Is there an “Asian way” of resolving global challenges? The conventional answer is no. But elements of an Asian way are gradually emerging. Given Asia’s growing influence, the world should pay attention — and may have much to gain.
The key to understanding Asian approaches is their pragmatism. Asians constantly adapt and change.
In the past, Asians put a premium on protecting their sovereignty and were wary of any multilateral approaches that could dilute it. Now, in response to global challenges — for example, pandemics, financial crises and climate change — the vast majority of Asian countries understand that collective action does not erode but instead protects sovereignty. For example, despite losing faith in the IMF after the region’s financial crisis in 1997, they agreed to contribute billions to the IMF after the recent global financial meltdown.
There has also been another significant shift in Asian attitudes. Instead of legitimacy, or simply getting more seats at the table to provide input, the discussion in Asia is increasingly about output: how to create institutions that are more effective.
At the same time, reflecting their pragmatism, the Asians remain ready to accept continuing American leadership and domination of global institutions. Nor do they challenge the US-led security umbrella for the Asia-Pacific region.
At a recent workshop that we co-chaired in Singapore, the inevitable question was raised: Can Asians lead in meeting global challenges? The responses from the Chinese and Indian participants were striking. They argued that by taking care of more than 2 billion people — and taking care of them well — both China and India were already making a major contribution to global stability and order.
That is a reasonable response. Indeed, if the vast majority of the 4 billion Asians continue to improve their livelihoods, the world will become a better place.
Still, there are both positive and negative aspects of the Asian approach to the challenges of global governance. The positive aspects include respect for diversity and an emphasis on consensus-building over conflict, practical solutions over lofty principles and gradualism over abrupt change. On the other hand, the desire to avoid confrontation can prevent meaningful agreements from being reached in a reasonable time-frame, and the appearance of consensus may merely mask the true politics at work.
Drawing on the positive aspects of the Asian way suggests the possibility of more inclusive decision-making in the institutions of global governance. The danger in such an approach is that decisions may not be taken, or that those that are put rhetoric ahead of substance, thereby failing to resolve fundamental political challenges.
So what might this mean in practice? Here are a few areas in which Asia — or, more properly, Asians — can contribute to solving some key global challenges:
Peace and Security: Asia includes many new naval powers, such as China and India, which could help bolster the security of sea-lanes by creating partnerships with traditional naval powers such as the US. Various Asian countries have joined efforts to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. China is developing a deployable police capacity that may provide an important new tool in peace operations in fragile states.
Climate Change: Asia needs to build up innovative markets that enable technology transfer. China, Japan and Korea have become leading producers of green technology. Asian governments are in a position to take the lead in developing alternative energy sources.
Financial Regulation: Asian countries need to take more leadership in regulating financial markets. China, questioning the wisdom of putting the fate of the world economy in the US dollar, has proposed the creation of a global currency. Progress has been made on the Chiang Mai Initiative — a multilateral currency swap arrangement among the ten ASEAN members, China, Japan and South Korea — and the possibility of an Asian Monetary Fund remains on (or at least not far off) the table.
Health: Asia’s experience in dealing with SARS, bird-flu, H1N1, and other diseases should be studied carefully — for both positive and negative lessons — with a view to developing a new global consensus on handling pandemics.
Social Enterprises: Asia has emerged as a leader in social entrepreneurship. The successes of social businesses such as Grameen Bank and BRAC in Bangladesh have contributed to renewed thinking about how social objectives can be fused with revenue-generating practices.
In short, there is no coherent or systematic Asian approach to meeting global challenges. In response to each challenge, Asians respond pragmatically. But, given that some of the biggest challenges are the result of failed policies, pragmatism may offer a constructive way forward.
Kishore Mahbubani is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Simon Chesterman is a law professor and director of the NYU School of Law Singapore Program at the National University of Singapore. They co-chaired the Singapore Hearing Working Group for the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS