Theorizing Asia: An Introduction

Abstract

Theorizing Asia:An Introduction Alex Taek-Gwang Lee (bio) In The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm suggested the term "short twentieth century" to consider the extreme experiences of the century. The period refers to seventy-eight years between 1914 to 1991, beginning with the First World War and ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The fall of the German, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires during the First World War paved the way for the Second. When the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1941, it appeared that the war had come to an end, with the Allies' "justice league" destroying the Fascist alliance. Contrary to common belief, Hobsbawm emphasized that "the Second World War had barely ended when humanity plunged into what can reasonably be regarded as a Third World War" (1994, 226). After the fall of the Japanese Empire, the United States' most pressing mission in Asia was to build an anti-communist defense line rather than decolonize the countries. In Japan, the US enjoyed establishing "a completely unilateral occupation that excluded the USSR and any other co-belligerent" (227). While Europe settled into postwar conditions, the war did not end in Asia. Ironically, the end of World War II meant the beginning of civil wars in the area. As Hobsbawm pointed out, Asia was "the zone in which the two superpowers continued, throughout the Cold War, to compete for support and influence, and hence the major zone of friction between them, and indeed the one where armed conflict was most likely, and actually broke out" (227). This geopolitical confrontation resulted in widespread violence in the region. For Asians, the end of World War II did not signal the end of the conflict but rather the beginning of a new one. It all started with the people's yearning for nation-building following Japan's defeat in World War II. For example, the Korean people wanted to build a nation-state at the time, but the situation forced them to separate into two regimes—North and South Korea. The US policy to "roll back" communism introduced the cruel division of people, divided into the inclusive group and the exclusive group by the rule of anti-communism. This violent operation rolled out in many places in the Global South. The United States' overseas policy did not aim to build a democratic regime in the areas but prioritized [End Page 1] more efficient governance to manage the anti-communist defense line. Accordingly, it helped local power elites build despotic authority. What must be stressed here is that the revival of despotism in Asia revealed the realpolitik of the anti-communist strategy, which betrayed its political cause of anti-fascism and went against people's desire for liberation. This trickery always lurks in the shadow of so-called freedom propaganda. The right of independence was not equal and was a concept used to divide people into those included in and those excluded from the nation. During the Cold War, the US supported military despotism with the pretext of protecting the "Free World" against communism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In those areas, the Cold War had a profound impact on postcolonial nation-building. Almost all Southern Cone countries were dominated by military autocracies from the 1950s through the 1970s, an experience that continues to affect political and economic regimes to this day. The paradox is that, despite the dictatorships' breaches of human rights, the United States defended its assistance. This coalition between the US and those authoritarian regimes was called the "Condor Operation" and was seen to repress people's demand for democracy. These dictatorships caused traumatic experiences in Latin America, and those countries in the region share the crippled history of the republic. In this sense, the postwar authoritarianism in Asia is the regional occasion of the state violence and the structural consequences of the United States' geopolitical plan. Asia's experiences are not an erasable memory buried in the abyss of the past; they returns again and again to the surface of cultural consciousness. Rather than disappear, trauma constructs its origins with the eternal return of the moment. The experience is not bearable...