Southeast Asian lessons for North Atlantic

Renton de Alwis

This column written in mid November 2011 examined the events that unfolded in two regions of the world that are driven by two different philosophies and ethical positions in the manner in which they are governed. The events such as the unfolding of the global financial crisis served as the backdrop to explore how these basic differences in thinking in the West and the East influenced happenings in the social-economic fronts in these regions.  

While some regions were wading through crisis based on the premise that it was alright to respond to “the situational need for the methodical exercise of brute force, and deceit (using them) as tools”, the other was seeking resolution of conflict, based on the premise that ‘Harmony is something to be cherished’.

I repost this for your critical evaluation of the merits and demerits of these positions.

Much of our ‘out of the local scene’ attention this week was focussed on the ASEAN and the European regions. Stark contrast is seen in the manner each of these regions is venturing to meet the challenges they face. While ASEAN leaders were seeking ways to make solid its move towards finding unity within its diversity, European leaders were exploring ways of staying together in the midst of a financial crisis that was affecting the very core of its fabric. Having made its union larger and wider in what was termed Europe’s political and financial unification, that region was the first to moot a common parliament, a common currency and a European Central Bank, while the ASEAN was making it in small steps and with pauses, much like we learnt as kids in the tale of the hare and the tortoise. 

Engagement and suasion

Myanmar was cleared by the ASEAN last weekend to be the host of the grouping in 2014 after being reprimanded in 2006 when she was called on to skip its turn. Despite initiatives from the US and the European Union, ASEAN did not agree to imposing sanctions on Myanmar or apply undue pressure. Their strategy was one of engagement and suasion and not one of confrontation. At the Bali Summit, Thailand’s foreign Minister called on the US and the EU to end its sanctions against Myanmar which have been in effect since 2003. The world observed what little effect these had on that country’s determination in not allowing arm twisting to effect its national decision making.  One could also argue that basic human rights of the people of Myanmar along with trading partners and investors in the US and the EU were violated as a result of the fallout from these sanctions, bringing out exactly the opposite effect the sanctions were intended for.

 

More troupes

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton both took on whirlwind tours of Australia and the Philippines last week as a preamble to the Bali ASEAN Summit. Although it was stated that these were not intended to wield US’s power but to establish its partnership status in the Pacific region, there is no doubt that the US did not want to be left out of the moves China was making with its supremacy on the economic front.

Announcements were made of enhanced supply of uranium from Australia to India reportedly to power India’s rapid economic development and assurances were given to the Australian parliament that the US security presence in the region will not be reduced. On a visit to the military base at Darwin the US president announced that there would be an augmenting of the facility with an additional 250 US marines next year.

Marking the 60^th anniversary of US – Philippines military cooperation, the US secretary of State announced that a second state of the art cutter coast-guard warship will be made available to the Philippines next year to augment its fleet. A similar craft was given to the Philippines in August this year making this to be the second of its kind.

Promised Change

What is interesting is that all of this comes amidst a bungled package of change that was promised with the dawn of the Obama era of US politics. We heard of ‘change we can believe in’ within a world free of poverty, weapons and war. We heard promises of a world where people were to be better empowered. Where creating harmony between civilisations and nations were to be the cornerstone of US foreign policy, in contrast to the confrontationist approach of the earlier regime of George Bush Jr.

Today, the reality on the ground is pointing to disappointment for there are more battles fought between and within nations but with a new tag of ‘struggles for democracy’, pinned on them. The failure of the US congress to get out of the grip of the 1% of its rich making decisions for the 99% of the powerless, has begun ‘Occupy movements’ which have now gone on for over two months in city centres across the country.

 

Debt crisis

In Europe several economies are in dire straits. The debt in Greece has risen to be 370 billion Euros which accounts to be 160 per cent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Italy, Spain, Portugal and even France are all facing difficult times. As reported in the media last week German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that “Europe could be living through its toughest hour since World War II”. New leaders in Italy and Greece rushed to form governments in attempts at limiting further hurting from the eurozone debt crisis.

In spite of all of this the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO ) has no hesitation in moving in to take more and more assignments in defence of human, social and democratic rights of other nations it finds are not akin to the needs and ideals touted by this block of nations. The tools they posses in their armoury of economic sanctions, no fly zones, aerial attacks and alleged arming of rebels seem to be far remote from those adapted by the nations of East Asia and ASEAN of engagement, discussion, moral suasion and mutual support.        

Seeking rationale

To understand this contrast, I ventured to take but a cursory look at some of the basic premises and philosophical positions that guide the thinking of the leaders of these groups of nations. First, was a look at Niccolò Machiavelli (1649 -1527), considered in the Western tradition as the founder of modern political science. In his later work Il Principe (New Prince), he had us believe that public and private morality had to be separate in order to rule and required the prince to be concerned about reputation but be willing to act immorally on occasion. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasized the situational need for the methodical exercise of brute force, and deceit as tools in becoming a ‘successful’ ruler.

On the other hand, as several scholars have pointed out, the Confucian ethic of seeking harmony has a strong appeal in the East and Southeast Asian context. China’s leaders are known to promote this ideal as a core political concept for our age with the Confucian premise that ‘Harmony is something to be cherished’.

“In the Buddhist tradition as in the Confucian and Taoist, harmony is set up as the basis for social solidarity. The core Buddhist notions of the Middle Way, emphasizing a rejection of extremes, and of the Noble Eightfold Path, setting out the right route to wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline, provide directly for this. Working together as one with nature, man, and history . . . constitutes what is essentially known as Eastern Wisdom” they claim.
 

Pix credit : Hashir Milhan