 |
|
|
|  | | Asia needs ASEAN-ization not Pakistanization of its continent | | Why is (the Korean peninsula and East) Asia unable to capitalize (on) its success | Speculations over the alleged bipolar world of tomorrow (the so-called G-2, China vs. the US), should not be an Asian dilemma. It is primarily a concern of the West that, after all, overheated China in the first place with its (outsourced business) investments. Hence, despite a distortive noise about the possible future G-2 world, the central security problem of Asia remains the same: an absence of any pan-continental multilateral setting on the world?s largest continent. The Korean peninsula like no other Asian theater pays a huge prize because of it.
Why is it so?
How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia?s success story? Well, it might be easier than it seems: Neither Europe nor Asia has any alternative. The difference is that Europe well knows there is no alternative ? and therefore is multilateral. Asia thinks it has an alternative ? and therefore is strikingly bilateral, while stubbornly residing enveloped in economic egoisms. No wonder that Europe is/will be able to manage its decline, while Asia is (still) unable to capitalize its successes. Asia ? and particularly its economically most (but not yet politico-militarily) advanced region, East Asia ? clearly does not accept any more the lead of the post-industrial and post-Christian Europe, but is not ready for the post-West world. | | | Autor | | Prof. Dr. Anis Bajrektarevic | | | | Arbeitsbericht | | Fachbereich | | Fachrichtung | | 2014 | | Volkswirtschaftslehre | | Volkswirtschaftspolitik |
| | | | Schlagwörter | | Asia, Korean peninsula, multilateral securi, pan-Asian institution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
