薩伊德的遺產：東方主義與亞洲主義的矛盾 Edward Said's Legacy: The rise of Asianism over globalism - INSIDE Korea's JoongAng Daily

In view of Libya's battle and Korea's place in history, Korea JoongAng Daily has published a strong opinion article arguing that "We are qualified to play a key role in Asia with our progress in industrialization and democratization."

Original Article: Ideology of the Past?

Joong Ang's Daily opinion pieces argues that Asians "are qualified to play a key role in Asia with our progress in industrialization and democratization."

The author, Kim Hwan-yung, refers to Edward's view that the West view's of the East, and especially the Middle East, have been nourished from the necessity of providing justification for an invasion of countries and territories in Africa and the Middle East. While the article provides a good basis for an alternate method for Asians to comprehend today's world, it is however deficient on three fronts:

First it conveniently fails to refer to Edward Said's second book, "Culture and Imperialism," published in 1993 that expanded his very notion of Orientalism to apply to any colonized country or region of the world.

Secondly, the author of the article by using Edward Said's concept of Orientalism, rightly and legitimately, to explain and criticize the West view's of the Middle East and Japan, fails however in trying to apply this concept to his own culture, Asian and Korean, and his own arguments and logic.

Thirdly, the notion of Orientalism  defined as an ideological approach used by nations to justify colonialism and assert that they are endowed with a superior civilization and culture is not an exclusive domain of European nations and the West in general. This "orientalist" approach is being used now by nations on five continents, including Asia, to give themselves the right to dictate and impose their will upon other peoples.

Concepts such as Orientalism were and are human visions of the world we live in. They are, therefore, not limited in time or geography. If they are human visions and concepts, they can't be limited to a particular culture.  Arguing, rightly, that Asian countries have suffered from the West's Orientalism whereby Western nations have felt superior to other countries, Kim Hwan-yung then falls short of saying that Asian nations are guilty of having used the same approach in their relations to fellow Asian nation. Kim himself fails to apply the same principles to his own analysis and proposals.

His proposal that Asians should create an "Asianism' based on Asian philosophical values and concepts because it will provide better solutions is flawed. Kim asserts that "The answer could instead be better found in the Asian context."
While it is difficult to disagree with his statement that "Both Orientalism and Eurocentrism have long become passe," it is noticeable that Kim's contradicts himself by writing that "Asianism can better explain and broaden our perception of the world and its events."

The mirror side of Orientalism and Eurocentrism is his so-called "Asianism." Both going into past territories.
The worst culprit of "Asianism" was Japan before 1945. This was the very justification that Japanese imperial armies used to invade Korea, China, Vietnam, Taiwan and most of South East Asia. Former Imperial Japan was using the justification that Asians had as much, and even more, than Europe to offer to the world. Japan, blinded by its own warped vision, then decided that only an Asian unified, in fact occupied and maimed, by Japan could accomplish this goal. Korea has been a victim and a successful survivor of "orientalism" from first China and then Japan. It is better placed than many nations to fully understand the shock and lasting effects of cultural and physical invasion from other empires.
More relevant to today's world is China's own views on its own ethnic minorities to whom China feels it is bringing progress, industrialization and who have no choice but to communicate with the rest of China and the world through a Chinese prism of Mandarin culture. Unfortunately, so-called supporters of the Tibetans can't help but being guilty themselves of seeing Tibet through the deforming lens of Orientalism leaving themselves open to criticism. "Modern" Tibetans have the greatest difficulties to escape from these two sides of Orientalism and find it next to impossible to bring their own vision or narrative of what they are and their desires for their nation.

Kim feels it necessary to explain that Koreans should be able to ask themselves when he writes: “Who am I?” we must be able to say, “I am Korean, a member of the global community, as well as an Asian.” Asianism can better explain and broaden our perception of the world and its events."
This goes without saying: Koreans are, like everyone on the planet, members of the global community. On the other hand, saying that Asianism can better explain the world is dangerous and borders on intolerance. The very fact that Kim needs to write such simplistic and banal truths is more a testimony that some part of Korean society has not yet fully absorbed its colonial past.

Kim's analysis is simplistic. To bring progress to, not only Asia, but also to the rest of the world, there can be no bargaining away notions of global humanity. Our humanity cannot rely on the concept that one region of the world knows better than another what is good for humanity.
This ideology of the past, expressed under the cover of Edward Said's profound and humanistic criticism of colonialism, had better remain what it is: a thing of the past.
Edward Said would having been very surprised to see his criticism of Orientalism used an ideological justification for a so-called Asianism