in Korea that people are tossed back and forth by certain information. Of course the most twisted people are the capitalists in Wall Street. However, there is a nationalistic reaction from Korean government and people against the grading given by he so-called credit rating agencies such as Moody's which people never cast a vote to select. The grade sometime shifts violently from 3A to 3B, which is critical to the nation's fate. We understand there should be some objective standards for that, but people still feel like resisting such brandishing of control. Broadly speaking, I notice the problem of how democracy is secured, for example inside the credit rating agencies.
In conclusion, I'd like to comment only one point regarding the 150 years, because a time frame of more than 150 years is rather too large for me who is engaged in the post-war history. Even from the viewpoint of 150 years time frame, there exists a kind of original network peculiar to Asia, the Chinese network. I agree to his notion that there was an original international relationship in this region, however, this is the Chinese network viewed from opposite side. From the international political viewpoint, this Chinese network lasting for 150 years or several hundred years in Asia seems to be a manifestation or a legacy of the disproportionate intentional relations. There is a Chinese Empire which is a gigantic imperial order and this empire is not yet dissolved to transform a uniform nation system as in Europe. If I look at it in a longer time span, I feel that we are on the way to the transformation, but at the same time I find it still remains as a legacy. However, it seems rather futuristic that this situation creates a buffer as an effective intermediary for the mutual dependency, it is still a past order of the Chinese Empire, Therefore, we need to have a perspective to the process in which more uniform or equal international relations are proceeding, rather than having a fixed simple perception that it is peculiar to Asia.
｡?PAKKASEM
If one can equate globalization with Americanization, then what is Asia? What should be our regional or Asian to response to that? At least Europe has the European Union.
In l999 they will have Euro. they don't have to depend on the dollar, the almighty dollar for their trading. They will have their anchor currency. So Asian still live with LACU.
We have no anchor currency. Is the Yen willing to play that role? Mahatir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, proposes that the Singapore dollar play the Asian trading settlement role. Is that enough? We have to make this happen. This just cannot happen by chance.
｡?SHIRAISHI
I would like to respond to the opinion of Mr. Goenawan Mohamad and Professor Lee. May I note that I am only responding, and not making objections. First, when I was listening to Mr. Goenawan Mohamad's speech, I realized that I didn't sufficiently explain the point that, together with globalization and Americanization, it is very clear and important to understand that the character itself of international society is facing a big change. I am not quite sure how to describe the word in Japanese, but in English they use the word "structural power". This does not mean the power which the government holds, but the power which lies in the structure itself. For instance, the way money comes and goes, or how information is produced and goes around.
Or what kind of knowledge is produced and distributed as valuable knowledge. The government's role for such production and distribution of structural power has become quite small. As a result, as I have mentioned earlier, I think that the American hegemony age is truly coming to an end.
When I say this, I don't mean that the hegemony is being shifted to another new power of some kind, but we must realize the fact that the power which the government had possessed for at least 200 years, has eventually grown weak.
Secondly, my response to Professor Lee's comment. As you have pointed out, a name may have an extremely political construct within it. The same can be said for the word "Asia".
Actually, when I use the word "Asia", there is a hidden meaning of my own. However, as this is not the adequate place to make a political proposition, I did not touch on the subject. But now I would like to introduce the outline. I think that the order which America built up during the 50 years after the war, is not an order for Asia, but that for the Asian Pacific. Japan is already buried in the order. So is Korea and Southeast Asia. So, it would be foolish to destroy it. Then why not accept the framework of the "Asian Pacific" . But in this framework, we must create what you call in English "a zone of stability". This is the same conception as why EC built up the European monetary system. But in our case it would before instance, stable currency zone. In this point of view, we now understand that it is necessary for us to create a zone of stability of some kind. If not, considering the present economy where Japan itself is buried in, Japan would have no national interest. So, when I mention the word "Asia", it does have a political construct, but it does not necessarily mean to rebuild a whole empire.
