The West must regain some political wisdom

The West must regain some political wisdom

Philip Bowring, New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur

The West's inability, born of a mix of conceit and ignorance,
to recognize the global realities of the world in 2004 is bad for
everyone. It is bad because it gives an illusion that events are
more capable of benign control than is actually the case.

Bad because it invites a backlash by the non-West which would
have negative consequences. Bad because it could eventually lead
to the West in general and the U.S. in particular turning in on
itself out of frustration and a sense of rejection.

The virus has many symptoms. A recurrent one is the G-8 of
self-styled global leaders -- who, with the exception of Japan,
are all white and all except Russia are linked by military
alliances. Their meetings may appear harmless, meaningless photo
ops.

But the very fact that they take place is a triumph of
illusion and hubris. Unless these leader meetings can be expanded
to include major countries such as China, Brazil and India, there
is absolutely no hope that they can achieve meaningful global
consensus on issues ranging from the World Trade Organization to
AIDS and weapons of mass destruction (whatever they may actually
be).

Europe complains much about alleged U.S. attempts at
hegemonism. But European posturing is little different -- albeit
its pretensions are more readily ignored than those of the U.S.
Take for example the EU's apparent determination to create
problems for EU relations with Asia -- the Asia-Europe Summit due
in October -- because of the presence of Myanmar.

I happen to believe that it was foolish of ASEAN to admit
Myanmar while it had a government so far removed from the
regional spirit, so ill-governed, so tainted by drug connections.
ASEAN's influence on the Yangon regime is minimal. Aung San Suu
Kyi is still under house arrest. The economy is unreformed and
such little investment as takes place is often driven by
cronyism.

But it was a collective ASEAN decision to admit Myanmar and it
is no business of the EU any more than it is ASEAN's job to
comment on, for example, the fitness of Turkey to join the EU.

While parading a high moral stance against Myanmar, the EU
largely keeps quiet about oppression in China -- for example the
treatment of former premier Zhao Ziyang -- and positively fawns
over Singapore.

In places where there is money to be made, the moralizing
quickly moderates. In the case of Singapore, the supine Western
media not only practices extreme self-censorship but feeds out of
the hand of local officialdom and think- tanks and "experts" on
terrorism. Much of the ensuing "reportage" is to the detriment of
neighboring countries which give the media, local and foreign,
freer rein.

Singapore offers views on a plate and some handy tax breaks so
why risk losing those by reporting the realities of Singapore
politics, racial realities and ownership and control of its
economy.

The media can be revealing in other ways too. Take for example
the Asian Wall Street Journal of June 23. It ran a column one
story on its front page headlined: "Mali elects to stand out in
the Muslim world by adopting democracy". It went on to proclaim
that Mali "showcased something highly unusual in the Muslim
world: a thriving democracy". Such gratuitous remarks in an
otherwise fair story on Mali were instructive.

One has long been accustomed to ignorance, ethnic bias and
anti-Muslim prejudice from domestic media in the West. But isn't
the "Asian" Wall Street Journal supposed to be edited in Asia?
Does it not count the ongoing elections in the most populous
Muslim country, Indonesia, as democratic? Or of the recent polls
in Malaysia? Or the well established free media and election-
based changes of government in poor but open Bangladesh --
population 130 million? Or Turkey?

For sure, none of these democracies is without its blemishes.
But who is? Surely not the U.S. of Guantanamo and the claims of
George W. Bush's advisers that he can be exempted from the law.

One might even consider that Pakistan would have fair
elections but for Western backing of the Musharraf regime, and
Algeria an elected government but for French preference for
authoritarianism over Islamists. The democrats of Iran might by
now have triumphed over the ulama but for "axis of evil" talk and
Washington's unremitting hostility to the freely elected
President Khatami.

The Arab world is singularly lacking in open, liberal and
democratic government. But most Muslims are not Arabs. Those Wall
Street Journal phrases, clearly a product of ignorance not
malice, help explain why the U.S. policy has been based on
illusions which have provided recruits for al-Qaeda and led it
into the Iraq quagmire.

The danger now is that a combination of failure of its Iraq
venture, general international rejection of America's Christian
fundamentalist values and its mega foreign debts will cause it to
turn its back on a world where there will soon be more Muslims
than Christians, where U.S. industries are no longer leaders and
where the dollar has outstayed it welcome.

Given how much the U.S. and Europe can contribute as strategic
presence or source of ideas, technology and investment, that
would be a huge and dangerous loss to the world. But it will
happen if the West does not wake up to realities and regain some
political wisdom.

The writer is a former editor of the Far Eastern Economic
Review and a columnist with the International Herald Tribune.