Asia’s impressive growth cannot be denied. From “miracle” to “peaceful rise,” various terminologies have been employed to make sense of the region’s multifaceted ascendance in the international order. Most notably, the “Asian century” remains a buzz phrase and an affirmation for Asia’s leaders who believe in recentering the political and economic gravity from the West to the East.[1]
However, embarking on this bold mantra warrants critical attention—what even is an Asian century? And, what does it mean for the 21st century to be Asian? While one of the earliest usages of this term dates back to Deng Xiaoping who, ironically, dismissed such an idea,[2] it should be noted that its antithesis—the American century—was deployed in a famous editorial by the journalist Henry R. Luce in 1941.
Luce believed that America should abandon its isolationist policies in favour of embracing internationalism and advocating the ideals of freedom and justice.[3] The extent to which America has fulfilled its assumed role as a Good Samaritan is, of course, debatable. One can simply juxtapose its promotion of, albeit inconsistent, democratic institutions and partnerships and its military-industrial complex that has claimed thousands of innocent lives.[4]
But America’s faults should certainly not be Asia’s gains. The main point is that calling the 21st-century Asian means that it has to go beyond the misleading discourse of bipolarity[5] and lead in ways that do not repeat the mistakes of the West. China and India are the powerhouses that are projected to lead Asia into its future glory,[6] but both countries have to contend with the fact that economic or population size are not necessarily reliable determinants of meaningful global influence.[7]
Leading in the 21st century is to decisively navigate the prevailing contemporary challenges of inequality, migration, and climate change.[8] Asia has yet to overcome these and set sail towards impactful global problem-solving. Unless Asian countries and regional groups tackle head-on socioeconomic headwinds, meaningfully democratize their institutions, and address issues regarding lack of accountability and transparency, the Asian century remains a cruel optimism.
Much has been discussed and researched on how Asia can enact better policies for better development. What is less talked about, however, is the internal struggle that Asia is grappling with towards its aspiration of an Asian century. In affect theory, cruel optimism “exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing.”[9] Certain fantasies arise or are generated to compel one to achieve such. It becomes cruel when the obsession for success or triumph misses out on what’s important or impedes success itself.
Similarly, brandishing the Asian century is a desire that is holding the region back from achieving its fullest potential. The optimism surrounding fast GDP growth can be cruel when millions of factory workers in China do not have a fighting chance for upward mobility in their precarious conditions.[10] In a ‘success story’ like Singapore, Aimee Bahng has characterized the country’s reliance on temporary migrant workers as a “cruelly optimistic drive toward a good life and the promise of an Asian futurity that will never arrive for the vast majority of the workers who sustain the wealth of the few.”[11] One can also acknowledge that the optimism for a united Asian community in the 21st century is cruel given the many geopolitical tensions such as in the South China Sea, the India-Pakistan border, the Korean Peninsula, and the fate of Taiwan. If this is the trend of the Asian century, it certainly is holding it back from its lofty goal.
Thus, the Asian century, no matter how appealing, remains a problematic concept that is full of contradictions. The ‘economy’ remains the protagonist of the Asian century narrative and leaves out the ugly, wicked details behind it. If anything of the century is Asian, it would be its emerging (or persistent) problems of demographic crises, gender and labour inequality, and fragile political institutions. Yet, through tackling such challenges head on, Asia could still genuinely overcome its weaknesses. East Asian countries might consider surmounting the demographic problem by granting full and better social citizenship to immigrants, which would entail destabilizing the fantasies of ethnic homogeneity and purity.[12] Or, Southeast Asia could institute major electoral reforms towards meaningful democratization and political participation.[13] But, then again, these possibilities are themselves cruel optimisms.
So whether or not Asia can rightfully claim the 21st century continues, and will continue, to be answered or speculated by experts. But the short answer is that, for now, it is a bleak aspiration that demands Asia to rise to the challenges of global leadership by instituting serious internal reforms.
A guest author, Niño Jan Pol V. Dosdos (he/him) is a fourth-year student in a double major of Anthropology and Public Policy and a Contemporary Asian Studies minor, with an International Affairs Certificate. A former Editor for Synergy, he holds a research fellowship in the Asian Institute at the Munk School and was recipient of both the 2022 Dr. David Chu Scholarship in Asia-Pacific Studies and 2023 Richard Charles Lee Insights through Asia Challenge. Dos is a first-generation student from Pagadian City, Mindanao.
Footnotes
Kishore Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East (Public Affairs, 2009).
- Mario Fernando, “The Context,” in Leading Responsibly in the Asian Century, ed. Mario Fernando (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016), 9–30, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21789-5_2.
Henry R. Luce, “The American Century,” Diplomatic History 23, no. 2 (1999): 159–71.
Jill Kimball, “Costs of the 20-Year War on Terror: $8 Trillion and 900,000 Deaths | Brown University,” November 1, 2024, https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar.
Goedele De Keersmaeker, “Multipolar Myths and Unipolar Fantasies” (Egmont Institute, 2015), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06618.
Valentina Romei and John Reed, “The Asian Century Is Set to Begin,” Financial Times, March 26, 2019, sec. Global Economy, https://www.ft.com/content/520cb6f6-2958-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7.
Andrew Walter, “Should We Be Sceptical about Prospects for an ‘Asian Century’?,” Australian Economic Review 47, no. 3 (2014): 370–77, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12074.
Dahlia Simangan, “Situating the Asia Pacific in the Age of the Anthropocene,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 73, no. 6 (November 2, 2019): 564–84, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2019.1657794.
Lauren Berlant, Cruel Optimism (Duke University Press, 2011), https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822394716.
Scott Rozelle and Natalie Hell, Invisible China: How the Urban-Rural Divide Threatens China’s Rise (University of Chicago Press, 2020), https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226740515.
Aimee Bahng, “The Cruel Optimism of Asian Futurity and the Reparative Practices of Sonny Liew’s Malinky Robot,” in Techno-Orientalism: Imagining Asia in Speculative Fiction, History, and Media, ed. David S. Roh, Betsy Huang, and Greta A. Niu (Rutgers University Press, 2015), 163–79, https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813570655-014.
Kyung-Sup Chang and Bryan Turner, eds., Contested Citizenship in East Asia: Developmental Politics, National Unity, and Globalization (London: Routledge, 2011), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841747.
Jacques Bertrand, Political Change in Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Bibliography
Bahng, Aimee. “The Cruel Optimism of Asian Futurity and the Reparative Practices of Sonny Liew’s Malinky Robot.” In Techno-Orientalism: Imagining Asia in Speculative Fiction, History, and Media, edited by David S. Roh, Betsy Huang, and Greta A. Niu, 163–79. Rutgers University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813570655-014.
Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism. Duke University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822394716.
Bertrand, Jacques. Political Change in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Chang, Kyung-Sup, and Bryan Turner, eds. Contested Citizenship in East Asia: Developmental Politics, National Unity, and Globalization. London: Routledge, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841747.
De Keersmaeker, Goedele. “Multipolar Myths and Unipolar Fantasies.” Egmont Institute, 2015. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06618.
Fernando, Mario. “The Context.” In Leading Responsibly in the Asian Century, edited by Mario Fernando, 9–30. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21789-5_2.
Kimball, Jill. “Costs of the 20-Year War on Terror: $8 Trillion and 900,000 Deaths | Brown University,” November 1, 2024. https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar.
Luce, Henry R. “The American Century.” Diplomatic History 23, no. 2 (1999): 159–71.
Mahbubani, Kishore. The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East. PublicAffairs, 2009.
Romei, Valentina, and John Reed. “The Asian Century Is Set to Begin.” Financial Times, March 26, 2019, sec. Global Economy. https://www.ft.com/content/520cb6f6-2958-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7.
Rozelle, Scott, and Natalie Hell. Invisible China: How the Urban-Rural Divide Threatens China’s Rise. University of Chicago Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226740515.
Simangan, Dahlia. “Situating the Asia Pacific in the Age of the Anthropocene.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 73, no. 6 (November 2, 2019): 564–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2019.1657794.
Walter, Andrew. “Should We Be Sceptical about Prospects for an ‘Asian Century’?” Australian Economic Review 47, no. 3 (2014): 370–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12074.