I recently read Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
". I know, it was published some time ago, I should have read it earlier. But nonetheless, I read it, and it triggered some thoughts about Japan.
Some Japanese feel proud that Japan was singled out in this book as the only single state civilisation. It gives them a sense of superiority, a sense that the Japanese people are unique in this world. And that may be exactly what Huntington is implying. The Japanese are unique, and therefore, in the world order, they are a lonely people as well. They are not a part of Western civilisation. They are not a part of Sinic civilisation. They do not have sufficient religious claims to be Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox. And they are geographically separated from Latin American and African civilisations. They are, in short, without friends.
As Huntington said, "Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle." The current world system is based upon Western civilisation's ideas, one fundamental being that the player recognised on the international stage is the state. If we then follow the assumption that states serve to further their own goals, then we will come to the natural conclusion that states are selfish and, because no state is exactly the same as another, there are bound to be differing standards. This understanding is implicit within Western civilisation, but when viewed from the outside, becomes a "double standard". It makes it hard for other states to accept Western civilisation standard; they fail to understand how the West can say one thing, yet implement it differently across the spectrum. Japan is probably a good example. When it tried to gain membership into the Western club after tremendous effort spent modernising, it was continually frustrated by Western "double standards".
Copyright laws, nonproliferation of WMDs, even democracy, are Western standards meant to protect the interests of states from the Western civilisation. The current world order is full of such standards; even the United Nations is a Western idea. Western civilisation was able to, in short time, gain control over a large part of the world. And it has developed a system of standards to guard its interests, even as it is losing control over some parts of that world. The question is: Do we continue to subscribe to a system of standards imposed upon us by a single (Western) civilisation? Or should the world order reflect the current distribution of power, meaning that as other civilisations gain power, their standards should be adopted into the world order? Maybe, just maybe, all that "chaos" in the world now is because of the West not willing to change the world system to accommodate the rising powers from other civilisations.
Japan's future is gloomy indeed. If the future world order is going to be organised according to civilisations, we shall see the US continuing to lead the Western bloc, while China will likely build its own Sinic bloc centred on itself. Russia will undoubtedly lead the Orthodox bloc. Japan is unlikely to become a full member of any of these blocs, given cultural differences. How will Japan survive, much less to say compete, in a world of bloc economies, without a bank of resources?
". I know, it was published some time ago, I should have read it earlier. But nonetheless, I read it, and it triggered some thoughts about Japan.Some Japanese feel proud that Japan was singled out in this book as the only single state civilisation. It gives them a sense of superiority, a sense that the Japanese people are unique in this world. And that may be exactly what Huntington is implying. The Japanese are unique, and therefore, in the world order, they are a lonely people as well. They are not a part of Western civilisation. They are not a part of Sinic civilisation. They do not have sufficient religious claims to be Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox. And they are geographically separated from Latin American and African civilisations. They are, in short, without friends.
As Huntington said, "Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle." The current world system is based upon Western civilisation's ideas, one fundamental being that the player recognised on the international stage is the state. If we then follow the assumption that states serve to further their own goals, then we will come to the natural conclusion that states are selfish and, because no state is exactly the same as another, there are bound to be differing standards. This understanding is implicit within Western civilisation, but when viewed from the outside, becomes a "double standard". It makes it hard for other states to accept Western civilisation standard; they fail to understand how the West can say one thing, yet implement it differently across the spectrum. Japan is probably a good example. When it tried to gain membership into the Western club after tremendous effort spent modernising, it was continually frustrated by Western "double standards".
Copyright laws, nonproliferation of WMDs, even democracy, are Western standards meant to protect the interests of states from the Western civilisation. The current world order is full of such standards; even the United Nations is a Western idea. Western civilisation was able to, in short time, gain control over a large part of the world. And it has developed a system of standards to guard its interests, even as it is losing control over some parts of that world. The question is: Do we continue to subscribe to a system of standards imposed upon us by a single (Western) civilisation? Or should the world order reflect the current distribution of power, meaning that as other civilisations gain power, their standards should be adopted into the world order? Maybe, just maybe, all that "chaos" in the world now is because of the West not willing to change the world system to accommodate the rising powers from other civilisations.
Japan's future is gloomy indeed. If the future world order is going to be organised according to civilisations, we shall see the US continuing to lead the Western bloc, while China will likely build its own Sinic bloc centred on itself. Russia will undoubtedly lead the Orthodox bloc. Japan is unlikely to become a full member of any of these blocs, given cultural differences. How will Japan survive, much less to say compete, in a world of bloc economies, without a bank of resources?
No comments:
Post a Comment