I can't helping thinking the author is ultimately trying to find a valid reason/excuse for the state of his own country.

This is a very interesting paper, if I read it right. I've read it through two or three times and the author certainly touches on some truths. But I suspect that some of what he writes is meant to be ironic - for example: after citing The economist on the growing threat if Islamism in S-E Asia, he writes, "The IS does not operate in South East Asia and is not a direct threat to the region.. " Is that meant to be ironic, even sarcastic ? A bit puzzling. It would have been handy if he had put "" marks around his ironic statements.

But perhaps he didn't mean to be ironic: perhaps some of his statements are simply contradictory. For example, I'm still trying to work out what he meant by writing that Asians 'will welcome mutually beneficial economic cooperation but only if accompanied by meaningful diplomatic, political and even military reinforcement for the removal of oppressive regimes and the establishment of accountable and fair governments' when he has elsewhere condemned precisely such interference.

Or: ' The conceited notion that Western liberalism is a "one size fits all" concept is absurd. Imposing infinite diversity in a society is simply a recipe for the disastrous disintegration of that society.'
Sorry, whoever says that one size fits all ? If anything, Western governments and systems have been pretty laissez-faire about letting people do their thing. Is that what he means by the second sentence ? What does it mean, to 'impose diversity' ? That the west is to be damned from both ends ?

And then there are the straw men: I can't recall any media trumpeting about the UN 'as the guardians of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

[TBC]

[continued]

And what utopian governments? 'Western civil society must urgently recognize and take responsibility for their utopian governments.' Utopian ? Sez who ? One problem with 'civil society' is that it is such an amorphous but wonderful beast that nobody can really demand anything of it.

Least of all that 'it' can do something in some other part of the world: 'Asians pray, that Western civil society will demand a paradigm shift in foreign and domestic policies that will enable us all to get on with our lives, safely, in our own countries; complete with our culture, religious practices, ethnic values and, with the dignity we deserve.'

From faulty memory, I recall that the 'Arab Spring' started off in Tunisia after the self-immolation of a street-seller, and spread very quickly - remember the hundreds of thousands in the squares ? - to Egypt, Syria, Libya, and the Gulf States. I don't think any of it, ANY of it, was at the instigation of the evil US or UN. Those movements were home-grown: home-grown civil society movements. Of course civil society organisations, and governments, in the West, supported them Things can go wrong, and they certainly did on those occasions. But it's so easy to blame outsiders for when things go belly-up.

And what did he mean by constant references to 'liberalism' ? Liberalism is an extremely broad term. It even encompasses those earlier forces: 'Blessed in yesteryear with visionary and selfless statesmen, a system that empowers the people has evolved in Judeo Christian civilization that is the keystone of hope for billions around the world.' Some may say that a shorthand term for that imperfect system is, in fact, 'liberalism', at least in one of its forms.

[TBC]

[continued]

And the contradictions almost explode off the page here: 'Western liberals in an effort to assuage their conscience about the rape and plunder of the Third World cannot, and should not be allowed to demand that Western civil society sacrifice its security and way of life for the sake of their bleeding hearts. Instead, they should demand an end to Machiavellian manipulation of Third World dictators to enrich Western capitalists.' Umm, ..... what ? The West should get involved ? The West shouldn't get involved ? We all should place a bet both ways ?

I was slightly relieved however when he acknowledges that '.... Western society is crippled by its own altruism and conscience in dealing with the fact that the threat is preeminently - Islam.' What, Western liberalism is crippled by its conscience ? Does he mean Western civil societies, the touchstones of liberalism anywhere ? And, apart from greedy Western capitalists, and weak Western liberal civil society, Islam is the main threat to us all ?

'A pox on both your houses' - the West AND Islam - won't really keep anybody safe and above it all.

So I look forward to another essay clarifying what he wants the Western world to do for 'Asia' [and that's not a 'one-size-fits-all' term ?!] to protect it from rising/non-rising Islamism.

Joe

While it's very comforting to know that Damian Pheny speaks for all of Asian civil society, I'm confused.

From Pheny's point of view, the US government's intervention in Syria has been "birdbrained" and resulted in the catastrophe which now threatens to destroy Europe. He doesn't mention that many of the "refugees" in Europe are economic invaders from Africa, other parts of the Middle East and South and South-East Asia and in no way connected with Syria. But he thinks that US "civil society" can somehow "rein in" that US government and set a shining model for Asian civil society to follow along the path of Judeo-Christian ethics. Not sure how many Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or other Asians would agree with that.

But, Pheny says, Asians see the stupidity of the bleeding hearts in the West wanting to welcome into their midst Islamists whose only interest is to destroy them. Western liberalism, he says, has a disproportionate influence on politics, particularly in looking to the "integration" of Islamist values into the West. Many would agree. Yet the West has little direct impact on Asia's Islamist movements.

He rejects the capitalist West's "exploitation" of Asia, yet rejects the notion that sovereign nations in the region should be expected to resolve their own domestic political issues because their people are powerless in the face of their "robber baron" governments. He seems to believe the West is responsible for the future of Asia.

He therefor wants Western civil society to "demand a paradigm shift in foreign and domestic policies", but doesn't make clear whose policies he expects to be changed - the West's or Asia's. Like Asia, the West is not a monolith. Australia, for example, is very much a junior partner in the Western alliance, with little to no influence on US foreign or domestic policies. To speak of "the West" is actually not very helpful when he seems to be using the term as a substitute for "the United States".

Based on this article, I'm not too sure what Pheny wants or thinks is a practicable, viable solution.

"The Western powers are fully cognizant of..." - absolutely nothing! They don't even know that they supposed to be fighting an all out war against a threat far greater than anything Naziism and Communism ever posed to the Free World. They are even deliberately importing the enemy to live among us. They believe that there are 'degrees' of Islam, when there is only one Islam, and it hates us. Short of wiping the vile thing from the face of the Earth, it should be contained in the Middle East, and what ever countries it infests. Nothing out, nothing in, including people and trade.