introduced about 150 years ago. Then what is a modern international system? It mainly consists of two elements: modern capitalism and a modem nation. Such a system was born approximately 150 years ago. However, in most cases, especially in English-speaking nations, the fact there was an international order before the modern international system was introduced to Asia about 150 years ago tends to be forgotten. Concepts such as western shock appeared because the argument is developed on condition that there was no such order originally in Asia. How did the order that existed 150 years ago remain in the modem era? It is unlikely that it has completely disappeared as we would erase characters written on a blackboard. It somehow remains.
Then what was the remaining order? I would like to mention just one example here. That is an example of Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. How was the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank managed in the beginning of the 20th century? It is likely from the remaining documents of the Bank that two systems co-existed. First, as it is a British bank, British bankers have a system where various figures are written on documents such as the amount of deposit expenditure, costs, loan, and interest rates. All figures were on the book. But in the actual transaction, the Bank lent money to someone called A with an interest rate of 5 % and to B at 3%. No explanation was given on the documents as to the reason for the different interest rates. It was because both A and B were Chinese, and in lending money, credibility was evaluated by the Chinese network. The English banker had nothing to do with that process. Thus, two systems co-existed in the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank.
I mentioned this example because it symbolizes the modem international order that was introduced and established in Asia. I mean, there were such things as the Chinese Network in the Southeast Asian region 150 years ago. How to get along with such network was a critical issue in establishing modern nations, or modern capitalism. On the contrary, nationalism or a nationalistic economy was organized in Japan and South Korea by eliminating the influence of such a Chinese network. So, pursuing free market, democracy and transparency of the market might mean the collapse of modern society in Southeast Asia. We should think about that possibility, too. This is, I think, the second major lesson.
The third lesson is drawn when we review the history in the span of 500 years . I have to cut it short since I am running out of time, but the point is made in a book called "Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce" written by my old friend, Dr. Anthony Reid, I used this book as a text when I was in the U.S. This book is translated by Dr. Yuko Tanaka and is available in Japanese. If I use the time-span of 500 years, there seems to be 3 major ages of commerce. The first one is the age described in Dr. Reid's book and that age ended in the beginning of the 17th century. The second age is from the latter half of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. This was, of course, the age of the British Empire. The third age of commerce was the last 15 years. Then, what actually happened in each period? Needless to say, the economy became very active. However, in China, Ming Dynasty disappeared in the first age and pirates roamed the seas. In the second age, China was half-colonized. It is not always true that everything gets well and people are blessed with prosperity in the age of commerce. Politics get rather unstable in such periods. This is especially true for China. We should understand the current crisis keeping such long-sounding rhythm of the history in mind.
I do not know what will become of this crisis. Will globalization be advanced more, or will the word globalization be forgotten as the word of the past? I do not know. But at least I can say that we are at the turning point in history where globalization might be at the standstill although the word "globalization" is used everywhere as if it is the catch phrase of the age. I would like to point out this fact at the end of my speech. Thank you.
● AKKASEM
I think the most interesting period here is the last 50 years. It seems to equate the so-called American push for globalization, as the Americanization of the world. This globalization has been pushed by the U.S., the IMF, the WTO, and others. There has been the free flow of trade, technology and investment, and lastly the globalized financial markets. A tremendous flow of funds and then they drew back. The flow was flooded with funds and then we have a drought. So many Asian emerging economics were not ready for this flood. We all suffer. I think it's a very interesting conclusion, the last 50 years. I now go on to the first commentator from Indonesia.
｡?Commentator: Goenawan MOHAMAD
