PAWEŁ BIEŃKOWSKI Asian Programme
It is widely said that the world has entered Asian Century, in the similar way as it had previously functioned within so called American one. But what does it exactly mean? And what Asia are we talking about?
These questions are not only rhetorical or meant as an element of a highly publicised discussion. The very reason people ask them today is reflection of vast differences in perception and understanding that divide peoples of Europe and Asia. Truly, what we call “Asia” today is to a certain extent something completely different from its geographical definition. Boundaries of Asian continent, set by the limits of tectonic plates neither have been reflected in range of influence of particular cultures or civilizations, nor was Asia covered by a single civilizational entity. As Europe developed its unique civilization which later expanded to Americas and Australia and became distinct in Huntingtonian terms, Asia, from the point of view of the same Huntingtonian framework has been divided into areas of influence of civilizations so much different from each other as Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Chinese/Confucian or Japanese. Additionally, the modern era has also brought the Russians into the scene in Asia, however it is difficult to count Russia as an Asian actor in the sense presented in this article.
Thus we come to the first distinguishing feature of Asia, namely its diversity. There is no need to point out obvious differences between Saudi Arabia, India, China, Japan, Indonesia or Kazakhstan. And they are all Asian states. Through centuries, Asian peoples lived with limited or even nonexistent awereness of each other. And even once they realized that “there is someone else out there” they all lacked common identity as “the Asians”. Paradoxically, the very first time that a term “Asian Century” was used was as late as in 1985 and not in Asia, but during the session of US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. However, this concept quickly gained its ground in Asia. Three years later it was mentioned for the first time during the meeting of Chinese and Indian leaders. Today, 23 years later, everyone is convinced that Asian Century has begun. Western perception towards Asia and Western understanding of its shape and characteristics became a driving force that changed the way the Asians think of themselves.
While Asia has not worked out any common identity, language, religion, economic or social model, it shares one profoundly important characteristic: pursuit for growth. As the recent Asian Development Bank (ADB) report (Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century) indicates, such factors as value of education, distinguished work ethic and a sense of broader common good serve as a strong basis for economic, political and civilizational growth. Another question comes up, though. Is it justified to talk only about Asia’s “rise”? Certainly not. This would be a terrible injustice. According to the ADB, before Western Industrial Revolution, Asia’s share of global economy amounted to impressive 60%. Precisely at the time that Europe described itself as the centre of the universe, this very core was lying somewhere far away from it. But at that time, the Europeans were better in science, in innovation and above all in reforming their stiff social, political and economic systems. Capitalist economy and free trade became one of the greatest inventions of Western civilization that culminated in respectively “British” and “American” centuries. By 1990, Asia’s share of global economy has dramatically fallen to less than 20%. Historians have plenty of different explanations of this phenomenon, neither of them to be mentioned here. But one thing to remember is that Asia is reemerging, and this is what forms its current self-identity: we used to be great, we fell, but now our time is back. As Chairman Mao symptomatically put it on the occasion of proclamation of the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949: China has risen and will never be down on her knees again. So speaks the Asia.
Values of growth are impressive indeed. Since 1990 Asia’s share of global economy rose to about 27%. In 2010 Asia generated 1/4 of global industrial output. In the last ten years incomes in developing countries in Asia were rising roughly by 9,4% each year. 35% of their GDP comes from investments and this shows high level of external confidence in their economic prospects. Average annual export growth reaches 11,4%. Asian countries have so far accumulated 3,5 trillion dollars in currency reserves. If this impressive speed of growth is maintained, by 2050 Asia again will be generating more than 50% of global GDP, and by 2040 there will be no poor nations left in Asia by today’s World Bank standards. (Data: Asian Development Bank 2011).
Truly, in words of Giles Merritt, general secretary of Friends of Europe (Brussels-based think tank), Asia benefited from Western committment to trade liberalization and did its best in gaining market edge over the others. But enormous challenges are hidden behind the mask of continuous growth and top-of-the-iceberg prosperity. Among them, problems frequently pinpointed by both Asian and external observers: growing social inequality, exacerbating competition for resources, uncompensated disparities between countries, unpredictable effects of climate change and above all: a risk of falling into so called Middle Income Trap which drew Latin American countries into poverty and disdain. The ADB report concludes that Asia’s rise is not “inevitable” and might end as quickly as it began.
A popular gauge of social and economic inequalities in countries is Gini Coefficient, measuring disparities of income distribution. It is widely agreed that once the value of this coefficient amounts to 0,5 (or 50), the country will almost for sure experience social turmoil and outburst of grievance.
So far, economic growth has benefited only parts of societies in most of Asian countries. States like South Korea and Japan in which capitalism and even social democracy has been introduced a long time ago, do not seem to experience this sort of problems. However, current drivers of Asian growth, namely China, India or ASEAN countries are all internaly divided into winners and loosers. Different political programs outlined precisely in order to deal with this dangerous trend do not seem to have brought viable results. Caste system in India, formally abolished in country’s constitution, continues to exist and forms a social and identity-based prerequisite for inequality. “Harmonious society” proclaimed in Hu Jintao’s China, where urban dwellers of the seaside belt enjoy light-years-different life than those in the countryside did not manage to quell rising voices of popular discontent and mass migration. When we add to that ethnic differences in certain parts of Asia we would see a picture of a continent internally unstable and potentially ready to explode. Events of the “Arab Spring” have given a glimpse on how might that look like.
Disparities between countries along with long maintained animosities between some of them and a rising struggle for natural resources is another constraint for growth. Flows of migrants between poorer and richer regions are enormous in size. Some Southeast Asian males experience shortages of women since so many of them decided to move to Korea or Japan in pursuit of job opportunities. South Korea, one of the richest OECD countries shares a boundary with one of the poorest and most sealed up states on Earth. The Indonesians can almost see Singaporean scyscrapers and lavish prosperity across Malacca strait but still must continue to live on a level more than 10-fold lower.
Moreover, Asia is home to five nuclear powers and maintains Cold War era security arrangements. Territorial disputes, long forgotten in Europe, still divide countries especially in East and Southeast Asia where abundant oil and gas reserves and security of sea lines is at stake. Rapid military acquisitions exacerbate the tensions. Asia’s growth sits on a barrel of a gun.
Challenges to Asian Century amount from nature as well, in a highly ironic, Malthusian style. Asia is a continent most frequently experiencing various natural and ecological disasters, with Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis serving as just another, typical expample. The situation becomes even more tense as more and more Asian people come to the cities with hope for better life, but at the same time they turn these very cities into overcrowded centres of manufacture and consumption which generate demand for energy that is simply imposible to meet and produce an unthinkable amount of waste.
On the one hand, a need for effective disaster management and relief system is necessary, on the other – an all-new approach towards urbanisation and energy efficiency is absolutely essential. This summer some smaller Chinese factories will be ordered to temporarily shut down due to shortages of electricity resulting from prolonged drought and low levels of the Yangtse river. You cannot have growth if you don’t have electricity.
Asian Development Bank report sets two basic scenarios for Asia’s future up to 2050. The first one, the “Asian Century”, would rely on both classical drivers such as technological progress, capital accumulation and labor force growth, but also on new factors, namely emerging middle class, changing climate and communications revolution. In terms of population growth which has long served as Asia’s distinguishing feature, the demographic dividend for Asia will clearly come to an end around 2035. Between 1990 and 2010 Asia’s labor force was growing 2% a year. By 2030 this speed would decrease to 0,9% to fall to 0% by 2050. As Japan is already mounting its efforts to cope with ageing society, China and India would join them pretty soon. The most of vital powers will lie then in Southeast and to certain extent in Central Asia and the Middle East.
At the same time, as people of Asia become more well-off, their demands and expectations grow notably. “An iron bowl of rice” is no longer enough and quickly even economic prosperity would no longer continue to satisfy the people. On the other hand, it is still not clear whether this desire of freedom would bring about change in direction to democracy. Asian popular perception to values referred to as “human rights” has always been different than in the West. As Indian philosopher Amartya Sen said, the essence of rights is to allow people to fulfill themselves as human beings – be it in economic, social or political dimension, according to circumstances and preferences. Asian view of rights is therefore pretty much relational, if not relativist. Japan, South Korea or Taiwan have all adopted models close to Western democracy which still bear some Asian features that bring about confusion regarding their compatibility with Western equivalents. Singapore is now one of the richest countries on the planet in per capita terms, but maintains a regime which allows for lashing an individual who spits on the pavement. Arab nations have demonstrated that dictatorships which keep themselves above the people would be brought down by the power of popular discontent. A study conducted on a number of Asian individuals mostly from East and Southeast Asia by American scientists has shown that these people value their family bonds, society and nations more than individual political freedoms. This is what gave Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Muhammad an assumpt to put forward an idea of “Asian values”. Attempts to enforce Western values upon traditional Muslim or tribal societies of Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be a major failure. Now even such high European officials as European External Action Service chief operating officer David O’Sullivan admit that no one needs to copy the Western model of rights – we constructed it, we agreed upon it, but it might not necessarily work elsewhere. (Remark during the “Europe and the Asian Century” summit in Brussels, 21 June 2011.)
Therefore, this would be People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Malaysia which will lead Asian reemergence. Some of the outcomes are visible even today. According to the ADB, China has already surpassed Europe in terms of volume of technological innovation. This country, after merely 30 years of economic reforms, is now a leader in production of green technologies. As this might sound absurd bearing in mind tremendous level of environmental pollution in China, the PRC is number one manufacturer of solar panels and electric cars. Additionally, China is covered with the longest network of highways and high speed railways on Earth. If we refer to green technologies as a key to the future, this key is now in the Asians’ hands.
The second scenario coming out of the ADB report is the Middle Income Trap prognosis. The phenomenon is described as economic stagnation resulting from losses in competitiveness over time both in relation to countries of higher and lower income. In other words, if Asia fails to maintain its competitiveness against poorer, cheap labor force countries (i.e. in Africa) and richer, technologically developed states of the West, it will inevitably slip into the trap that Latin American countries found themselves in. Asia needs to transform itself from resource-driven to productivity-driven growth, and needs to accomplish this soon. Pressure on innovation, green technologies and sustainable development is therefore understandable. But Asia must also agree on better integration with world financial markets and even more importantly – speed up its regional integration dynamics. Today, Asia is heavily underinsured what means that people are reluctant to store their money on financial markets. For the purpose of better liquidity and compatibility with global economic institutions this situation must change, and this change would have to be followed by broader inclusion of Asian actors into global economic governance. Here is the point showing how both scenarios are interrelated.
What are the lessons then? What can we tell about Asia? First of all, the continent is now embracing its new identity, growing as much from its different national and civilizational backgrounds as well as a feeling of common future and expanding influence. Second, nothing can be taken for granted. It is in Asian interest to rise, but will this common good prevail over national differences, over ambitions and selfishness of the leaders? Third, and most importantly, Asia is a partner of the West. Therefore, the West should hand on the baton peacefully, looking for any possible tradeoffs, in order to avoid the baton being forcefully pulled out when the time is ripe. Now the initiative is on the Asian side and is up to the Asians to set the order of the 21st century. A “burden of the Asian man” has seen the light of the day.
