I regret the constant use of the cliche "The Asian Century" by our PM, other ministers, and here by Mr Woolcott.

Thankfully Woolcott described what he means by it in the opening paragraphs. Otherwise, such a cliche becomes highly meaningless. If leaders and 'experts' use the throwaway of "Asian Century", without explanation of what they mean, listeners can interpret it to mean whatever they like. 100 listeners will get 100 different meanings from what the person is saying. Is he / she talking about military power, trade and economic power, greater collective wisdom, greater influence at the UN? What?

Furthermore, how does anyone know that a) the current status of Asian countries will last a century, or b) that it wont last much more than a century? Why is it not "The Asian Century and a half"? How can Gillard, Woolcott and so many other cliche users be such prescient soothsayers?

Surely Asian countries were also significant in the previous centuries. They had many tens and hundreds of millions of very fine people, and pretty active militaries and military leaders in all previous centuries that I know anything about.

I think that all this "Asian century" cliche is pointing to is the very Eurocentric bias of our thinking over all previous centuries, and our lack of engagement and awareness.

Do Asian countries refer to the last 1000 years as the "European & North American millenium"?