I find this article mildly annoying:

Is there an “Asian way” to resolving global challenges? The conventional answer is no. But elements of an Asian way are gradually emerging. Given Asia’s growing influence, the world should pay attention – and may have much to gain.

The key to understanding Asian approaches is their pragmatism. Asians constantly adapt and change. (Asia Times)

The fact that it could easily have been me writing the exact same sort of gimmicky article does not minimize my annoyance. Everyone loves a good generalization, or shorthand, or trend, or whatever you want to call it. But you need to have some basis for all this, otherwise it’s what we call . . . an empty generalization.

So let’s take a look here. Saying that Asians adapt and change sounds great. Lots of change in Asia in the past few decades. But “constantly”? I don’t think China was adapting all that much back in the 1700s or 1800s, but I guess that wasn’t within the scope of the article.

Does that statement also mean that non-Asian countries do not adapt? I think that would be a surprise to countries like Ireland, Israel, and Chile, just to name a few.

Moving onward:

In the past, Asians put a premium on protecting their sovereignty and were wary of any multilateral approaches that could dilute it. Now, in response to global challenges – for example pandemics, financial crises and climate change – the vast majority of Asian countries understand that collective action does not erode, but instead protects, sovereignty.

Have Asian countries given up sovereignty in recent years to multilateral organizations? Absolutely, just take a look at ASEAN. But to say that this is a particularly Asian thing is ridiculous. I think it’s safe to say that France and Germany were mildly interested in their sovereignty before good old Monnet and Schuman came along with their nutty idea of European integration, at first in the form of the ECSC. Hardly an Asian way of doing things.

[R]eflecting their pragmatism, the Asians remain ready to accept continuing American leadership and domination of global institutions. Nor do they challenge the US-led security umbrella for the Asia-Pacific region.

OK, that’s called realism. It’s not an Asian type of foreign policy, although it has been practiced successfully by countries like China over the years. Nixon and Kissinger were not Asian but were seen as the masters of realpolitik, not to mention some of Dr. K’s European heroes (e.g. Prince Metternich).

Sure, Asians are willing to cede to American military leadership. It’s cheaper that way, and there is no alternative. The better question is whether Asians will continue that policy stance as their economies (and perhaps militaries) continue to grow. Many analysts already point to a much more aggressive Chinese foreign policy in recent years. That’s pragmatic too, but pragmatism is not synonymous with accepting American leadership.

Asian model? I don’t see it. Perhaps the headline of the article should have been “Asian Nations Pursuing Realist Foreign Policies At Beginning of 21st Century.” I’d go along with that.

For a Friday afternoon, that was way too academic and negative.