{"id":8800,"date":"2013-09-02T06:00:38","date_gmt":"2013-09-01T20:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=8800"},"modified":"2013-09-03T08:58:43","modified_gmt":"2013-09-02T22:58:43","slug":"asia-essentials-concert-not-cataclysm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/asia-essentials-concert-not-cataclysm\/","title":{"rendered":"Asia Essentials: concert not cataclysm"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"High<\/a><\/p>\n

Europe\u2019s 20th century offers Asia ample warning about the concert or cataclysm choice. But the solution Europe produced to deliver its own peace in the second half of the 20th century is of limited utility to Asia, a judgement succinctly expressed by the academic Roger Buckley: ‘The European model of creeping federalism is a non-starter\u2014the letters USA are not about to stand for the United States of Asia’.<\/p>\n

Along with economic shifts and the tide of history, Asia’s creation of itself is also about face and pride (with the hope that lots of fear will keep the hubris in check). Europe is becoming useful in defining what Asia is not<\/i> becoming.<\/p>\n

European dynamics have determined the current international system. Europe created the nation state, wrote the language of diplomacy and the rules of war, then drew the map of the world in the quest for empire. Europe\u2019s revolutions, concerts and wars drove industrial and colonial history. Europe will continue to be a player, but perhaps not always in the main game. The Cold War looks like the last gasp of the global order as an expression of European politics.<\/p>\n

Eric Hobsbawm wrote a great four book definition of this history: The Age of Revolution<\/a> (1789-1848), covering both the French and the Industrial revolutions; The Age of Capital<\/a> (1848-1875); The Age of Empire<\/a> (1875-1914); and the short 20th century, The Age of Extremes<\/a> (1914-1991). Adopting those stepping stones, we’ve entered The Age of Asia.<\/p>\n

The success or failure of Asia\u2019s security system in the 21st century will be decisive\u2014probably definitive\u2014for the global system. For the first time in centuries, Asia will decide, not Europe. The new order being born in Asia means the global system will be Asia-centric rather than Euro-centric.<\/p>\n

Issues of identity and culture mingle with the imperatives of power shifts. China and India join Japan as civilisations that possess the economic muscle to express themselves fully as the biggest players. And they’re joining the US and Japan as economic players who can shift the system. Their security actions will have equal, systemic power. The US enters this new order as a global power that’s also an Asian power. Asia\u2019s big beasts are coming from the other direction\u2014regional powers reaching for global status.<\/p>\n

In the long narrative of history, the end of Western colonialism was more significant for Asia than the Cold War\u2014even though the Cold War raged across Asia, and its effects were so profound there. But, ultimately, what mattered after 1945 was throwing off colonial rule and the centuries of direct domination by the West. For Asian elites, what counted was taking control of their own destinies\u2014not communism versus capitalism, a struggle between two Western ideologies.<\/p>\n

After four wars between Germany and France over 150 years, Europe finally found a way to render war between Berlin and Paris unthinkable, and thus save the continent from repeating the two cataclysms of the 20th century. The great European experiment is to create a set of supra-national institutions that bind the continent. For Europe\u2019s elites, nationalism is for cooking, song contests and soccer. Asia\u2019s elites are still worrying about nation-building.<\/p>\n

Europe is attempting to build a post-modern system with no borders and a common economy. Europe\u2019s community is a union that has shared laws as well as shared passports and a currency and, beyond that, much that’s common in values and ethics. Importantly, there’s a common religion in the form of Christianity. That\u2019s why the Muslim minorities in Europe and the quest for EU membership by Turkey\u201470 million Muslims\u2014pose such hard questions for Europe.<\/p>\n

Now compare Asia\u2019s security building with the European model. A concert is a possibility. A community is a distant hope. Asia\u2019s attempt at a security structure has to start with the view that shared values don’t matter<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Different cultures and histories: fine<\/i>, of course. Such differences must be a given. Vastly different politics and systems of government: not a problem<\/i>. Religion\u2014don\u2019t even mention it. Unless of course you’re dealing with jihadists\u2014even then, try not to say too much about Islam and even less about the Middle East. If you must say anything, criticise Israel.<\/p>\n

As for the European use of supra-national instruments to trump national interests: forget it<\/i>. Sovereignty is king. Keep your hands out of my internal affairs\u2014and stay away from my islands, reefs and shoals. What defines Asia is its diversity in politics and stages of development, religion, language and cultures. Given all this, what’s left?\u00a0 Here’s the formula that runs through this Essentials series of posts: Asia is going to build its security, if not its community, on:<\/p>\n