WE CAN BE thankful to Japan's Junichiro Koizumi for a new definition of Asian values, a term that increasingly has come to be synonymous with authoritarian forms of government. Given the region's enormous cultural and political diversity, it is debatable whether there is any set of beliefs and principles unique to the region on which Asian societies and governments are based. Almost by default, though, the concept of a social order that rests on Confucian traditions of respect for authority and hierarchy has come to be regarded as the bedrock of Asian values. Few countries in the region can actually be said to base their social and political systems on these traditions - Singapore and China would perhaps be the only potential candidates. Even in these countries, it is debatable whether these values can resist the tide of economic and social change. There are other parts of Asia where such traditions have little cultural or historical relevance - the Indian subcontinent for example, or even countries closer to us such as the Philippines. The whole idea of Asian values arose as an irritated reaction to Western insistence that its values and institutions were what the rest of the world should aspire to, and that the way to progress in Asia was to mimic the West. The Asian-values school of thought was an understandable response to lectures from the West on how things ought to be done. But it is clearly time for the concept to be re-examined and updated in the light of reality. It is clear that a region as diverse as Asia has no one value system. At best, it can be said to encompass a family of cultures and values. Having said that, there is something intangible that links this diverse group of people. Exchanges down the centuries have created a common matrix of cultural abd religious beliefs and practices unique to the region. But rather than try to define what this is, it is more sensible to define a common set of values which the region needs if its people are to progress. Here is where Mr Koizumi comes in. In a speech to the Boao forum earlier this month, the Japanese Prime Minister set out three values which he believed would be the driving forces behind a resurgent Asia. He declared freedom, diversity and openness would drive development, and went on to describe what he meant by the terms. Freedom he described as 'democracy and human rights politically . . . economically it means development of a market economy'. While these are values of Western liberal democracy, and so not unique or indigenous to Asia, they are an essential ingredient of a broader vision of where Asia can go. Mr Koizumi then defined diversity, the second of his values, as the putting aside of parochial nationalism and dogmatism and co-operating on the basis of equality. Given the many long-standing historic feuds that divide Asian neighbours, respecting diversity and differences must be an essential ingredient of the regional vision. His third value is openness to the world outside Asia, vital at a time when Europe and the US are tending to become increasingly inward-looking. 'I believe that Asia should set an example to the world by seeking a regional co-operation that surpasses national and ethnic distinction,' he declared. Freedom, diversity and openness can form the building blocks for a definition of where the region needs to go. Clearly the pace of progress will differ from country to country, as will the commitment of leaders to these goals. A useful first step would be a wider public debate on the relevance and acceptance of these goals as aspirations. Even if we cannot clearly define our unique values, we need to be able to identify our common goals. Thomas Abraham is the Post's Editor
