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.