The Perspective On The Ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific. =============================================================== By Simon Laub Viborgvej 103.A 8210 Hasle , Aarhus Denmark Europe A Perspective On The Ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific. =============================================================== S U M M A R Y ====================== In this essay I shall start out with giving my perspective on : What the world look like , from each individuals point of view. How that transforms into how nations sees themselfes and each other. The learning needed , if we are all going to be better off. Why we are probably not going to change in our ways , even though most evidence would indicate , that we better. Later I shall come down from my high horse , and narrow the subjectmatter down. I shall admit that progress is slow , and for the time being , the above is perhaps a utopian discussion. Nevertheless some simplifications in the way we see the world might demonstrate , that there is still hope . In the sense , that many interesting possibilities exist for us out there in the future. One of the more promising is a closer tie between Europe and Asia Pacific. A relationship of global proportions, which in itself might be a way to address the issues mentioned earlier. At the very least , it should be a way of improving daily life for people in Europe and Asia Pacific. And introducing idea's and ways of thinking fitting an optimistic view of what the 21 century will be like. A Perspective On The Ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific. =============================================================== 1. The hard facts of life (or the way people and nations work) ================================================================= 1.1. Realism. ---------------- According to the realists of this world , everything a man will ever do , is deep down motivated by selfishness. In such a hard setting one could ask , how there could ever be cooperation, love and kindness. The realist would answer , that these things are just different expressions of selfishness. The ones we love, husbands and wifes, are partners we have chosen . Because we believe , they will provide social status , good genes to offspring and good child rearing .Likewise friends are the ones , we can trust , the ones who doesn't pass on sensitive information on us , who are there in times of crisis etc. The realist will tell us , that there is nothing romantic about all this. Its just part of the survival game - we humans are involuntarily playing in. 1.2. Power. --------------- In trying to do better . We must enhance our power (our status among fellow humans) . This way ,we will secure offspring better chances and make our life more pleasant. Generally speaking , power can be gained in three directions (at least according to british political scientist Steven Lukes). Either by brute force , using physical force to pursuade other humans to do as you please. Or by controling the focus of attention of a group (In a society by controling the political agenda). Thereby making sure, that idea's dangerous to your welbeing ,doesn't come up on a regular basis. Or by "brainwashing" others to be your loyal soldiers (often in contrast with their own real interests). Parents and teachers of course engage in this type of behaviour all the time. But here it is taken in its widest form possible - to include all kinds of implementing beliefs and convictions in others , which ultimately will work to your benefit. 1.3. Struggle. ----------------- Surely life is a place of struggle. And as people try to do better , by using some of the techniques above (and others). So to with nations. Some band together , believing that to be the smart move of the day (EU) , others believe plain old bullying will win the battle (Iraq). Its obvious ,that noone would fancy losing in the game of life. But I (and many with me) have always wondered how one could find real pleasure in winning the "game" - if one had to be the winner in a crowd of impoverished nations. Somehow it seems that the victory , is very temporary indeed , if the environment all together is utterly poor. Self interest should somehow motivate winners to try to fecundate surroundings with prosperity. Or so you would think. In the real world , even the winning nations are filled with losers ( E.g. Spain hosts a 25 unemployment rate, with other rich countries trailing close by). All together its estimated , that as many as 820 million people are unemployed in the world. Even worse is the widespread starvation , high sickness rates etc. which is present in even rich (or could be rich) countries like Brazil etc. And is most certainly a "fact of life" to s large percentage of the human race around the world. And it seems so utterly unnecessary - realizing the potential good 5 billion people could do. Mass communication certainly should make shared high ideals possible. 1.4. High Ideals for change. ------------------------------- Its a question of whether you believe in the human spirit or not. If you do - then there aren't a problem 5 billion people can't fix. What is needed is a formulation of what is desired for humanity. After a formulation of clear goals - the problem solving in itself seems an easy task. So why haven't we agreed on : No starvation , no crime , no wars - improved medical knowledge to eradicate most or all trivial diseases. Vast technical programes to raise technical capabilities , thereby raising welfare levels around the world etc. Its difficult to see other answers , than lack of common will and belief. Combined with lack of purpose and direction. Does one then need a World War ll - disasterlike situation to bring people together ( As Britain under Churchill in WW ll) - Working for high principle and common good. History does seem to indicate so. 1.5. The cynicism that kills (all good plans). ------------------------------------------------ "Why transfer money to Africa ? Why not to the southpole then ! Buy fish for the polar bears , at least they will be happy. All help and good intentions in the world presently sums up to a prolonged period of pain." --- Or so at least according to critics at the UN - conference on social issues in Copenhagen 1995. And surely its difficult to see , that things should be heading for immediate improvement. Other cynics goes even further : "What would you be left to worry about, to scratch your bad conscience, if the poor, the hungry, the disposesed, stopped being the poor, the hungry etc etc. What would you talk about ?" Needless to say I wouldn't agree with such pessimism. Solving one probleme , means that you are ready to solve another - letting a bad situation stay bad , means that you might be heading for a situation totally out of control. Naturally the pessimists likes to dwell in the less than impressive UN results : "Imagine what happens when someone shouts famine in Africa. Immediately inapropriate foodstuffs are dropped and thousands converge on the spot. Immediately the cycle of sowing and harvesting ceases. Famine is now guaranteed in that area. Throw in a few arms and you have blighted a peoples for ever. So off you go again, wailing about the starving, looking at them on the TV, telling everyone how sorry you are for them etc etc. What has changed? Nothing. The UN gets bigger and bigger and the disasters get bigger and bigger. What is the alternative? Well stop doing what you are doing. This is only possible if you learn something new you did not know before. When you take the data, you will find that 95% of all aid leads to worse conditions than before. Everytime a war stops being cold and starts getting hot, the UN pulls out. So much for peacekeepers." ETC. The above surely also a distorted picture of what goes on in the real world - but it reflects the fact , that good will alone will not do the job. And surely its not more rhetoric the world needs. Its effective deeds. How can it be , that the will for change is there , and still its possible to sit infront of your TV and see over the dinner table, bloodshed in Ruanda, starvation in Africa. Is there not some truth to the claim , than these world organizations could be said to be even harmfull , as they allows you to blame others and allows you not to ask what you are contributing to the disasters. And can anyone really ever trust the ones in power to do the right thing. Remember Machiavelli, a true political scientist of the first order - although a disputed one , said: people rise to and retain power through one of two ways: through fraud or through force. Of these two, the former is preferred over the later. Why? Because those who are being defrauded, because of the nature of fraud, do not detect their loss and so, not feeling it, do not act against it. However, those who use force are seen for what they are and their opponents in the struggle for power, rise up and oppose him. Of these two, fraud is the preferable route. Knowing this - or having read Machiavelli , would then somehow make you sceptical inclined to everything you ever heard from leaders. But perhaps worst of all , is the demand for great plans - where the planner himself (herself) somehow isn't incorporated. It is easy to have elaborate plan full of the sentiments , that all well meaning people pump out, behind which lies the value: if others changed, then the world would be alright. i.e. Simon doesn't have to change. Because Simon can write and talk as he does, it is clear he is already qualified to be a citizen of this new and better world. ETC. So its easy to be sceptical. But what happens , if we just let the world take the road of "least resistence" ? 2. Trouble ahead. ====================== 2.1. Mankind finished by 2183. ------------------------------------- The history of mankind will end in 2183. Or so at least according to danish nuclear physicist Holger Bech Nielsen. Quite contrary to public opinion he considers himself an ordinary human being. Average in all respects - height,age, intelligence etc. He claims , that there is absolutely nothing special about him. If X number of humans will walk the earth spanning a period from the dawn of time into the distant future. He uses a probability argument to say , that as he is average in all respects , he will probably walk the earth somewhere in the middle. Meaning app. as many humans will walk the earth before him as after. He know how many humans has already been here. App. as many will follow - likewise he knows the current growth rate. All together its easy to see , that the last human will walk the earth sometime in the summer of 2183. Others have used arguments about natural resources , pollution or the spread patterns of diseases to come up with equally grim figures. 2.2 Earth inc. ----------------- Anyway it doesn't take much amour-propre on behalf of the human race to see something has to be done. If humans shall not join the dinosaurs soon ,in the rank of the extinct. If you compare running the world with the running of a business. Barings Bank seems almost perfect in comparison. Surely you would think about replacing managers , both in some local headquarters , but certainly also in the "central" office of Earth inc. 1/4 of of the workforce is layabouts , doing nothing. And another major fraction is cut off from mainstream production for various other reasons. Most have so few skills , that they can only do jobs the high-tech office of the "firm" plans to replace with robots. E.g. compare Scandinavia with India : Real GNP pr inhabitant ...................17880.........1150 percent readers ......................99 %.........50 % years in school ......................11..........2.4 phones pr 100 inhabitants ......................88..........0.8 cinema visist pr inhabitant pr year .....................1.8............5 number of inhabitants pr doctor .....................390.........2440 Etc. etc. And as we all know (?) - most Indian films aren't that great after all (kind of Dynasty set in Bombay - interrupted with Hindi singing .... just to show my obvious bias). The above should be an illustration of sorts , of the typical lack of common playing field . But sure , e.g. the indian elite might be as high standard as any in the developed world . Nevertheless , the overall picture is as painted above. And what a waste that is . 3. Hope ============= 3.1. We do belong together ( At the very least - sports will illustrate this) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At a first glance one could be inclined to turn one's back on the problems of the world. Minding one's own business , without being fatiqued on an apparently hopeless problem. Nevertheless , as tempting as that might be , that isn't human nature either. Or more precisely - it isn't pleasing to the human spirit Anyway , in all walks of life , the indicators are there , that an internationalization is taking place. People find common interests and joint concerns , while at the same time learn about each other - as never before in recorded history. (If nothing else to prove it , then the number of people watching the same football matches during the World Cup could give a clou). 3.2. Simplification. ---------------------- Nevertheless , home is still "home sweet home". So sure we see more of the "other side" , but perhaps it was easier to deal with the world in the past, as one had a clear defined "us" vs. "them". Cultural exchange might have blurred that. ( The introduction of Tv and thereby greater understanding of peoples and societies around the world - have somehow made all the complexities so obvious, that few dare have an opinion , about world issues anymore - except the most obvious standpoints ). To combat this , I have introduzed (for myself) extreme simplification. I shall start with considering people class X only - no mention of sex, color,age , religion or nationality. From thereon one can again begin to have a world perspective and deal with matters, that concerns vast number of peoples. Surely , no doubt the subjects of this "pure" model will soon begin to introduze "markers" on each others - In order to gain some sort of advantage for themselfes on the "others" (those without that "marker" : male, blue-eyed , American express holders, chicken rangers or busdrivers or whatever - the ones outside the group of defined good guys ... are of course always the losers of such an arrangement). I take this to be part of human nature (and as such a component of human success). Making a small group , that sticks together, and thereby gains an advantage. The question is , if you can have more members , with the same kind of benefits and still be successful. So what is interesting to my mind - is not so much to gain the upper hand for group A over B - But raising the level of A and B to as high a level as possible. 3.3. Simple Nations=Homogeneous nations win. ---------------------------------------------- One generalization will have it , that today the successful nations are the stable "simple" nations. Meaning ethnically simple (homogeneous) - like Denmark,Sweden,Switzerland,Japan or South Korea. Or with a shared belief system , that is constantly enforced (like the US). Whereas nations divided in tribal divisions, different ethnic groups - or divided by competing belief systems - have done rather poorly. The difficult for mankind is to learn how to works together - even though you don't share the same sex, the same race , the same religion etc. Somehow it seems to me , that cooperation breaks down , as humans somehow doesn't find it worthwhile to build that dam , that railroad etc. etc. if the ones , who doesn't belong to the "us" group also benefits. No better relax on that task , and focus your energy with friend at home. And no wonder that the dam,railroad etc. is never made...... Certainly this is also a result of the ancient survival game - we are more dependant on the one's at home, so we give them our energy (which BTW. makes sense , doesn't it ?). The interesting part is of course , that if you increase the size of a society - from tribal societies to more complex modern day states - the output to each individual is also increased - a lesson well worth noting. Imagine the US as 50 competing states, not agreeing on anything, but with each state trying to get ahead on the others. It should be obvious , that the end result is less fruitful , than a scenario , where the states work together. 3.4. The UN-secretary general shows the way. ---------------------------------------------- It has been suggested , that each of the rich countries should "adobt" one poor country each. As to make responsibilities clearer. The idea was inevitablely shot down , as it reminded some, to much of the old colonial system. Nevertheless the issues of responsibilities seems important. Grand international agreements - seems to stay just that - grand but with little impact on the world and the people in it. UN-secretary general Boutros Boutros Ghali seems to me an international realist. It takes 10 years to educate a doctor - why would one then expect international relations to improve by just throwing a catch word like "the new world order" order around ? No , its probably going to be a fatiguing road - with lots and lots of boring international agreements , followed by control and courtroom disputes. That is , if one to raise welfare levels around the world. And at the same time making sure, that the pace and level of scientific and technically skills and innovations are maintained and increased. 3.5. Concrete Steps. --------------------- Above I have given (hopefully) some thoughts on why ties between nations suffers from all sorts of problems. Ties between Europe and Asia-Pacific are of course no different from other ties. But along with the tie US - Asia-Pacific ,it is probably one of the most important ties of the 21 century. Fail here and the world will fail. Make a go of it, and the world as such will benefit. Presently connections between Europe and Asia-Pacific seems centered on trade (almost) only. This is in line with normal patterns of connections - first trade , than cultural exchange and tourism. And first in later stages - a real getting to know one another, and learning from aone another. In recent years , when european business have been looking for investments , they have focussed much attention on eastern Europe. Its close by , and relatively easy to understand. As compared to an investment in e.g. Japan , where you don't understand the language - and more importantly "the rules of the game". Not to mention that you have to be a far richer invester in order to go to Japan , than to say Hungary. To some extend I feel the same has been happening in Asia- Pacific. Where one has concentrated one's efforts in the "home-area" - for a time letting go of the "unattainable" markets. On a historically note , this has been necessary. But starting a textile plant in Poland or Malaysia with cheap labor - certainly doesn't seem as important , as getting ahead with new high tech - programes on space research, 5 generation computers and new medical programes - which in my mind will be the natural playing field of a closer European Asia-Pacific tie. Certainly such initiative will have a much greater impact on the world of 2 century man , than a cheap labor plant in Poland or Malaysia. Even though the later of course is also important (but in another league). 3.6. Success. --------------- Everything being equal , your chance of success in life is greater , if you work hard. E.G. the success of the Scandinavian welfare models were based on high work ethics (and a sense of belonging) and cooperation for a shared goal (eradification of powerty and doing better both as individuals and as a group). Some (Europeans) have claimed , that the postwar success of Japan - and more recently of other Asia-Pacific states - has to do with special oriental features, of religious nature (e.g. the virtues of Buddhism). Somehow forgetting the obvious parallel to the rise of welfare states in northern Europe. Having seen this pattern - it seems obvious to me ,that the first ingredient of success ,is the immensely simple component called hard work. The next could very well be shared goals. On that basis , it should be clear , that the world as such stands to gain by forging a common belief system - between two of the most productive centers of the world : Europe and Asia Pacific. Probably the only way - is the Boutros-Boutros Ghali road with years and years of painstakingly slow progress on international programes for expanded trade (like the WTO). And even more importantly : Programes on Science and technology for the 21 century. The later we have heard precious little about, and it should be an obvious starting point for increased cooperation between Europe and Asia-Pacific. Firstly for the benefit of people in these two regions - but later , certainly for the entire world. Simon Laub