An acquaintance of mine has been travelling throughout Asia for the last 20 years, teaching English and Esperanto. Here is his answer (by email) to my request for his opinion :

'what evidence emanating from asia is there to support your notion that esperanto is anti asian?'
there is none
non asians need to respect the position of asians on this - even though these non asians may have good intentions in promoting english
the small percentage of asians who actually have the time , money, inclination and lingual ability to master english have a vested interest , like most americans and english native speakers, in continuing the unjust status quo.

to make the world fairer we need an easy to learn language that the poor can master too.

esperanto is accepted by many in asia - especially china and japan
the asian congresses of esperanto and the number of universities etc there where it is taught are testament enough
and esperanto is so much easier than english etc for asians
ask any teacher of english there how many students actually gain english fluency
look at japan where english is an expensive disaster though 3 generations since WW2 have studied it
dont cite 'the real world' falsely when alluding to english please.
paul

Not a bad goad, “Rus (Ireland)”. But “assumptions...little knowledge of the subject of language learning...speculating”. Hmmm, entirely unsubstantiated and rather hyperbolic, no? No a priori comments if you check my text and previous discussion under the name “mil_observer” (the Esperantists are heavy on folksy anecdote, though). I think you know I'm a linguist Rus. You could present the evidence for assessing my main non-English language (pretty obvious anyway – I think I'd made it explicitly clear in a couple of posts!), then play on as you wish, but find someone else to be your dancing bear.

I smell a rat or few, like preparations for some excess using my main LOTE as cover. Of course, you could Esperantize the process too in order to feel more exclusive. Last time I ventured into this forum - as “mil_observer” (bystanders can check: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5900&page=0), I identified one fake discussion participant and made a strong and clear case - based on the linguistic evidence – that he was posing in the forum for purposes of “black” propaganda. Shortly afterwards my PC was zapped by the most direct hack-DOS attack I'd ever become aware of.

- But to stay on topic: indulging Esperanto could cause massive waste in Australia's already dire regional language situation. If Australians fall for this it will continue, even worsen, its failure to engage its region and regional languages, whereas so many of the region, for their part, engage so well in English and other languages, despite their relative lack of resources. Their schooling and popular culture already focus far more outwardly (and no, not towards the special, fictitious Esperanto). Good luck, Rus & friends.

Here is what a Chinese lady has to say:

She is a worker in a factory of electrical appliances in Nanking (here is the translation of what she said in Esperanto):

"I have always wanted to have contacts in the outside world. So I went to an English course. After an exhausting work day, there is not much energy left to strain one's mind and overload one's memory with so many unexplainable things (why, in English, can't you deduce 'first' from 'one' as you deduce 'tenth' from 'ten' and as we do in Chinese? Why can't you deduce 'my', 'mine', 'me' from 'I' as we do in Chinese?). So I realized that I simply could not assimilate all these complications. Just imagine, in English, if you know how to say tooth', this does not help you to say *dentist*, you have to memorize yet another word. And if you want to say 'mare', 'stallion' or 'colt', remembering 'horse' is of no avail. In Esperanto, as in Chinese, those words are derived from the basic word according to a consistent pattern. I'm very glad that when a course of Esperanto was organized in our factory, I decided to follow it. Here I felt comfortable, and I enjoyed the lessons very much. Esperanto is like Chinese, a language entirely consisting of invariable elements that combine without limitation. People say that English is the international language. But what's the use of an international language that cannot be acquired by working people? I have now many contacts all over the world. For what I wanted, I didn't need English. Too bad that I was so late in discovering it."

Unfair to Africans ? Perhaps you'll enjoy perusing the following :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GW3RulGjIA Have fun !

How can anyone fail to understand that it would be simpler for the whole world to have at least one language in common. With Esperanto you can travel the world and be understood in amy countries. How many people are multilingual? Much easier to learn one language than several.

There are some well-reasoned arguments in Ms Vanechop's piece, although one might question Esperanto's credentials over other "universal languages". I have never in my life come across an Esperanto speaker, but then I might move in the wrong circles... English is a de facto "universal language" and manages quite well, and just as English has borrowed heavily from many languages (including Asian- so much for claim of "exclusivity") other languages are now borrowing heavily from English. I subscribe to Crystal's view that English is tridialectual, in that, for instance, Africans can (and do) get by quite nicely in a local English dialect, head off to the national capital and converse in Standard English (or a form thereof) and later attend an international meeting in say, Sydney and communicate using World Standard English. The beauty of English is its incredible flexibility and huge vocabulary (which can, nonetheless, be simplified for international users).

There is a factual error in the essay. Decimal currency was introduced in 1966, not SI (the "metric" system). There was no "friendly persuasion" in the adoption of dollars & cents. Metrication came a decade later, and the "persuasion" involved included making Imperial rulers, tape measures etc "prohibited imports". I'd argue, given the widespread influence of US & British TV and the internet, that Metrication is actually failing, but that's off-topic.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the article and all the comments to date have failed to mention the other alternative - a bridge between languages.
Blissymbols, developed by Charles Bliss, are one such bridge. The late Charles Bliss was an Austrian Jew. He survived time in concentration camps during WW2 and eventually migrated to live in Sydney. I met the man and, while he was decidedly odd, his ideas still have great merit.
They were inspired by his belief that the Chinese had developed a universal means of understanding one another through their 'symbols' or characters even when they had differences in spoken language.
Another Australian, Cath Gunn, worked closely with him for many years, as did Canadian Shirley McNaughton. The symbols were first used (highly successfully) as a means of communication among children with profound speech and language difficulties.
Cath Gunn, a woman I admire enormously for her contribution to world literacy through International Literacy Year, has gone on to use the system as a major tool in developing low technology communication
systems for micro-aid workers. She also helps provide communication aids based on the symbols in countries around the world. The Canadian team has focussed on developing the system in other ways, equally good. The system is also used throughout Europe where high-tech speech devices are used in parallel to rather than, as here, a substitute for the system.
I believe that the system, while not the answer to everything, still has enormous unrealised potential. This is also Cath Gunn's view.
Unfortunately successive Australian governments and other agencies have taken the line that the expensive, high tech computerisation route is the only proper course. The excellent work being done is being ignored. Some attempts have even been made to prevent it continuing. It seems a communication aid that can be produced for a dollar is unacceptable when it is possible to produce one for hundreds or even thousands.
It's a sad indictment of society when we deny people the right to communicate and ignore the work of people who try to help others in this way.