Unfitness as a Stepchild of Myopia

Abstract

Asian Perspective 40 (2016), 357-364 BOOK REVIEW ESSAY Unfitness as a Stepchild of Myopia Walter C. Clemens Jr. Ashley J. Tellis with Alison Szalwinski and Michael Willis, eds. Foundations ofNational Power in the Asia-Pacific. Seattle: National Bureau ofAsian Research, 2015. Michael Pillsbury. The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’ s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower. New York: Henry Holt, 2015. Audrey Kahin. HistoricalDictionary ofIndonesia. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015. Foundations of National Power provides deep, comprehensive, and well-balanced assessments by leading experts of the resources and mobilized assets of seven key actors in the Asia Pacific region— China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, India, Indonesia, and the United States. Their essays show that none ofthe great powers in Asia and Asia’s rim comes close to realizing the potential ofits human and ma­ terial resources. Everywhere, inept domestic politics undermines na­ tional self-interest. For China and Russia (and a fortioriNorth Korea) the problem is dictatorship that harnesses all resources to serve the regime’s security and material wealth. For India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States, the problem is partisan and bu­ reaucratic rivalry amid decentralized power, amplified by cultural or ideological diversity. Given thatFoundations emphasizes material el­ ements of national power, it tends to understate the soft- and smartpower capacities ofthe United States and other democracies. Thus, China looks like a colossus but teeters on clay feet. The regime can mobilize China’s people and natural wealth, but top-down rule is seldom optimal. Beijing’s policies have fostered demographic imbalances, environmental disasters, and profound inequalities. As Nadege Rolland writes, “Openness, outwardness, philanthropy, and 357 358 Unfitness as a Stepchild of Myopia the free flow of goods and ideas are anathema to a distrustful partystate that is not willing to relinquish control. Paradoxically, the very same party that has raised China up to where it is today may ulti­ mately prevent the country’s ascension to the pinnacle ofpower” (p. 53). Foreign policy is also counterproductive: expansion into the South and East China seas alienates China’s neighbors and pushes them to align with the United States. In Russia, Andrew C. Kuchins writes, the Vladimir Putin regime has strengthened state power and improved military assets, but it has weakened the social, economic, and political institutions crucial for promoting economic growth and development of new commercial technologies. Ifoil prices stay low, more Russians will complain that they have neither wealth nor freedom. The Kremlin’s interventions in Ukraine and Syria mobilize anti-Russian sentiments within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and beyond. Japan’s economy and level of innovation have stagnated for decades. Michael Auslin argues that Japan has failed to convert its economic and technological prowess into the tools needed for na­ tional defense. The constitution imposed by the United States has been one limiting factor. But Japan’s power is also constrained by a culture ofrisk aversion, by lack ofelite cohesion, corruption, and the large role played by the fanning and other pressure groups. To counter these problems, Prime MinisterAbe Shinzo urges profound changes in the country’s internal and foreign policies, whichAuslin endorses. In some ways South Korea’s situation resembles Japan’s. Acoun­ try short of natural resources has used its human capital to achieve an affluent society able to exploit modem technology. Still, Chung Min Lee argues, the state developmental model cannot assure that economic growth will continue. Deep reforms—what Lee calls “re­ engineering” of political and social life—will be needed for South Korea to cope with its declining birthrate, aging population, and ris­ ing social welfare costs. The Republic ofKorea invests heavily in de­ fense but may need new tools to meet the challenges posed by North Korea’s bluster and weapons of mass destruction as well as China’s increasingly robust power projection and access-denial capabilities. India is no less concerned than South Korea with the growth of China’s military power. According to Rajesh Rajagopalan, however, India is failing to realize the full powerpotential ofits human and nat­ ural resources. India’s state elite shares a broad consensus and stands Walter C. Clemens Jr. 359 above society but does...