"Asian Values": The Asian Abuse Excuse
Do "Asian values" exist as something definably different from "Western values"? Or is there one kind of human value, or human rights ideology, that supercedes country or race?
As I discussed in the last article, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has recently admitted Myanmar, known for its repressive military regime, into its economic midst. The United States, which has called for a worldwide economic boycott of Myanmar, predictably disapproved, and sent Secretary of State Madeline Albright to Southeast Asia to voice official disappointment.
What followed was an equally predictable charge from Southeast Asian leaders: that the United States doesn't understand "Asian values." Leading the charge, as usual, was Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, who pointedly reminded America to mind its own business. Other Asian leaders, notably Singapore's former Prime Minister, Lew Kwan Yew, and current Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, China's President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng, and Indonesia's President Suharto and Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, have made similar accusations. They claim that in the Asian paradigm, values such as consensus and stability trump individual rights and freedom, and they argue that the United States has no right to judge the humanitarian affairs of other nations.
The US typically dismisses claims of "Asian values" out of hand as a convenient excuse to continue the maintenance of an overly powerful state, in the case of Malaysia and Singapore, or outright human rights abuses, in the case of China and Indonesia. Albright harshly criticized the tactic during her recent visit. A recent editorial in the New York Times called the claims of Asian values "hollow" and "self-serving" (Aug. 2) while the subtler Washington Post called the argument "baloney" (Aug. 1).
But when Asian leaders stake the claim that the US doesn't understand "Asian values," what exactly are they claiming for these values? On the rare occasions that Asian leaders (or their policymakers) expand on this concept, one commonly heard word is "development." They claim that in order to further development, a strong state is needed to guide, organize and protect business the way the Japanese government did in the 1950s and 60s, and the way the governments of Taiwan and South Korea aided development in the 1970s and 80s. These nations, once they reached a point at which they were considered "developed," were able to further democracy by holding free and open presidential elections, as in Taiwan or South Korea, or by relaxing some bureaucratic regulations, as Japan did in the early 1980s.
Latest Articles