Japan’s Approach to Asian Development Merits Renewed Recognition
NISHIKAWA Megumi / Journalist
March 28, 2012
Japan’s Approach to Asian Development Merits Renewed Recognition
NISHIKAWA Megumi Journalist
A little over a year has passed since the Arab Spring. On the political front, there are encouraging signs in some countries, such as the holding of free elections and a shift toward democracy. Yet, on the economic front, we still find stagnation, while Syria remains in complete disarray. Confronted with this situation, I can't help thinking about the stark contrast with Asia. Why can't self-sustaining economies that guarantee jobs for youth develop in North Africa and the Middle East? Why do authoritarian regimes continue to remain in power? It makes me think of the different role played by the United States and Europe in North Africa and the Middle East and the role played by Japan in Asia.
In 2010, annual growth rates were 5.2% for Egypt and 3.7% for Tunisia. To absorb the rapid increase in young workers, these countries need growth of 10% and 6%, respectively. However, in reality the figures are only about half, and are expected to decline further in 2011 due to the confusion brought about by the Arab Spring.
Herein lies the problem - apart from a handful of countries such as Turkey, the market economy doesn't function in North Africa and the Middle East because deregulation hasn't taken place. Economic activity is dominated by privileged, exclusive companies operated by the state or the military, while the private sector remains fragile. This has prevented the development of a self-sustaining economy.
And that is where they differ most from Asia. In Southeast Asia, authoritarian rule continued in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia into the 1990's. However, with respect to the economy, the development of a functional market economy allowed the private sector to expand, leading to high economic growth. Economic development in turn encouraged political reforms, forcing some authoritarian rulers to make their exit, and many countries were eventually transformed into democracies.
Japan played an extremely important role in bringing about such development in Asia. In the post-WWII era, Japan applied the principle of economic development in approaching the Asian region that was crucial to its national security. This could be described as constructive involvement that stops short of interfering in domestic politics. Through this approach, Japan sought to build the country's economy by linking its technological and economic strengths with local human resources and other resources. Reinforcing a country’s economic foundation offered a faster way to ensuring national security – that was the logic at work.
Following Japan's example, South Korea, Southeast Asian countries and eventually China took flight, and this wild-geese formation of economic development enabled Asia as a whole to take off, generating a substantial middle-class population and creating a global center of growth.
In contrast, the approach adopted by the United States and Europe toward North Africa and the Middle East was one that focused on national security. To reign in Islamic extremists and ensure energy security, they forged close ties with authoritarian regimes that sometimes led to collusive relationships, offering support that included military aid and turning a blind eye to domestic corruption and repression. This is a remarkably different approach from that taken by Japan, which drew on Official Development Aid and private funding to deftly guide Asia towards economic development.
Up until the 1990's, the Japanese approach based on development was criticized by the United States and Europe for tolerating authoritarianism and disregarding civil rights such as human rights and democracy. In retrospect, however, democracy has steadily taken root in Asia. The recent move toward democracy in Myanmar is just another positive sign.
Watching the Syrian government of President Assad and the relentless pressure being applied against it by the United States and Europe amid a chorus of citizens demanding their governments to provide arms to the rebels, I realize anew the significance of the way Japan played its role in Asia. We must surely respect the values of human rights and democracy. However, they cannot be realized simply by delivering a chilly northern wind. This is a message that Japan can convey to the United States and Europe, with which we share the same values. The Japanese approach to Southeast Asia has been proven to be effective, and we should raise our voices to get that point across.
The writer is Expert Senior Writer on the Foreign News Desk at Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
NISHIKAWA Megumi Journalist
A little over a year has passed since the Arab Spring. On the political front, there are encouraging signs in some countries, such as the holding of free elections and a shift toward democracy. Yet, on the economic front, we still find stagnation, while Syria remains in complete disarray. Confronted with this situation, I can't help thinking about the stark contrast with Asia. Why can't self-sustaining economies that guarantee jobs for youth develop in North Africa and the Middle East? Why do authoritarian regimes continue to remain in power? It makes me think of the different role played by the United States and Europe in North Africa and the Middle East and the role played by Japan in Asia.
In 2010, annual growth rates were 5.2% for Egypt and 3.7% for Tunisia. To absorb the rapid increase in young workers, these countries need growth of 10% and 6%, respectively. However, in reality the figures are only about half, and are expected to decline further in 2011 due to the confusion brought about by the Arab Spring.
Herein lies the problem - apart from a handful of countries such as Turkey, the market economy doesn't function in North Africa and the Middle East because deregulation hasn't taken place. Economic activity is dominated by privileged, exclusive companies operated by the state or the military, while the private sector remains fragile. This has prevented the development of a self-sustaining economy.
And that is where they differ most from Asia. In Southeast Asia, authoritarian rule continued in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia into the 1990's. However, with respect to the economy, the development of a functional market economy allowed the private sector to expand, leading to high economic growth. Economic development in turn encouraged political reforms, forcing some authoritarian rulers to make their exit, and many countries were eventually transformed into democracies.
Japan played an extremely important role in bringing about such development in Asia. In the post-WWII era, Japan applied the principle of economic development in approaching the Asian region that was crucial to its national security. This could be described as constructive involvement that stops short of interfering in domestic politics. Through this approach, Japan sought to build the country's economy by linking its technological and economic strengths with local human resources and other resources. Reinforcing a country’s economic foundation offered a faster way to ensuring national security – that was the logic at work.
Following Japan's example, South Korea, Southeast Asian countries and eventually China took flight, and this wild-geese formation of economic development enabled Asia as a whole to take off, generating a substantial middle-class population and creating a global center of growth.
In contrast, the approach adopted by the United States and Europe toward North Africa and the Middle East was one that focused on national security. To reign in Islamic extremists and ensure energy security, they forged close ties with authoritarian regimes that sometimes led to collusive relationships, offering support that included military aid and turning a blind eye to domestic corruption and repression. This is a remarkably different approach from that taken by Japan, which drew on Official Development Aid and private funding to deftly guide Asia towards economic development.
Up until the 1990's, the Japanese approach based on development was criticized by the United States and Europe for tolerating authoritarianism and disregarding civil rights such as human rights and democracy. In retrospect, however, democracy has steadily taken root in Asia. The recent move toward democracy in Myanmar is just another positive sign.
Watching the Syrian government of President Assad and the relentless pressure being applied against it by the United States and Europe amid a chorus of citizens demanding their governments to provide arms to the rebels, I realize anew the significance of the way Japan played its role in Asia. We must surely respect the values of human rights and democracy. However, they cannot be realized simply by delivering a chilly northern wind. This is a message that Japan can convey to the United States and Europe, with which we share the same values. The Japanese approach to Southeast Asia has been proven to be effective, and we should raise our voices to get that point across.
The writer is Expert Senior Writer on the Foreign News Desk at Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
日本のアジアへの貢献に改めて評価を
西川 恵 / ジャーナリスト
2012年 3月 28日
「中東の春」から１年余。政治的には自由選挙や民主化など幾つかの国で明るい兆しが出ているが、経済の停滞は相変わらずだ。シリアでは混乱が続く。こうした状況に、私はアジアとの対照を考えてしまう。なぜ北アフリカ・中東地域はアジアのように若者に雇用を保証する自律的な経済が育たないのか。なぜ権威主義的体制が依然として幅をきかせるのか。これは北アフリカ・中東で米欧が果たした役割と、アジアで日本が果たした役割の違いを考えさせる。
エジプトは２０１０年の成長率が５・２％、チュニジアは３・７％だった。若年層の急速な増加を吸収するには、それぞれ10％、６％の成長が必要といわれており、その半分だ。「アラブの春」で混乱した11年はさらに落ち込むだろう。
問題はトルコなどほんの一部の国を除き、北アフリカ・中東では経済面で規制撤廃がなされず、市場経済システムが機能していないことである。国や軍が経営する特権的、排他的な企業が経済活動を握る一方、民間セクターは脆弱で、自律的経済が育ってない。
この点こそアジアとの違いだ。東南アジアでは90年代までマレーシア、シンガポール、インドネシアなどで権威主義的体制が続いた。しかし経済に関しては市場経済システムが機能し、民間部門が発展し、高度経済成長を実現した。経済発展は政治改革を促し、時に権威主義的な指導者を退場させ、多くの国が民主主義へと脱皮した。
このアジアの発展に日本が果たした役割は極めて大きい。戦後、日本は自国の安全保障に直結するアジア地域に開発主義でアプローチした。内政には干渉しない建設的関与と言っていいかも知れない。日本の技術と経済力を現地の人材や資源と結びつけ、経済建設を図っていくやり方だ。安全保障を確実にするには国の経済的土台の強化を図るのが結局は近道、との考えがここにはあった。
日本をモデルに、韓国、東南アジア諸国、さらに中国が続いた雁行型発展はアジア全体の浮揚を可能にし、大量の中間層を生み出し、世界の成長センターに発展させた。
一方、米欧の北アフリカ・中東に対するアプローチは安全保障が中心だった。イスラム過激派を抑え込み、エネルギー安保を確実なものにするため、軍事援助を含む支援で権威主義的体制と密接な関係（時に癒着した関係）をとり結び、国内の腐敗や抑圧には目をつぶった。日本が政府開発援助（ＯＤＡ）や民間資金をなどを活用し、巧みにアジアを開発へと誘導したのと比べ大きな違いだ。
90年代ごろまで、日本の開発主義に立ったアプローチは、米欧から「権威主義的な体制の容認」「人権や民主主義といった市民的権利の軽視」と批判された。しかし振り返れば、民主主義は着実に根付いてきた。最近のミャンマーの民主化への動きも心強い。
シリアのアサド政権に対する米欧の圧力一本ヤリと、米欧世論の「反体制派に武器援助を」の大合唱を見る時、日本の役割は大きいと私は思う。人権、民主主義の価値は重んじなければならない。ただそれを実現するのは北風を吹かせるだけではない。このことを米欧に言えるのは同じ価値観を有する日本である。東南アジアへの日本のアプローチがいかに有効だったか、もっと声を大きくして言っていい。
（筆者は毎日新聞 専門編集委員。）
エジプトは２０１０年の成長率が５・２％、チュニジアは３・７％だった。若年層の急速な増加を吸収するには、それぞれ10％、６％の成長が必要といわれており、その半分だ。「アラブの春」で混乱した11年はさらに落ち込むだろう。
問題はトルコなどほんの一部の国を除き、北アフリカ・中東では経済面で規制撤廃がなされず、市場経済システムが機能していないことである。国や軍が経営する特権的、排他的な企業が経済活動を握る一方、民間セクターは脆弱で、自律的経済が育ってない。
この点こそアジアとの違いだ。東南アジアでは90年代までマレーシア、シンガポール、インドネシアなどで権威主義的体制が続いた。しかし経済に関しては市場経済システムが機能し、民間部門が発展し、高度経済成長を実現した。経済発展は政治改革を促し、時に権威主義的な指導者を退場させ、多くの国が民主主義へと脱皮した。
このアジアの発展に日本が果たした役割は極めて大きい。戦後、日本は自国の安全保障に直結するアジア地域に開発主義でアプローチした。内政には干渉しない建設的関与と言っていいかも知れない。日本の技術と経済力を現地の人材や資源と結びつけ、経済建設を図っていくやり方だ。安全保障を確実にするには国の経済的土台の強化を図るのが結局は近道、との考えがここにはあった。
日本をモデルに、韓国、東南アジア諸国、さらに中国が続いた雁行型発展はアジア全体の浮揚を可能にし、大量の中間層を生み出し、世界の成長センターに発展させた。
一方、米欧の北アフリカ・中東に対するアプローチは安全保障が中心だった。イスラム過激派を抑え込み、エネルギー安保を確実なものにするため、軍事援助を含む支援で権威主義的体制と密接な関係（時に癒着した関係）をとり結び、国内の腐敗や抑圧には目をつぶった。日本が政府開発援助（ＯＤＡ）や民間資金をなどを活用し、巧みにアジアを開発へと誘導したのと比べ大きな違いだ。
90年代ごろまで、日本の開発主義に立ったアプローチは、米欧から「権威主義的な体制の容認」「人権や民主主義といった市民的権利の軽視」と批判された。しかし振り返れば、民主主義は着実に根付いてきた。最近のミャンマーの民主化への動きも心強い。
シリアのアサド政権に対する米欧の圧力一本ヤリと、米欧世論の「反体制派に武器援助を」の大合唱を見る時、日本の役割は大きいと私は思う。人権、民主主義の価値は重んじなければならない。ただそれを実現するのは北風を吹かせるだけではない。このことを米欧に言えるのは同じ価値観を有する日本である。東南アジアへの日本のアプローチがいかに有効だったか、もっと声を大きくして言っていい。
（筆者は毎日新聞 専門編集委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟