Nationalism in Asia
Joshua Kurlantzick writes that despite rapid growth in Asian economies, the continent remains too divided by rival nationalisms to cooperate and compete with a western-centric world order:
Whenever I visit Asia, I meet young people who detest neighbors they barely know. “The Thais, all they care about is money. Nothing else,” one Burmese acquaintance told me in Rangoon, despite the fact that he’d never actually been to Thailand. In one study taken last year by a leading Japanese nongovernmental organization, two-thirds of the Chinese polled said they had either a “very bad” or “relatively bad” impression of Japan.
As any politician can tell you, public opinion counts. In an open society such as the Philippines, rising anti-Chinese sentiment helped force the government in September 2007 to suspend China-funded projects valued at $4 billion. Even countries that have little history of animosity toward each other can be swept into a rage by the new nationalists. In 2006, after Singaporean state investment fund Temasek Holdings purchased Thai telecommunications giant Shin Corporation, Thai bloggers and online columnists condemned the deal, arguing that a Singaporean company would have control over sensitive Thai communications infrastructure. Thousands of Thais marched to Singapore’s embassy in Bangkok — a move that left urbane Singaporean diplomats, more accustomed to managing business deals than bullhorns, a bit flat-footed.
I would add that regime-type probably matters here. Two countries that both have firmly established open, liberal democratic political systems featuring the rule of law can cooperate with one another in deeper and more complex ways than two countries that don’t. When the commitment of one or both countries to the rule of law is in question, then cooperation requires a lot of trust, and trust isn’t necessarily in strong supply. In particular, unless the Chinese political system dramatically alters at some point, most countries — including countries that are not themselves democracies — will probably find it more desirable to partner with the United States or the EU when possible.
42 Responses to “Nationalism in Asia”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Two countries that both have firmly established open, liberal democratic political systems featuring the rule of law can cooperate with one another in deeper and more complex ways than two countries that don’t.
I’ve seen you say this before, but sometime I’d like a deeper explanation of how it works. Why couldn’t you get cooperation between monarchies?
September 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Yes, our unshakable commitment to the rule of law will certainly be a selling point in years to come.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Many Indians I talk with tend to not have negative opinions of their neighbors (even of Pakistan). I suppose that this is an example of an open political system?
September 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Uh, this is a broken hypothesis.
Dubai Ports? Airbus/Boeing? Fuji/Kodak in the 80s?
Let’s not even get to the WTO issues that the US has screwed Canada over.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I seem to recall European countries (and maybe the U.S.) pretty much dominating the world in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And they didn’t really cooperate much. More like they went to war every week.
Guess you don’t have to cooperate to rule the world.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Two countries that both have firmly established open, liberal democratic political systems featuring the rule of law can cooperate with one another in deeper and more complex ways than two countries that don’t.”
You’ve never been to Asia, have you? Laos and China have a very cooperative relationship (although China obviously gets the better deal). Neither of those countries are even remotely democratic. Cambodia and Thailand are slightly more democratic, but they hate each other and are currently involved in a border skirmish over an ancient Hindu temple. I’d argue that democracy actually increases animosity in Asia by giving voice to ancient rivalries (of which there are plenty). Corrupt and autocratic governments are able to cooperate better because they will personally profit from it. Burma is arguably the least democratic country in the world, yet it had no trouble cooperating with Thailand to build a natural gas pipeline to Bangkok. And Thailand isn’t the least bit concerned that it is propping up the Myanmar junta (they’d kill their own Karen population if they could get away with it). When there’s real money at stake in Asia, human rights doesn’t even take a back seat, it gets thrown off the bus.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’m not sure if the 2006 Thai telecom deal is really the best example. You can’t talk about the failure of that deal without mentioning that it was owned by Thailand’s PM, Thaksin, who already faced immense opposition from the Thai middle class. Sure, there was a nationalist sentiment to the anger, but it was also the feeling that Thaksin was selling out his people and his country for his own benefit.
I agree with Fostert, for the most part. What can’t be forgotten, however, is that these are generally fairly young democracies that are attempting to form a sense of national identity. Part of that means pushing their national identity, often at the expense of their neighbors. In Korea, for example, it is quite convenient for a politician to stoke tensions with Japan in times of flagging popularity. You see the same thing in Taiwan, where the issue of China is often utilized as a rhetorical bugle call to rally the troops, while in reality both the KMT and DPP have quite similar policies on China. Democracy opens the door to such identity politics where authoritarian or dictatorial rule is usually a bit better at keeping it closed.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Whitey’s right about the telecom deal. There were many people in Thailand who wanted to take Thaksin down, and the ShinCorp deal was just a way to do it. I think the real issue was that Bangkok merchants wanted better trade relations with China and Thaksin wouldn’t play ball. But, in Thailand, it’s very difficult to determine what the real issues are. The only thing you can count on is this: if it’s in the news, it’s probably not a real issue.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Nationalism and ethnocentrism are alive and well in Asia. When I lived in Hong Kong, a friend of mine who ran a hotel said, “We can never forgive the Japanese for what they did to us during the war.” He a assuaged his anguish by charging his Japanese guests twice the rate that he charged his British and American guests. And his Japanese guests seemed blissfully unaware they were getting shafted.
Then, of course, there’s Malaysia, where the Malays have implemented an apartheid-lite regime over the ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indian population. One Malay I spoke to told me that all the Chinese were greedy, and the Indians were crooks. An ethic Chinese I spoke to told me that the Malays were lazy, and the Indians were crooks. And and Indian taxi driver I spoke to told me that the Chinese were greedy and Malays were lazy. Go figure.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
And Whitey’s right about Korea and Japan as well. Once, when I was in Seoul, they had a big openning night for a biopic on Ahn Choong-Kun. aka “Citizen Ahn”. This is almost like a major motion picture celebrating John Wilkes Booth openning in Richmond.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
beowulf888: That’s the best description of Malaysia I’ve ever read.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Unless Americans put McCain/Palin in the White House, demonstrating that the Chinese have had it right all along.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
RE: Beowulf888
I would say that Malaysia is more like post-apartheid South Africa than apartheid South Africa. The 1968 Malay nationalist riots were in response to Indians and Chinese – Chinese in particular – dominating the economic sphere in a country where Malays made up the vast majority of the population. Now, if Chinese just happened to be the dominant economic group through their own hard work, perhaps the apartheid analogy would work. In reality, however, their place in the economy – along with the Indians – was the result of decades of preferential treatment by British colonial overlords. As such, the current regime offering Malays preferential treatment is more one of affirmative action to correct inequities created in the past than it is “apartheid”.
Moreover, Malaysia isn’t particularly rigid with its Malay quotas. While the law ostensibly holds that Malays are supposed to own a large portion (half?) of private enterprises and have a large number of spots on the boards of those companies (also half, I believe), this is not a policy that is rigidly enforced, as the necessities of economic development are deemed more important than the letter of the law. Ultimately, the goal is to elevate Malays to equal footing with Chinese and Indian Malaysians, as otherwise Malaysia will not be able to exist.
Note: Malays are still at the bottom of Malaysia’s economic spectrum in terms of average income, below Malaysian Chinese and Indians. That doesn’t sound like apartheid to me.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The other thing about Malaysia is that every political scandal there seems to involve anal sex.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The rise of Europe occur with the continent divided by religion and national rivalry. The competition may have even spurred along development and growth.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“Ultimately, the goal is to elevate Malays to equal footing with Chinese and Indian Malaysians, as otherwise Malaysia will not be able to exist.”
You sure about that? The ethnic Chinese minority in Thailand dominates the economy, and Thailand seems to do fine. Except for their constant political uprisings, of course. But that doesn’t seem to affect the economy too much (they rebound quickly). And I’ve never heard anyone complain that the Chinese control too much in Thailand. It’s not really an issue. Of course, the King has some Chinese blood, so maybe that’s why. My guess is that Malaysia would do fine if the Chinese ran everything (not just the economy). And if the Malays want more control, they should earn it through merit. Give everyone the same access to education, and let the best rise to the top. And, yes, it will be the Chinese who rise.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
You’re assuming some kind of universality that isn’t there and ignoring the very different histories of Thailand and Malaysia. Thailand’s Chinese are a community that dates back a very long time, to before Europeans entered onto the scene, and who were allowed in by the Thai monarchy. Malaysia’s Chinese were invited in by the British to help with the economy and to allow for the British Empire’s trademark divide-and-rule politics. The history of preferential treatment doesn’t exist for Thailand’s Chinese population as it does for Malaysia’s Chinese population.
Religion is also an important factor to note. Malays are Muslim, while the Malaysian Chinese are not. Ethnic Thais and Thai Chinese tend to be Buddhist or Taoist; in any case, their religions do not come into friction with one another. When many Malays wish to have an Islamic state and Malay Chinese do not, this becomes a problem.
Moreover, Thailand’s ethnic Chinese community tends to assimilate into being Thai themselves, adopting Thai surnames and speaking Thai as their primary language, as well as intermarrying with ethnic Thais. The Malaysian ethnic Chinese community stands out from the ethnic Malay community much more, having maintained a more distinctly Chinese character.
Suffice it to say, some decisions must be made for political expediency. Thais don’t have the same history of animosity with their ethnic Chinese community that Malays do, and as such, it isn’t such a big deal that Chinese dominate the economy. Malays make up 50% of the population, dominating the political scene, and could make the country much worse off if they were left to be second class citizens in a country that they dominate demographically. In a perfect world, sure, let the best rise to the top. But ethnic Malays could destabilize the country to the point that no one would do well economically, if they were left out, and that’s what they threatened to do before the NEP was put in place. As it currently stands, Malaysia has proved to be one of Southeast Asia’s more resilient countries, both politically and economically, and their system of “apartheid” is largely to thank for this.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Whitey- Fair enough. There’s obviously a big difference between Thai and Malay histories and religions. But I still think that Malaysia would be better off if they let the Chinese run the country, even if that’s not what the Malays want. That said, the Malays do have a right to control their country. I just don’t think they can run it very well. And the more power the Malays take, the less foreign investment they will receive. Investors trust the Chinese, they don’t trust the Malays.
Interestingly, we haven’t really mentioned the Indians, have we? My take on that is that they will do fine whatever happens. The Indians are survivors wherever they go. They never seem to take over an economy, but they always prosper in an upper-middle class way. In the end, they’ll let the Chinese and Malays battle it out, and they’ll just go about their business.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Here in Korea anti-Japanese sentiment simmers below a lot of the politcs. Hey! It’s amazing what half a century of brutal colonial occupation will do to a country!
Now there are a couple reasons why the Koreans are really pissed off. One is that they see Japan as forgiven by the world for their war crimes in WWII. The Koreans I met think everyone likes Japan better–but that they don’t know Japan’s war record. The other reason, which is more political, is that Japan seems to do small diplomatic things to remind Korea of its war crimes. Case in point: the recent HUGE HUBUB about Dokdo/Takeshima/Laincourt Rocks. People in the US probably haven’t heard of this crisis but it’s frequent front page news here. Basically there are these small barely inhabited rocks in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The Koreans say they belong to Korea. The Japanese say they belong to Japan. The crux of the argument is that Japan captured them as part of their invasion of Korea, but somehow they were left out of the treaty ending Japanese occupation. So. We have two rocks with disputed sovreignty (and, to be fair, valuable fishing rights dealing with them). Doesn’t seem like too much of a big deal? Well it is. A month ago or so a Japanese school textbook listed Dokdo as a part of Japan and just hearing about Dokdo is enough for most Koreans to rail into the Japanese for months.
Anyway. The thesis of this comment is that anti-Japanese sentiment has some reason behind it, and if Japan were to pursue a less aggressive foreign policy (one that didn’t rub its wartime occupation in the face of its neighbors) there might be less of it.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Brendan, you can rest assured the everyone in the region is still pissed off at Japan. Even the Thai, who allied with them. The Thai complaints are based more on current Japanese policy, however. The deforestation of Thailand has been accomplished mostly by Japanese companies. And the Thai aren’t happy about it. Especially since the deforestation is being done to supply disposable chopsticks, which the Thai don’t even use.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Just go back and look at the Bruce Lee Kung-Fu movies. The way the Japanese are depicted, if done to blacks in this country, would get the movie producers killed.
I talked to a Japanese inmate at Leavenworth and asked him why he wasn’t sitting with the other Asians in the mess hall. He asked if I was kidding – the others were Vietnamese. He said the Chinese and Japanese consider Vietnamese to be “niggers” (he used that term).
In other words, it’s not just nationalism, it’s major racism.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You have to remember that in China in particular, history is much more “alive” than in the West. Remember the movement to “Criticize Lin Biao and Confucius” during the Cultural Revolution? Just try getting a popular movement to, say, “criticize Plato” in the West (a fair comparison, since Confucius was in no way a religious leader or considered divine).
World War II is yesterday. I’ve been at dinner with Chinese families where people would get into screaming fights over the behavior of some character who lived two or three thousand years ago. They will be hating on the Japanese for a while yet, I’m afraid.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:47 am
I was under the impression that the Indians brought up the rear in Malaysia. Something like Indians = 1% of economy, Malays = 20% of economy.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:21 am
I too rather despite Thais. Back when I used to play Asian MMOs, the Thais would run around (on the English server) grieving by screaming “Give me items! I Thai!”
I shit you not.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am
The hatred towards the Japanese by Filipinos and the Chinese may help to ease their conscience about the collaboration of their fellow countrymen with their Japanese occupiers. By constantly attacking the Japansese atrocities it makes easier to ignore the compromises that some Chinese and Filipinos made with the enemy. Both China and the Phillipines have yet to go what France went through in the sixties and seventies in coming to grips with the complexity of the Second World War.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
DJ has the right of it and Whitey is wrong.
Indians are the poorest group in Malaysia, not Malays. That’s why there has been a fair amount of Indian agitation in Malaysia recently, and Malaysia has reacted by limiting the visas it gives to Indians.
The Bumiputra doctrine in practice keeps Indians poorer than other groups. It’s affirmative action for a majority targeted against the Chinese, and the Malay ruling elite doesn’t care if it screws over the Indians.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Indians used to be rich in Malaysia, but after all of the ethnic riots the rich Indians left and only the poor Indians remained.
Good point. Also, in Thailand isn’t there a lot of intermarriage between ethnic Chinese and Thai peoples? IIRC the Thai monarchy also cracked down on Chinese-only schools early last century to force the Chinese to integrate more.
Young democracies, inside Asia and outside Asia, tend to drift on the whims of reactionary nationalism more than moderate dictatorships and established liberal democracies. They also tend to be more war-like. The Balkans right after the end of communism, modern Russia, post-H-B Cote d’Ivoire, etc. all show this to some degree. In Asia in particular, it doesn’t help that the Japanese right has decided to use cultural nationalist wedge issues to motivate their base in ways that needlessly provoke other Asians. Nationalist protests against Japan in China are also in part proxy protests against a Chinese state they see as non-responsive to their demands over relations with Japan.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Two countries that both have firmly established open, liberal democratic political systems featuring the rule of law can cooperate with one another in deeper and more complex ways than two countries that don’t.”
As most commenters have noted, this is rather ahistorical. Americans hear “China” and they think “rising mainland People’s Republic.” But most of the Southeast nationalism is directed at either new investment, or at ethnic Chinese who have been in Southeast Asian countries for over a hundred years, and dominated their economies from the level of shopkeeper to tycoon. Singapore similarly represents China in this analysis, given it’s basically a Chinese immigrant community that got sovereignty.
Outside the ethnic/economic/historic context, how does it makes sense that the Philippines would reject money from Chinese businessmen. Because China’s court system’s not reliable enough? Or why would Thais object to purchases from the Singapore sovereign wealth fund–because the Singapore government uses libel law to go after opponents? Comeon.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Whitey: So you support racial discrimination, then? Because that’s how the ethnic Chinese and Indians regard the Bumipatra system. Most of the ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians are native-born Malaysians, but they get second class citizenship. There have been Chinese communities in Malaysia for over 400 years. I’m not sure about the Indian communities, but he Indians have been trading with SE Asia a long long time. So I suspect that the Indian communities have deeper roots in Malaysia than the ethnic chinese. But Malays get subsidized university educations, preferential loans, and a bunch of other advantages. It’s much much more than an affirmative action program for those poor colonial-oppressed Malays…
September 8th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Considering what the Chinese are doing to the Uyghers and Tibetans, I don’t mind at all that some Hans are getting a taste of it somewhere.
I wish it didn’t happen anywhere, but at least this is equivalent in an eye-for-an-eye way.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Beowulf: I don’t support racial discrimination. I do support having a country that is actually capable of functioning. Malaysia has the highest per capita incomes in SEA outside Singapore, which, as a city-state, doesn’t really count, so clearly something is working. Corporations don’t invest in countries that are highly unstable, and will pull their money out if it looks like things are going sour politically. The price of stability is a somewhat unjust political system. Without the imposition of the NEP, it is likely that Malay nationalism would have further destabilized the system and worsened the position of non-Malay Malaysians.
In any case, Malaysia has avoided being stringent with the business related targets of the NEP, choosing pragmatism over a stringent commitment to advancing Malays. People always complain about affirmative action programs that do not benefit their group, from white conservatives in the States to white South Africans. In particular, the latter group can claim to have been in a place for 400 years, while also having benefited from colonial associations.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 13th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 8th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
viagra