Home › Policy › Social Issues › Human Rights

Globalization: The Promises and The Perils, U.S. and Asian Responses

Share

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)
enlarge image

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)


While the emphasis in recent years has been very much on economic growth, it's now time I think for the US to lend its way to social investment as the foundation of all investment and as the best guarantor of strong societies and stable democratic government. I believe also that the US of course is the greatest beneficiary of the brain drain. I mean a large part - fifty percent - of all people that come to study here, for very good reason, elect to stay on in the United States and I think some of them are really the best brains.

Of course, that has been a mixed blessing because some of them of course, while they stay here, also return resources back to this and resources back to their own country. Some also take their expertise back and try to do something within their own countries. But the fact is that they have been lost to their countries of origin. I think just for that reason, the fact that they benefit from the brains, means also that they have a responsibility to give back to these communities something that they have gained from them. I think the US can also continue to exert its great influence in the international groupings on behalf of all the agreements and recommendations that have been reached at the international level in the conferences in conventions and treaties. Especially if it is to be a spokesman for the empowerment of all people, in particular women, the financial support is of course essential. But almost more importantly, is the moral leadership. I can demonstrate to you from our own field of work in the population field when the US really takes a leadership role, for example, immobilizing resources, in promoting certain sectors or issues that need to be addressed, it does make a difference.

As some of you may know, the international conference on population and development is the only conference that really agreed on a financial set of goals that should be reached by certain periods of time, both for the developed countries and for the developing countries. This was done really under the leadership of the United States, which, in fact, talked to all its partners in the European Union, in Japan, and got commitments from each one of these countries to increase support to the financial goals that needed to be reached. The US, because of its unique position, has a unique role that it must play. It's more than financial leadership, it's also moral leadership.

Europe and Japan look to the US for indications of commitment. For example, it called by the US for greater emphasis on social investment, and will, I think, resonate throughout the world and it will have its effect even on the poor woman at the village. It could help bring all these poor people into the 21st Century.

Thank you. 

M.Hunter | 07:29:10 12:57am
Usually when we speak of Asian globalization and its perils we speak about China. I had the privilege of having Robert Sutter as my professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. This scholar possesses a truly incredible grasp of China and the issues surrounding her Rise in Asia. I can earnestly recommend anyone remotely interested in Asian affairs to purchase his book and take advantage of Professor Sutter's expertise in the region. According to Sutter's theory, historically, China has had hegemonic ambitions. Not only she portrays her own struggles as of universal significance, she also keeps a close watch of countries around her periphery as if they are naturally within her sphere of influence. Her political leaders are hypersensitive to criticisms and tend to behave defensively. The Chinese plot their policies and strategies, not much guided by principles but mainly on a case-by-case bases. They are more likely to go after short-term gains than for long-term benefits. As a result, Chinese foreign policy tends to be capricious and disruptive. In Sino-US relations in particular, China has been long suspicious of U.S. ulterior motives and is actively hedging against U.S. policies through bilateral and regional actions. In the same vein, Sutter views China's recently totted "peaceful rising" with suspicion. Whether China has truly renounced aggressive posture in her international dealings, or she just says so to "bid time" in order to secure economic growth, remains to be seen. As how to engage a rising China, Sutter sees Bush administration's approach as a potential model: keep her at arms length, do not give any unwarranted expectations (as Clinton administration has purportedly done), and stand firm. My personal observation is, although there is some truth to many of his assertion, Sutter's ultimate fallacy is that he uses a liberalist standard to criticize China in order to justify U.S. own realist strategy.
Orchard | 05:19:10 04:30pm
Ambassador Platt should be commended on his efforts to introduce the issue of Economic expansion and crisis and it's effect on the population of Asia to the American people.

Post new comment

Your comments are welcome, please adhere to our guidelines

Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; nor will profane, abusive or threatening posts.

Keep it short (150 words or less), Stay on topic.

Asia Society reserves the right to moderate all comments and remove or edit for guideline violations. Thank you.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.