Could Europe be a Democratic “blue state” and Asia a Republican “red state?”
US presidential elections provide a near perfect test to understand the difference between European and Asian worldviews, even if the two continents are far from united internally. If you want the US to lead by the power of example, you favor Democratic Senator Barack Obama; if you want to be reassured by the continuation of US power in a traditional security sense, you probably prefer Republican Senator John McCain.
Whereas a majority of Europeans — with the exception of those who for historical and geographic reasons are obsessed with the return of the “Russian bear” — support Obama, a majority of Asians, particular among the elite, seem to support McCain. This difference stems above all from strategic considerations, but it probably also contains a cultural dimension.
In Asia, Indonesia may look “European” in its Obama craze, but it essentially constitutes an anomaly, easily explainable by Obama’s brief Indonesian upbringing. Otherwise, and for very different reasons, a majority of Asian elites are awaiting the growing possibility of an Obama victory with some bewilderment and even apprehension.
For example, Japanese elites tend to favor continuity over change. In their mind, the hard power of the US is more important than its soft power, and their vision of a US “bound to lead” is largely unchanged. For them, the US is above all the strategic counterweight needed to balance China.
But the Chinese, too, may very likely be favoring McCain, for the opposite reason. The decline of the US’ image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia’s leading power, China has seized the mantle of “hope” from the US. The US could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favor change, when continuity works so well for you?
Indian elites reach the same conclusion for different reasons. The Bush years are seen positively, for they coincide with the consolidation of India’s international status and emergence as the US’ key diplomatic partner in Asia. In Singapore, ideological considerations reinforce strategic interests. A very conservative regime naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat.
But, beyond strategic considerations, something else must be mentioned (with prudence). It is too early to say that the “yellow man’s burden” is about to replace Rudyard Kipling’s “white man’s burden” in world history. Asians are slow to acknowledge that power entails international responsibility.
But Asians who have more than caught up with the West may have difficulty adjusting to the idea that the US would for the first time in history not be headed by a white president. How can you define yourself to the West, when the West has so spectacularly and visibly changed its appearance, if not its essence?
In Europe, the reverse is true. The complex essence of Obama is an absolute plus. For the former colonial countries, who have no equivalent to Obama, to support him fully is a sort of exorcism, if not redemption. The US is once more paving the way for what Europeans should be able to achieve one day with their own minorities: a land of dreams made possible. In a more classical sense, the depth of anti-Bush sentiment in Europe explains the depth of pro-Obama feeling and Europeans’ relative distancing from McCain’s candidacy.
Europeans have felt oppressed by the US’ excessive demonstration of hard power. They would not mind a US that was more modest abroad and more ambitious at home. They are in fact secretly wishing that in these tough economic times, at least part of the “culture of hope” incarnated by Obama would reverberate on them and transform them for the better. They do not want the US only to protect them, but to transform them.
The perception that Obama can transform the view that the US and the West have of themselves is an important factor in the emotional gap that may exist between Asia and Europe on the eve of the US presidential election.
On that count, Asia tends to be a status quo continent, while Europe is a revisionist one. For many Europeans, a reinvention of the US is Europe’s last hope.
It is a noble hope, but also a dangerous one, for dreams can easily turn into nightmares. That might very well happen if the next US president fails to redress the financial and economic threats facing his country, and thus the rest of the world.
Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior advisor at IFRI (French Institute for International Relations), is a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw, Poland.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry