Songok Han Thornton

The Price of Alignment

While the new Asian balance of power is increasingly divided along Sino-Indian lines, nuclear parity shifts competition to the economic sphere. The question is whether this will be another GDP ‘race to the bottom,’ marked by an even greater spread between haves and have-nots, or will democracy give Indo-globalization a Senian (‘development as freedom’) advantage over Sino-globalization? To tap that advantage India will have to rediscover its Gandhian heritage of the common good. Its success or failure in this effort could profoundly impact the global outlook on whether democracy will count as an asset or liability in 21st century development.

The “Miracle” Revisited: The De-radicalization of Korean Political Culture

The radicalism that spawned the 1987 democratic revolution was a product of civic unity across class lines. Lacking the raw power of President Park, Presidents Chun and Roh had no choice but to seek a degree of democratic legitimacy. That same weakness was reflected in their relative surrender of Blue House power over Korean chaebols. Thus there were two winners in the political transformation of those years: minjung power (the Korean equivalent of Philippine “people power”) and corporatism, now largely freed from Parkian restraints. With the subsequent dissolution of minjung unity, however, corporatism emerged as the real winner of the “democratic” revolution. That victory was consummated by the neoliberal reforms mandated by the IMF in return for a mammoth bailout package after the Crash. There was little effective resistance to this IMFism, for the reform spirit of 1987 had perished long before.

India in Search of Itself: The Crisis and Opportunity of Indo-Globalization

The benefits of todays Indo-globalization have bypassed those most in need: the nearly 70% of the workforce that remains in agriculture. Only about 1.3 million of the total workforce have a tangible stake in Indias vaunted New Economy. While that globalized sector lifts the aggregate economy toward nearly double digit growth, there will be little of Chinas labor-intensive industrialization to take up the slack as 70 million Indians enter the workforce over the next five years. This is a country with more indigenous billionaires than any except the US, yet one in three of the 1.1 billion population subsists on less than

Trial by Development: Senian “Concurrence” in the New Asian Developmentalism∗

1 per day. These are not the wages of substantive democracy, or even sustainable plutocracy. Globalized India will sink or swim by how well it negotiates its coming clash between haves and have-nots. Talk of a “Shining India” almost always omits reference to the rising scourge of Naxalism in the derelict countryside. The rural meltdown has reached such a scale that the usual Naxalite question must be reversed. Instead of asking how the movement became so widespread, we should ponder why it is not wider still. There is no doubt that the Other India will fight back against globalization on these terms. The only question is whether this resistance can be brought into the fold of mainstream Indian politics, thereby producing a uniquely democratic Indo-globalization.

The Contest of Rival Capitalisms

Building on the development theory of Amartya Sen, this study takes the Asian Crisis as a window on the politics of globalization. It follows from Sens axiom of “development as freedom” that just and sustainable development is best achieved where economic and political priorities are pursued simultaneously. This is the foundation for the “concurrence” model that I adopt in the light of three test cases: the Philippines, Indonesia, and Korea. Sens model provides what amounts to an Asian Third Way, circumventing the East/West schism that the Crash exposed and exacerbated: made-in-Singapore “Asian values” vs. made-in-America globalization. The new Asian developmentalism is torn between the distinctly Asian antipodes of Senism and Sino-capitalism, which is to say development with or without freedom. The outcome of this trial-by-development will define the meaning of globalization for decades to come.

Russia Turns East

A new authoritarian order is taking shape, this time within rather than against the capitalist world order. Globalization, in short, is shedding its liberal cloak. Post–Cold War triumphalism was premature in the funeral it staged for the Second World, defined in terms of its autocracy rather than communism. The capitalist character of the new Second World lulls Western globalists into moral as well as geopolitical (hence moral realist) indifference. For many in high places, it is still inconceivable that global capitalism could be a house divided. “Globalization” turns out to be anything but the steadfast ally of democratization it purports to be. It is in fact the greatest gift to a new breed of authoritarian capitalists. The case of China alone is enough to dispel the notion that capitalism and democracy are two sides of the same globalist coin. But Sino-globalization is only unique in that it makes no pretense about its authoritarian ends and means. To revitalize democratization as a global force, a radically different mode of globalization will have to be fostered. We call this the Global Third Way, but what it amounts to is People Power without borders.

Toward a cultural prosaics: postmodern realism in the new literary historiography

As the crucial Eurasian swing state, Russia is fast emerging as the twenty-first century ‘decider’. Early globalists took it as a foregone conclusion that Russia would swing toward the West. But increasingly it has ‘turned East’, striking a fate-ful alliance with China and other authoritarian regimes by way of a resuscitated ‘Second World’. By buttressing Putinism, globalization is helping to perform what amounts to a democratic abortion. Yet these policies are not set in stone. This study holds that another globalization is possible, and another Russia as well. To prevent the consolidation of a new Second World, every effort must be made to convince Russian leaders that democracy, far from being Russias nemesis, could be its best geopolitical ally.