|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The New Asian Order
| Article
# : |
21916 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
6 / 1993 |
2,182 Words |
| Author
: |
Herbert J. Ellison
Herbert J. Ellison is chairman of Russian and east
European studies at the University of Washington. He was
formerly secretary of the Kennan Institute for Advanced
Russian Studies in Washington, D.C. |
The structure of Asian international relations that formed in the years after World War II, and lasted for four decades, has largely disappeared. Much of the change came from the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, which ended the Cold War and greatly reduced Russia's role and power in Asia. But the shift away from the bipolar power of the past had begun long before Gorbachev, with the emergence of the Japanese economic superpower and the success of Chinese reform. The four-power system in Asia today (with India in a weak fifth place) is one in which the decisions affecting Asia's future are increasingly made in Beijing and Tokyo.
The implications of this change for Asia, and for the U.S. role in Asia, are enormous. To explore them requires looking first at the new roles and policies of each of the main actors on the Asia stage.
China's recent foreign policy has been a model of good neighborly relations with other Asian states, its foreign economic policy a pragmatic and highly successful pursuit of economic growth within the global economy. Yet official foreign policy statements often recall those of the Soviet leadership in the years of Brezhnev. In a recent policy commentary, Nicholas Kristof observes: "One cold war has ended-two cold wars have begun." The first is between capitalist and (the surviving) communist countries, the second within the Western alliances; and the "confrontation between the two systems and the two ideologies is still forces." Kristof then describes how the conflicts within the Western alliance can serve China's interest.
This is, of course, a traditional communist view of a world dominated by the struggle between the capitalist and socialist systems, and a reminder that China is governed by a communist party. But there are also many official pronouncements on Chinese economic policy that speak of the government's undying commitment to socialism, while the actual policy is to build a mixed economy. The foreign policy equivalent combines the proclamation of global confrontation between socialism and capitalism with a pragmatic policy aimed at extending Chinese economic power, territory, and political influence. Foreign policy has little to do with traditional communist goals; it is sharply focused on Chinese economic growth and territorial expansion.
The translation of these elements into policy is quite straightforward. Diplomatic relations are no longer a tool of communist ideological or revolutionary politics. One can ignore former Palestinian,
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
