Reading the ‘software’ of Asian society

Date: 06/06/02

By Georg Wiessala

The EU needs a new perspective on Asia, and a broader understanding of the continent's cultural issues, values and philosophies, argues Georg Wiessala. IN HIS thought-provoking monograph Can Asians Think? Singaporean UN Representative Kishore Mahbubani appeared to condone human rights abuses in Asia: '...If the West wants to bury forever Mao's totalitarian arrangements, it should support Deng's reforms to the hilt, even if he has to occasionally crack down to retain political control.'

Mahbubani is known as an advocate of 'Asian values', along with Lee Kuan Yew, Jiang Zemin, or Mahathir Mohamad.

The latter consigned his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, to prison, for articulating differing views; in The Asian Renaissance, Anwar had demanded: 'Asians must be prepared to champion ideals which are universal.'

Statements like this one recall the early cultural relativism of Michel de Montaigne, evoking a Europe that could learn from Asia about the 'universality' of ethical precepts.

Attempts, old and new, to synthesise Western and Eastern thoughts touch on models and stereotypes developed over the last two-and-a-half millennia.

So why, in our time, does the issue of what might be termed 'societal software' appear neglected, under-valued and prone to causing problems in the EU's dialogue with Asian countries?

If, as has been widely perceived, the Union's 2001 Asia paper, Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships, is somewhat lacking in conviction, could it be that this is because the 'partnership of equals' that the Commission's 1994 New Asia Strategy had proclaimed is not, in fact, giving equal weight to the 'morality' of the EU-Asia relationship?

Perhaps a re-focused perspective will benefit structures such as the EU-Association of South East African Nations partnership, the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue or the process of Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM) on the eve of ASEM 4.

It would, above all, have to acknowledge the 'Asian values' discourse of the 1990s, and note how its main arguments fell victim to 'Asian flu' in 1997-8.

It would furthermore have to look at globalisation and its repercussions for the Third World and the Fourth.

It could not afford to bypass the contemporary 'clash-of-cultures' and 'Asian-affirmation' theories and would have to encompass EU strategies towards pro-Western autocrats in Asia and the prospect of newly resurgent Islamic regimes.

But there is more to this level of EU-Asia relations than meets the eye: it should be acknowledged that it is inconceivable to detach the political or economic contents of a debate on the above issues from what may be described as its more 'metaphysical' plane.

Thus, questions of how Buddhism, Islam or Confucianism value socio-political concepts such as economic activity, entitlement, political representation, hierarchy, loyalty and rights, do matter in the EU-Asian partnership.

They matter in the context of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, in respect of the restriction of public power and in respect of receptiveness towards concepts of human rights.

It seems that Buddhism, for instance, is more likely to discuss human rights in terms of universal responsibilities, dignity or duties.

This does not, of course, rule out rights entitlement, but it makes it difficult to hitch religious and philosophical views to the cart of 'Asian values' or political expediency. Most importantly, it colours people's views on ethical behaviour, moral precepts and negotiating styles.

Similarly, it appears conveniently simplistic to say that, surely, Confucius would have agreed to some of the more domineering forms of Asian government that the EU deals with.

Recruiting Confucius to explain a rise in the gross domestic product or - as is more frequently done - to justify stricter state authority, is not an altogether convincing exercise; many interpretations of the Analects, Confucius's main work, have found that the sage advocated a balanced relationship between the individual and society, not affirmation of the latter over the former.

The onslaught of globalisation and the homogenising effect of technology and the internet do, of course, open up avenues towards further East-West coherence in this respect; the series of current Asian 'country strategy papers' by the Commission reflect this.

But it is vital for the EU to practice the 'widening', as well as 'deepening', of its perspectives towards its Asian partners, to keep up a multi-layered dialogue and to resist the temptation to offer up the concern and commitment required to the altar of business opportunities.

• Georg Wiessala is a senior lecturer in European studies at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston, England. His book, The EU and Asian Countries, is published this month by Continuum/UACES.

Author argues that the EU needs a new perspective on Asia, and a broader understanding of the continent's cultural issues, values and philosophies.