Asia Values? Why Not, But How?

Abstract

The explanations for the rise of the “Asian values” debates in the 1990s are diverse and multiple. The economic successes of East Asia were introduced as the historic background, especially regarding the “Four Tigers”: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Marina Svensson (2002: 58) describes the debate as both “a reaction to the increasing importance of human rights after the end of the Cold War” and “an outcome of growing self-confidence on the part of the prospering Asian nations.” In addition, Wolfgang Heinz (1999: 59) refers to five key political factors: (1) the changed political situation after 1989; (2) the increasing awareness of political leaders to their economic successes and the efforts to a corresponding political role for their regions and countries; (3) the dominant thought on the Pacific economic growth as the future center of the world economy; (4) the event and the consequences of Tiananmen 1989; and (5) the diminishing presence of the United States’ security policy. However, those explanations referred only to the changes in economic and political relations, regionally and internationally, sometimes too external to explain why the issue of “Asian values” was revisited persistently,¹ and the universality of human rights in the pluralistic cultural context has to be defended.

The title of this chapter has been formulated to avoid the impression that “Asian values” are being defended. Many thanks are due to the friends and colleagues who helped the author bring this chapter into its present form. They generously shared their passionate commitment (Begeisterungen) to human rights. They are Heiner Klebes, Heiner Bilefeldt, Ron-Guey Chu, Edmund Ryden, Tania Peitzker, Leena Avonius, Damien Kingsbury, Reetta Toivanen, the participants of the conference “‘Asian Values’ versus ‘Universal Human Rights’ Revisited,” as well as Wei-cheng Kung. Of course, the author takes full responsibility for the weaknesses or flaws in this chapter.