What's in a name? -- Re: "What Asian Century?"

What's in a name?

[For some, a great deal... For example, the 2002 World Cup, was titled the Korea-Japan World Cup in exchange for the finals being held in Japan... By the way, that was a very exciting time... I wonder what would've happened if the U.S. and South Korea didn't tie 1-1 though...]

But anyways, I found this article "What Asian Century" by Guy Sorman over at Project Syndicate, where the author argues against the name of an Asian Century in favor of a Global Century. Personally, I could care less about naming the 21st century the Asian Century, but what I didn't like about the article is that, well, first of all, it's 2010 and, second, it talks of security structures in Asia out of context...

 

The thing is, well, history doesn't divide itself nicely from the American Century to the "Asian Century" or the "Globalized Century" or ... [some name]...I mean it's just a name and, we still don't know what will happen in December 21st, 2012. But rather than current security structures highlighting a globalized century (or for a "multipolar globalized world" there'd be security blocs like NATO all over the world, which isn't the case today), it just happens that security arrangements in the form of blocs (Europe) and a bicycle wheel and spoke system using bilateral alliances (East Asia or the global higher education system for the forseeable future) haven't really changed at all since 1991. They all have the U.S. at the center. This indicates contiunation of the American century more so than anything about a "globalized century" or anything else for that matter... But, it may also be that the way the world is configured today just does not reflect today's underlying power relationships and conflicts (or tomorrow's)...  I'd say that the 20th century would be the best example and I'd continue to argue against the presence of a global community of enlightened nations... It still looks like the way countries treat each other haven't come to resemble the way people treat each other... So, it's relevant to put the security arrangement in context...

We just don't know what will happen if war erupted in Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, or, most likely, Iran. Or conflicts between China-Japan (Senkaku Islands) or Japan-Korea (Liancourt Rocks) or Japan-Russia (Kuril Islands), China-India (the Northeastern Indian province China claims), China-Vietnam/China-ASEAN (Spratly Islands), China-US/Japan (Taiwan), etc etc ...

Which could at any time burst the bubble of a "globalized century" ...

 

Consider:

 

If an argument is going to be made by using the current secuirty structures found in East Asia, especially as the name to me just seems to go only to to the extent to highlight how far India and China have come in light of the past three or four centuries, then it'd be fair to put the security structures that the author talks about in context. The current security structure of the world reflects a U.S. dominated world order and it is hard to differentiate 2010 from 1991. 

[Europe]

The United States still stations soldiers in Germany and its special relationship with the British ensures that the British are, well, the Trojan Horse to ensure that the EU never develops a strong, federal government with a foreign policy with a security framework independent of NATO (the U.S.)... This will ensure that Germany's insecurities against the Russians will remain, which will ensure that the Germans remain dependent on the U.S. (NATO). Of course, there's still the argument of NATO's relevancy in the 21st century (as NATO's present shortcomings in Afghanistan highlight)... The EU's rapid reaction force of some 30,000 soldiers that was proposed at least a decade ago (?), which even after the conflict in Georgia, remains, far from ready...

 

[East Asia]

In East Asia... it's much the same in that nothing really has changed to differentiate 2010 from 1991 except that instead of NATO there's the continuation of bilateral alliances, which suggest a bicycle wheel and spoke system, where the U.S. is at the center and the U.S. has alliances with a ring of countries that encircles China (I believe the addition of Vietnam and India... with hopefully, a Russia in some form + a U.S. friendly Iran (in one way or another)....  will prove to be a sufficient hedge against possible, future Chinese adventurism)... But, anyways, the current structure still has the U.S. as the dominant power in the region with all countries looking to the U.S. for protection.

 

When the Japanese can no longer credibly believe the U.S. will be able to defend them and look towards alternatives -- such as a nuclear armed Japan or a China-Japan detente, then perhaps it could be argued that a "globalized century" is here or some new time is here... Otherwise, just by looking at security structures in East Asia, it's hard to distinguish anything different between today and 1991. In fact, I'd continue to label the current time that we live in the American Century (by adding in that higher education is located in the "core" nations of the North Atlantic)...