jabs over the long-standing territorial issues, China and India on Wednesday signed a five-year agreement to cooperate on climate change leading up to crucial talks in Copenhagen.

As Saturday's talks began, Mr Wen said they had 'reached important consensus on promoting bilateral ties', according to Chinese state news agency Xinhua.

'I believe that our two countries could maintain a good relationship in the future, which conforms with the interests of the two countries and I have confidence about that,' he added.

'We share with the Chinese people their pride of success,' Mr Singh was then quoted as saying by the news agency.

At the Hua Hin summit, the 16 Asian nations are discussing plans to boost economic and political cooperation and possibly forming an EU-style community.

■ 從美國的角度看印度vs.中國
＊ 葛馬萬 2009/10/21

葛馬萬（Pankaj Ghemawat）以「永續經營」以及「競爭動態」等傑出研究成果，獲得哈佛商學院永久教職，他也成為哈佛商學院有史以來獲得這項殊榮的最年輕的教授。許多人主張國界逐漸消失，《地球是平的》儼然成了新世界宣言。但世界仍然是圓的，自始至終都稱不上是平的。全球化至今也只實現了十分之一，而百分之十的全球化，從來就不是全球化；加上文化、政府/行政、地理，以及經濟等因素，造就了全球漸行漸遠的四種距離，各國之間差異之大，超乎一般大眾的想像。

● 從美國的角度看印度vs.中國

經常有人問我這個問題：怎樣從美國企業的角度看待印度與中國之間的異同，在此且以ＣＡＧＥ架構來探討這個主題。表二‧二摘要說明這兩個國家的比較，並在以下篇幅中加以解說。

文化要素：印度和美國在文化層面的相似處主要在於廣泛使用英語。印度會說英語的人口，據估計從不到一億人到三億人以上（我認為應該在這個區間的低檔），但一般而言，大家都認同印度說英語的人口比中國多。一般而言，中國的優勢在於幅員廣大，以及海外華人的商業導向——不過印度的外僑（尤其是在美國）教育程度通常較高，屬於比較近年的移民，而且比較可能跟科技產業有關。

這兩個國家在單方文化的特質比較沒有明確的結論。中國的語言和種族同質性較高，不過這一點特質究竟有助於國家追求進步，還是過於遺世獨立，還有待討論。廣泛而言，印度社會結構的種姓與階級制度雖然可悲，但西化的印度菁英卻可能讓印度與美國之間的經濟關係更為緊密。

政府要素：印度與美國都曾經是英國的殖民地，所以有許多相似之處。其中最重要的一點就是，這兩個國家的法律體系都是根據英國的普通法（common law），重視先例與引用。中國的法律系統正好相反，是以民法（civil law）為主——德國版——強調的是絕對原則，所以沒有必要隨著背景情況調整。此外，美國與印度之間目前的政治關係非常緊密。這個情況雖然可能會有所改變，但可以確定的是，中國和美國之間政治緊繃的氣氛，至少還會繼續好幾十年。

至於單方政府與政治指標則要看時間框架而定。短期而言，跨國企業似乎認為他們在中國經商時，政府與政治問題構成的阻礙比印度少，這一部分是因為中國廣設特殊經濟區以及香港之類的特區，以及外商在中國享有的優惠稅率（這政策在近年有了變化）。不過長期而言，在建立法治、保護私有財產、對破產的國營事業和銀行進行組織再造，以及因應政治變化等層面，中國面臨的挑戰會比印度更為嚴峻。

地理要素：印度的清奈（Chennai）和美國貨運港口——加州長灘（Long Beach）的距離，比上海遠百分之六十。不過船運距離並不是印度物流唯一的問題：印度的港口運作缺乏效率、緩慢，使得船運到美國所需的估計前置時間多達六到十二個禮拜，中國只要二到三個禮拜，這一點充分凸顯出印度基礎建設相對較差的問題。

地理要素還有一大重點——中國在活躍的東亞附屬經濟區形同發電機，這個區域的夥伴佔其內向（inbound）ＦＤＩ的一半以上，進口的四分之三。中國和美國的貿易關係也在這廣泛的網絡之中（從某個層面來看，也有提振的作用）。印度的情況正好相反，周邊的附屬區域經濟動態要差得多，而他們與南亞鄰國的貿易往來，還不到總貿易量的百分之五。

經濟要素：經濟要素之中，單方要素尤其值得注意。據報導，中國的規模經濟是印度的兩倍以上——不過中國的官方統計數據可能誇大實際的經濟成長率百分之二到百分之四！此外，許多具有收入彈性（income-elastic）的產品市場，在中國的規模是印度的五倍以上，反映出人均ＧＤＰ較高的影響力。中國的勞工收入較佳，生產力相對而言也比較強，教育水準通常也較高——不過在某些高階項目則落後印度（譬如，經驗豐富的主管，以及說英文的大學畢業生），而且由於中國奉行一胎化政策，所以人口結構的發展前景會較差。到目前為止，由於農村勞動力轉向製造業，以及動員更多的國內資本，中國的成果較為亮麗——其官方公布的儲蓄率（這可能也有些誇大）佔ＧＤＰ比率達百分之四十到四十五，印度只有百分之二十到二十五。

中國的資本充裕有個缺點，除了壓低投資報酬率之外，還可能造成企業不知節制、過度投資（尤其是營建業以及基礎建設）。印度企業的獲利能力一直較高。此外，中國政府積極扶植部分國內企業，企圖將他們打造為全球企業；相較之下，印度國內頂尖企業獲得的政府資源較少，通常較有節制，不會密集大舉投資。

外資企業佔中國工業生產大約百分之二十的比例，這個水準低於印度。外國投資的企業對於中國出口的影響極大，外資企業佔整體出口的百分之五十以上，有些附加價值較高的項目，比例更高達百分之八十。印度出口當中，外資企業所佔比例不到百分之十，而且印度出口近年也僅有中國的十分之一，所以中國的外資企業名目出口約為印度水準的五十倍之多。這些數據也多少反映出這兩個國家供應鍊發展程度的相對水準。

廣泛而言，中國似乎佔有地利之便，以及經濟優勢，因此比印度更受一般美國投資人的青睞。但中國在許多文化以及政府層面對外商較缺乏吸引力。

在此我要提出四個重點，大膽作出評論。第一，關鍵在於選擇什麼角度的觀點，如果從西歐的角度來做比較，結果會截然不同：中國在地理位置較遠，但另外一方面，印度的英文能力比較沒那麼重要。相對於中國或印度，東歐與北非可能更受有意於境外發展的企業青睞。

第二，中國與印度都是大國，國內具有多元的選擇。譬如，這兩個國家的沿海區域都比內陸地區活躍得多。顯示ＣＡＧＥ架構除了國內之外，同樣適用於國際。玻璃製造商聖戈班（Saint-Gobain）致力經營南部的海岸城市，而不是北方，順利打敗許多在印度歷史更悠久的外商競爭對手。

第三，許多人在比較中國與印度的異同時，總是以表二‧二最後一欄為主，尤其是中國的市場更為廣大，勞工生產力較高。不過這個表也提醒我們，必須抱持更為廣泛的角度來看，其中最令人意外的是——印度和美國在文化以及政府行政上較為相近。這兩項在ＣＡＧＥ之中最常為人所忽略，這點可不是偶然。

第四個重點是第三點的自然衍生，有些產業對於文化或政府行政距離的敏感度較高。印度想當然耳，會比中國更受這些產業投資者的青睞。軟體服務產業就是一個很好的例子。從文化層面而言，英文能力對於公司尤其重要，而且印度在美國的外僑（佔矽谷科技公司勞動力的三分之一，而且在當地的新興科技公司更佔有百分之十的比例）具有直接的助益。此外，印度距離美國的地理要素愈來愈不重要，尤其是因為重心逐漸轉往境外發展，以及印度擁有更為可觀的大學畢業生，對國家經濟發展頗有助益。結果：印度在美國委外提供的軟體服務當中佔有三分之二的比例，而中國只有大約十分之一。

（本文轉載自葛馬萬新書《1/10與4之間：半全球化時代》，中文譯本由大塊文化出版）