Will Taylor in his "American Policy and Attitude in Asia Must Change" [Thursday, January 9, 1997, The Dartmouth] attempts to portray the problematic American policy toward Asia by illustrating a few incidents that he thinks demonstrate America's parochial view of the world. Although I do not disagree with his conclusion, his treatment of the empirical evidence in support of his point is so flawed that I was compelled to prepare this rebuttal.
First of all, Taylor claims that the United States' recent decision not to sell F-16 fighter planes to Indonesia exhibits America's cultural imperialism. According to him, the U.S. should respect other cultures that may not necessarily respect the values of democracy. He writes that the country should therefore not attempt to influence other countries' politics by, for instance, using instruments of trade. Nonetheless, by aborting the sale, the U.S. hoped to put pressure on the Suharto government, which crushed a demonstration against the Indonesian president's arbitrary ousting of his political rival.
Despite the fact that I have been a vocal critic of most foreign policies founded upon claims to absolute morality, in this case I have to endorse the American move. The Helms-Burton Act, for example, is deplorable because it grants Americans the right to sue the traffickers, Americans or not, for their former property confiscated by Castro's regime. The law blatantly violates the principle of state sovereignty, regarded as international law since the peace of Westphalia in the mid-seventeenth century, by interfering unjustifiably in foreign citizens' lives.
I am sympathetic to the recent American action, on the other hand. Indonesia has strongly suggested that it has not overcome its domestic political instability. The U.S. as a result decided that transfer of high-technology military goods to such a country would jeopardize itself. I hope Taylor would agree that Americans' behavior following their instinct of self-preservation is an appropriate one.
Second, it is true that the magnitude of James Riady's contribution to Clinton's campaign is "hardly news," to use Taylor's words. However, what the author completely ignores is that his financial backing of Clinton was accomplished through illegal means. Some critics have claimed that the media's excessive coverage of those illegal contributions reflected the racism of the institution, lending weight to Taylor's argument. However, this claim does not take into consideration that the xenophobia that has affected much of America would have likely motivated the media to sensationalize any event indicating foreigners' wrong-doing.
Third, Taylor appears not to understand what is properly meant by "human rights," for he somehow sees a sign of human rights abuse in the fact that "about 39,500 people were killed by handguns in America." Generally, a human rights abuse characterizes a condition of a human being deprived of the commonly accepted set of freedoms due to systematic oppression. Americans' shooting of one another does not constitute an abuse of human rights, though it certainly shows another serious problem regarding America.
Fourth, Taylor does not substantiate his claim that America pressures Asia to attain a more equitable distribution of wealth than it currently has. The U.S. government does consider labor conditions, human rights, or environmental issues in deciding its approach to international affairs, but not wealth distribution. One can see America's such priorities in just about every instance of diplomatic conflicts between the U.S. and other countries. Besides, even if the government did follow such a policy, it would not be acting hypocritically.
Taylor correctly states that the income gap between Singapore's rich and poor is more equitable than that of the U.S., but much of Asia -- India, for instance -- has maintained income distributions far worse than what is found in America.
I concur with Taylor in that the United States' view of Asia must change. Recently Samuel Huntington, a distinguished American political scientist, published a work in which he claims that the emerging international system will be characterized by conflicts among civilizations.
According to him, Asia can be treated as composed of Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, and Japanese civilizations -- four groups of naturally conflictive cultures. That a well-respected scholar would even consider such ridiculously simplistic divisions within Asia exhibits the sad truth about the American perspective of the region. However, to illustrate such truth, one must never forgo rigorous and accurate treatment of facts.
