I wonder what the author would recommend to replace the system of nation-states in Asia since the European model is the reason for all the problems in Asia?
Excerpt:
The European idea of the nation-state, realized after much horrific bloodshed in Europe itself, was always a poor fit for Asia’s diverse mosaic.
…
For Asian nations beset by their own present and potential ethnic cleansers, it is even more important to remember the relative youth of sectarian nationalism on the continent -- and the long centuries when it did not exist.
He seems to argue for secessionist movements. That seems fine but groups like the MILF have to secede from a nation-state and the nation-state still exists after succession. And he does not mention that the earlier successionist insurgency in the Philippines, the MNLF has not been very successful and still depends on the nation-state as the MILF will likely as well.. It would be interesting to hear from the author what he thinks should replace the nation-state. I guess I will have to read his book to find out.
Of course the fundamental US value does apply here and that is self determination – the right of the people to determine how they should be governed. It will be interesting to see how things play out in Asia and what the MILF example portends for other insurgent groups and the governments (nation-states) they are rebelling against.
V/R
Dave
Why Asia’s Insurgencies Are Europe’s Shame
December 10, 2012 6:30 PM EST
It wasn’t an incredible photo-op, and it’s unlikely to be included in this month’s valedictory roundup of 2012 highlights. In fact, it was barely reported.
One of this year’s most remarkable events, however, was the agreement between the Philippine government and the insurgent group Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
If successful, it may not only terminate decades of secessionist violence in Mindanao, the second largest island in the Philippines; it may also inspire hope in a wide swath of Asian countries damaged, politically as well as economically, by internecine conflicts.
Divide-and-rule European imperialists, favoring one ethnic group and persecuting or neglecting another, or drawing arbitrary lines in the sand or the grass, originally transformed social and religious differences into political antagonisms within Asian societies. Their local opponents -- mostly educated natives -- hardened religious and ethnic identities by turning them into a basis of anti-imperialist solidarity.
In the end, the principle of self-determination was widely exported from relatively homogenous Europe to multicultural Asia, where it was embraced by rising native elites. The result was the proliferation of hastily and poorly imagined national communities -- unwieldy nation-states where patchworks of relatively autonomous groups and individuals with multiple, overlapping identities had existed.
Since then, postcolonial rulers eager to hold on to their inheritance -- centralized states, administrations and large, resource-rich territories -- have made the map of Asia bleed red.
Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Pattani Muslims in Thailand, Baloch secessionists in Pakistan, Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang province, India’s Kashmiri Muslims and northeastern minorities - - there is barely an Asian nation-state where centralizing governments haven’t fought, often with brute military force, to hold down religious and ethnic minorities.
The secessionists have occasionally succeeded, if after much horrific bloodshed, as in East Pakistan and East Timor. More often they have looked to be upholding doomed causes. But the tremendous strain of fighting them has had uniformly devastating results, whether in Indonesia, Thailand or Sri Lanka: an enhanced political and economic role for men in uniform, the diminishment of rule of law and the loss of civil liberties.
(Continued at the link below)
No comments:
Post a Comment