Years of Poems and Spirits

Prof. Bachman’s SISEA490 final asked two questions:

• Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright referred to the U.S. as the “indispensable country” for world order. Assess whether and how this might or might not be true for Asia.
• What roles has ASEAN played in the international relations of Asia? Has it been successful in those roles? Why or why not? Has ASEAN been an important and respected actor in Asian affairs? Again why or why not? Is it likely to become more or less important in the next 10 years?

Here are my answers. To the first question, my argument is: U.S.’s role in A-P is positive because peace and prosperity in the region are of U.S. interests too. Bush administration (not only the neocons) is indoctrinating U.S. exceptionalism. Realists defends an equally problematic “Hobbesian” worldview. “In this regard, it is a mistake to speculate whether or how history will replace American superpower with another one. What the U.S. should do is to leverage its unique position to foster greater liberalization, international cooperation and the rule of law. ”

To the second question,
“Amongst member states, ASEAN serves as an important platform to promote mutual understanding and cooperation. However, it could be argued that, as a regional collective, ASEAN has had more success dealing with outside powers, national (e.g. the U.S., Russia, and China) as well as communal (e.g. EU), than with internal members.”

“In an organization where Singapore is juxtaposed with Laos and Myanmar, the diversity will lend common causes with an impression of universality. But at the same time, it brings with it thick barriers to mutual trust based on shared values.”

“The truest regionalism, if there is such a thing, is the one that closely reflects the characteristic of the region. Founding members of the EU have experienced the purgatory of industrialization, imperialism and two World Wars together. The close integration among its members is the result of the region’s collective historical experiences. To expect ASEAN to rise beyond Southeast Asia’s own past, or otherwise dismiss it as regionalism in name only, is deeply troublesome.”

Bachman asked during class whether U.S. policies in Asia assumes that Asian countries can’t live peacefully with each other. As a result, the U.S. carries itself around as a local sheriff. Bachman implied a racist view underlies such policies.

Unfortunately, there may be reasons to justify such a “racist” view. In an earlier blog, I argued that Chinese society is built upon the existence of such an enforcer (the central government). I suspect other Asian societies may require the same condition.

In “democracies” such as the Phillipines, Thailand, and Turkey, the militaries still play an enlarged role in body politik–is this fact a rule or an exception in societies transforming from authoritarian rules? Are militaries in the abovementioned countries playing the missing enforcer role?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS