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.

Silly political theater, but worth a mention. Details from Asia Times:

The United States-China Congressional Committee focused last week on a nagging question that refuses to go away: does it matter if China is America’s bank? Or, said differently, what are the implications for American geopolitics given China’s enormous holdings of US Treasurys?

These things usually focus on what China might do to the U.S. if the two countries have serious conflicts in the future. At the outset, therefore, I’m already pissed off because the debate has been framed by the “inevitable conflict” crowd.

The threshhold question should be: does it matter if the U.S. debt is this high?

The next question: does it matter if U.S. debt is held by foreigners? What percentage is acceptable?

Only then, says I, should they turn to this: Does it matter whether China, as opposed to say Japan, is the top foreign holder of U.S. government debt?

The congressional committee hearings last week drew on a variety of experts, the majority of whom agreed with the broad consensus that a “balance of financial terror” – the phrase of Larry Summers, director of the White House’s National Economic Council – remains the appropriate way to describe the current US-China economic relationship.

What the f&@$ does that even mean? Seriously. I don’t think the use of the word “terror” in post-9/11 D.C. is very responsible. Thanks, Larry.

If someone could explain exactly what China could do, and might do, that would hurt the U.S., I would be more forgiving. But the only thing these folks talk about is some horror story of China selling off massive quantities of T-bills, driving up U.S. interest rates.

Sounds scary, but China is locked into a death grip (I like that better than ‘financial terror’) with the U.S. Any drop in the value of the dollar will be very costly to Beijing, and it seems to me that they will seek to avoid that possibility.

Washington should probably be more worried about what might happen to U.S. interest rates if at some point in the future, China rebalances its economy to such an extent that it stops running huge trade surpluses with America. Won’t be anytime soon, but then again, I don’t see the U.S. fiscal deficits disappearing anytime in the short run either.

Yeah, I still have last night’s “Red Scare in Southern California” post in my mind. Crazy bastards. Hint: the following post does not contain a single original thought or concept but is a rant. If you are looking for something meatier and more thought-provoking, try this out instead (it’s about pornography, so you’ll have that going for you).

Today’s news didn’t help. Millions of people are apparently freaking out over the possibility that Yao Ming’s child might be an American citizen. If you can explain to me why anyone should really give a shit about this, please let me know.

I intensely dislike nationalism. It’s fundamentally irrational, based on the accident of who your parents are and where you were born, things that we don’t have any control over at all. It’s also one of the most significant contributors to friction between nations, specifically China and Western nations.

I don’t mean to get all Spock on you (Mr., not Dr.), but this is all about pride, and we all remember what Marcellus Wallace said about pride. Nationalism only ever makes sense, I suppose, if some other country has invaded and you have to pull a Red Dawn on them. In that case, a bit of national pride is probably a good thing.

In most other cases, nationalism leads to absurdity. Case in point, a very reasonable comment made by President Obama recently:

Asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism during a European trip last spring, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exception­alism.” (National Review)

Of course he was pilloried for this by Republicans and self-styled patriots. In their mind, one must not only love your country but also take every opportunity to explain to others why their country sucks. This is akin to the hardcore Christian who not only tells you that he believes in Jesus as his personal savior but makes it a point to let everyone else know that if they don’t share his views, they will burn in hell for all eternity.

But wait, the fun never ends. Also in the news this week was the decision by the International Gymnastic Federation to cancel Dong Fangxiao’s bronze medal from the Sydney Olympic games because she was underage.

Because it was the Olympics, and the athlete was competing on behalf of China, it has become an issue full of nationalistic overtones, with the Chinese screaming persecution and many foreigners seeing a sneaky conspiracy that tarnishes the entire China Olympic team (or country, for that matter).

Nationalism is bad enough when it adds to existing bilateral tension. It certainly fuels a lot of the bilateral trade disputes between China and the U.S., for example. But when nationalistic pride, a worthless proposition in general, enters even more meaningless conversations regarding sports, entertainment, or whether a world leader wears a “flag pin” on his lapel — that tells me that nationalists’ fundamental concern is not really about their country at all but about personal amusement.

Aren’t there better ways we can entertain ourselves than pissing in the pool of international relations?