Examining future role of E. Asia

Examining future role of E. Asia

By Thitinan Pongsudhirak

BANGKOK: First, a country simply must be located in the broad
geographical scheme of East Asia. On a map, this would roughly
translate into the vast territory ringed by the Russian Far East,
Japan, down to Australia, New Zealand, and the ASEAN area upward
to Myanmar and China.

Second, a country must have a booming export-led economy, and
the boom must be part of an ongoing trend. This is basically the
reason why so many people the world over are paying so much
attention to East Asia. Much of the international spotlight would
surely shy away should the region's rapid and continual growth
come to a grinding halt.

This pre-condition is evident in the cases of sustained
economic boom in coastal China, the so-called ASEAN Four
comprising Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines to a
lesser extent, the four Asian "tigers" consisting of South Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Vietnam appears on the threshold of meeting this pre-
condition, provided it can continue to attract foreign investment
and utilize cheap labor as an advantage for export-led growth.

Although Japan has already gone through its boom stage, it is
riding on the boom's coat-tails with a much lower but still
steady growth. Japan's ability to overcome the recent Kobe
catastrophe, moreover, testifies to the country's national
resolve and latent economic prowess.

Third, a country must have a political system that bears
shades of authoritarianism. In China and Vietnam, this
prerequisite seems to need no elaboration. While Hong Kong may be
an exception due to British governance, its pending return to
China raises the specter of authoritarian rule. Most obviously,
the Singaporean government has often been dubbed openly as "soft"
authoritarian.

In South Korea and Taiwan, genuine western-style parliamentary
systems have replaced the authoritarian military regimes of the
recent past, but a reversion to authoritarian rule is not
altogether inconceivable.

Thailand, too, has recently developed a pluralistic
parliamentary system to succeed authoritarian government. But the
fact that the Thais tacitly accepted the coup d'etat of February
1991 suggests that the country's denizens may be less democratic
than some people would like to believe.

Because of the one-party dominance of UMNO (United Malay
National Organization), Malaysia's democracy has found skeptics
and outright critics in many quarters.

Post-Marcos Filipinos take great pride in their democratic
system, but their democracy has been criticized for the country's
sluggish economic growth (until last year when it turned robust).

Japan, of course, has a thriving democratic system planted by
the Americans after World War II. Yet Japan has often been
accused, by no less than its ex-conquerors, of being
authoritarian in its economic policies.

Hence, there appears to be a connection between varying
degrees and forms of authoritarianism and sustained economic
development, a relationship which is at the heart of all the
attention being focused on East Asia.

Authoritarianism in political governance in varying degrees
and in different time periods, it seems, has begotten successful
capitalist development in East Asia. This largely represents the
region's mystique.

As a corollary to the third, the fourth pre-condition is that
a country must have a populace whose political and social values
are conducive to authoritarian rule.

In East Asia, while there are diverse cultures and religions,
the Confucian tradition is predominant, partly bolstered by the
presence of overseas Chinese. Moreover, the Buddhist, Islamic,
and Hindu traditions promote many of the same values of the
Confucian.

As opposed to the western liberal values of democracy, human
rights, individual freedom, the rule of law, and equality,
Confucian values emphasize "order and stability as preconditions
for economic growth, and growth as the necessary foundation of
any political order that claims to advance human dignity."

Put another way, East Asian states emphasize "a social
contract between people and state which guarantees basic needs
and law and order in exchange for respect for authority and self-
reliance without welfarism, a morally clean environment, a free
but responsible press, and the rejection of `the extreme form of
individualism practiced in the West.'"

In addition, Confucian values include such key behavioral
traits as the primacy of the family institution, emphasis on
education, deference to authority, hard work, and relatively high
savings.

The general upshot is that these values promote a kind of
communitarian-based society and a strong but benevolent state, in
stark contrast to the western countries' individualistic society
and democratic state besieged by special interest groups and
boundless press.

The similarities in economic performance and political values
of the East Asian countries mentioned above would suggest a tidal
shift in history. It is small wonder why the "Pacific Century"
literature has proliferated astoundingly in anticipation of East
Asia's dominance during the 21st century.

Some thinkers have already suggested that non-western
civilizations such as those of East Asia will no longer be the
objects of history or targets of western colonialism, but will
join the West as movers and shapers of history.

In other words, because of their phenomenal economic
performance, the countries of East Asia can more than ever before
determine their own future. Indeed, if the fundamental premise
that power stems from wealth bears any validity, East Asia is
about to get its turn at moving and shaping history.

In the realm of economics, the "Asianization" of East Asia is
already well underway, revolving around Japan and the four NIC
countries. During the six years after the 1985 Plaza Accord,
Japan poured more than 25 percent of its foreign direct
investment into the ASEAN Four countries.

Similarly, the four Asian Tiger economies in the same period
put 45 percent of their total FDI into Malaysia, 29 percent in
Thailand, 18 percent in Indonesia, and 25 percent in the
Philippines. Moreover, there are multiplying trade and investment
ties in coastal China with Taiwan and Hong Kong.

As some have noted, coastal China is but a series of regional
economies, drawing capital, technology, and entrepreneurial
skills from Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.

On the other hand, ASEAN recently agreed to create a free-
trade area in Southeast Asia by the year 2003. The Malaysian
leader, Mahathir Mohamad, has also called for a closer economic
cooperation among East Asia countries known as the East Asian
Economic Caucus, which would include ASEAN and South Korea,
Japan, and China.

But whether the 10 or 11 countries of East Asia can coalesce
and unite into a reckoning force like history has never seen will
depend on their ability to confront a number of challenges in the
coming years stemming from successful capitalist development
itself.

To put it another way, East Asian countries are in danger of
being victims of their own economic successes. Unless they can
surmount the challenges posed by successful capitalist
development, their values, their traditional way of life and
their world-views will soon resemble an era gone with the wind.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak is a lecturer in the Department of
International Relations and a fellow at the Institute of Security
and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science,
Chulalongkorn University.

-- The Nation