In search for humane governance in globalization era (2)

In search for humane governance in globalization era (2)

By Richard Falk

This is the second of two articles on globalization and post-
Cold War politics.

PRINCETON, New Jersey, U.S.A. (JP): The Asia Pacific region,
itself so difficult even to delimit and categorize, is possessed
by extraordinary diversity, dynamism, size and population density
that manifests both tendencies to achieve substantive democracy
and to explore the possibilities for regionalism.

The operations of the Asian Pacific Forum, although tentative
and preliminary, shows that there exists at least some
possibility of collaboration between social forces favoring
regionalist initiatives and those active in the pursuit of
substantive democracy. But such a prospect is far from assured.
It remains more likely that regionalism will continue to function
in the Asia Pacific mainly as a subordinate part of the global
system, accepting its neo-liberal ideological precepts and
continuing passivity toward geopolitical claims of leadership.

But this region also has a distinctive relationship to the
future of world order in other respects. China as an emergent
superpower poses a challenge both to countries in the region, but
also to the role of the United States as guarantor of regional
stability (a role that is both solicited by most governments in
the region and is self-designated) and as the most influential
extra-regional presence.

At present, there is, in Washington, an unresolved conflict
within government circles as to whether or not to continue
policies based on the primacy of economic priorities (that is,
trade, investment, and growth criteria) or to revert in some
restructured manner to the geopolitical priorities of the Cold
War (that is, containment of an expansionist enemy, with China
taking the place of the Soviet Union, and Asia Pacific being
substituted for Europe as the main theater of encounter).

The reemergence of containment geopolitics directed against
China is likely to inject high levels of tension into regional
politics, engendering even greater military expenditures and
encouraging regional arms races that could be dangerously
destabilizing. Such geopolitics would also deprive Asia Pacific
countries of many benefits associated with an economic approach
that was guided primarily by efforts to gain a market share. Part
of the current concern in U.S. government circles (especially the
Pentagon and security bureaucracies) involves how to retain a
high-profile role in Asia Pacific in the face of Asian cultural
assertiveness ("the Asianization of Asia"), and given the
evaporation of the Cold War lines of explanation, especially
deterring Soviet expansion.

Many countries in Asia Pacific also manifest in differing
respects the other major historical encounter of this period: the
struggle between ideas of modernity and secularism versus the
renewed strength of ideas associated with tradition and religion.
Each country is experiencing this global drama in a particular
context reflecting varying styles of political leadership and
opposition, as well as shifting balances between social forces.

By and large, secularists are in control of governments, but
challenged by traditionalists in relation to social, economic,
and cultural policies. In some circumstances, secularists
incorporate, or coopt, elements of the traditionalist critique of
modernity and globalization, as when the leadership of Singapore
or Malaysia defends contested policies by invoking cultural
values. As with regionalism, the course taken by both sides in
this encounter, can move for or against the goals and outlook of
advocates of substantive democracy. Analysis must proceed on the
basis of national conditions, and beyond that, of very diverse
local circumstances.

In contemplating the field of political action, then, there
are many uncertainties, but also intriguing opportunities to
advance the cause of humane governance:

* the importance of depicting the new terrain of social and
political struggle and policy choice to take into account
changing global and regional conditions;

* the affirmation of the goals and clarification of the means
to achieve regional self-determination, and the minimizing of
geopolitical encroachment;

* the expansion of democracy to include the agenda and methods
of transnational social activism and the political program of
substantive democracy;

* the renewal of adequate levels of support for global public
goods, including the strengthening of the United Nations and
regional institutions in accordance with the goals of substantive
democracy;

* the exploration of opportunities for cooperation between
activist advocates of substantive democracy and certain sectors
of intergovernmental activity on behalf of regionalism;

* the search for common ground between substantive democracy
(both practice and substance) and secularism on one side, and
between substantive democracy and traditionalism on the other;

* the call for dialogue, discussion, mutual respect,
nonviolence and openness to collaborative initiatives as a
central tenet of substantive democracy, and also as the means to
discourage intolerance and recourse to violence by the main
social formations that appear to be locked in bitter opposition.

This refocusing of the movement to promote humane governance
on a global basis needs, as suggested, to be regionally adapted.
No where is the opportunity greater than among the countries of
the Asia Pacific region, and of these countries, Indonesia is
among those most challenged at present. Indonesia as a central
state in the region with an impressive record of economic growth
during the 1990s, needs to work out its particular relationship
of accommodation and opposition to globalization and to post-Cold
War geopolitics, as well as to turn the secular/traditionalist
encounter in a direction of constructive action and
reconciliation. These various challenges cannot be addressed in a
satisfactory fashion without the full participation of forces
supportive of substantive democracy in all settings of policy and
decision.

The approach of a new century accents the need for bold
thinking and action. Imagination is a weapon as well as a
resource for problem-solving. The power of globalization and
geopolitics rests on the strength of ideas. It is not a
deterministic matter of policy closure resulting from the
overwhelming influence of dominant structures. Too many
"impossible" changes from below have occurred in this century to
forego hope: decolonization; emancipation of the peoples in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; the transformation of South
Africa.

As a result, there are firm grounds for confidence in the
possibility of using what appear now to be minority, and even
marginal, ideas as eventual agents of dramatic transformation.
Particular outcomes cannot be predicted from the vantage point of
the present, but will reflect political struggles that are
currently underway, and others yet to commence. The path is sure
to be strewn with difficulties, yet there are many reasons to be
hopeful, and engaged.

The writer is professor of international law and practice at
Princeton University, United States.