Building a China-ASEAN Community of Knowledge

By Su Changhe

Building a China-ASEAN Community of Knowledge

By Su Changhe

About the author: Su Changhe is a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

It is a daunting task for academic scholars in China and ASEAN to work together to develop a system of knowledge that helps both sides foster better understanding of each other beyond the Western systems of knowledge and is conducive to friendly cooperation across the region.

Unfortunately, during previous efforts to establish such a mechanism, scholars have too often relied on the academic achievements of Western scholars, which carries a potential impact on the knowledge we share with each other. This is not to downplay the achievements of studies conducted by Western scholars in Southeast Asia and China. Instead, this is to say that studies by Western scholars tend to carry a certain viewpoint that is not always accurate. On a recent visit to Indonesia, I read a book on Southeast Asian history written by a scholar from a major university in the West. As a scholar myself, I found much of the information included in the book to carry a strong bias.

Edward Said, a renowned Palestinian writer and historian, criticized Western study of the Middle East as study seen through the glass of Western values, historical views and worldview. He found there to be a large number of misreading and bias in regards to Western knowledge of the Middle East which he labeled as “Orientalism”. In fact, there exists a “Southeast Asia-ism” that dominates Western study of Southeast Asia. Likewise, there exists a “China-ism” in the West.

Such is the current situation of exchanges of knowledge between Southeast Asia and China. Southeast Asian scholars have relied too much on the findings of Western scholars, failing to truly get to know China. Chinese scholars have, to a certain degree, depended upon the English-speaking world’s knowledge of Southeast Asia in efforts to get to know Southeast Asia.

Awkward, isn’t it? What needs to happen is a change in the status quo. We need to rely more on ourselves for more accurate knowledge of one another, and build a more objective knowledge system for mutual cooperation.

John King Fairbank, an influential American “China watcher”, is a good example of what is wrong with Western studies of China. His assertion of an imperial Chinese “tributary system” that existed throughout much of China’s history is an inappropriate and inaccurate concept. Widespread acceptance of this view has led to political consensus that China will restore this type of system as its economic and political clout grows. However, in my view as an historian, China forged a natural, symbiotic relationship with smaller countries in the region, resulting in an order of coexistence. This is hugely different to the “tributary system” that Fairbank has written about.

What’s more, according to “Southeast Asia-ism” prevalent in Western academia, Southeast Asia remains a brutal, uncivilized and ignorant region. However, with its long history of important civilizations, Southeast Asia has made significant contributions to humanity. Therefore, it is crucial for Southeast Asian scholars to carry out independent research on their own region and publish their findings.

How then should we distance our study from the“Southeast Asia-ism” and “China-ism” produced by Western scholars? How should we build a knowledge base for sustained cooperation, enhancing our mutual knowledge and understanding? That depends on the self-awareness of the academic world in China and Southeast Asia. With cultural and people-to-people exchanges, we can make joint efforts to build a system of knowledge, further boosting bilateral cooperation.

Intellectuals in both China and ASEAN should make joint efforts toward that end. The ASEAN-proposed concept of interconnectivity is more suitable for the development of the ASEAN region, as well as the development of China-ASEAN relations. Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, which emphasizes enhanced connectivity in all areas. ASEAN has the wisdom to avoid problems encountered by the European Union and find its own path to successful interconnectivity. Instead of looking to Europe to find a path to regional development, we should blaze our own trail in a pragmatic manner. In this regard, interconnectivity between China and ASEAN can be gradually pushed forward in every field, at every level and at every link.

There’s a lot more common knowledge that can be shared in efforts to promote cooperation. For example, ASEAN member states and China can jointly develop the concept and system of neutrality in international law. We also have much to do on establishing an international law system that can protect peaceful regional development.

Overall, it’s now time we surpassed Western “Chinaism” and “Southeast Asia-ism”. It’s now time we concentrated on the proposition of a community of shared future while sharing the knowledge needed to achieve regional goals.