Oct 16, 2023
Race and racism were drivers behind the creation of the modern world order, and their influence persists in shaping current international relations, as Professor Amitav Acharya, UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance and Distinguished Professor at the School of International Service, American University, argued in his lecture in September.
The lecture, held at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) and chaired by the LKYSPP’s Dean and Li Ka Shing Professor in Economics, Danny Quah, explored the role of race in world order.
Part of the Hong Siew Ching Speaker Series by the Centre on Asia and Globalisation, the lecture also discussed the need for nations to address internal social divisions in order to achieve greater self-determination, sovereign equality, and non-intervention from other nations.
The historical racialisation of power
Although imperialism and slavery exist in all civilisations, the blending of scientific racism, colonialism, and slavery is the unique by-product of the “rise of the West”, according to Professor Acharya.
He said, “There is no scientific basis, genetic basis to racism, or race. Race is less a biological fact than a social myth. And in international relations, it's an international social myth.”
In his analysis, where he drew on his article in International Affairs (January 2022) of London, Professor Acharya noted that racism, slavery, and empire were key to the development of the contemporary world order led by Europe and the United States. This is evident through the transatlantic slave trade, as well as the racist views espoused by prominent Western thinkers (such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and George Hegel) who were influential in shaping the foundations of the contemporary world order.
Professor Acharya highlighted the ways in which racist views were transmitted, citing Kant’s teachings as an example. Kant, who was better known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics, used to deliver racist ideas through his lectures in the classroom.
While Professor Acharya said that this lesser-known side of famous thinkers will render them problematic, he asserted that it is not feasible to completely remove them from curriculum. Instead, he recommended continuous attention to race and racism and the integration of these into education syllabuses.
The Bandung Principles and the UN Charter
Racism was justified and cultivated in a “globalised capitalist system,” enabling the West to rise on the enslavement and exploitation of its numerous colonies. That power struggle can be seen even with the advent of decolonisation.
Referring to the first Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955 (also known as the Bandung Conference), Professor Quah prompted a discussion on why the general consensus was that a modification of the UN Charter to include condemnation of racial discrimination was necessary, since the Bandung Principles were founded with the intention to address these challenges. He questioned, “Why has there not been greater traction from just the Bandung Principles?”
The Bandung Principles, a ten-point declaration denouncing racial discrimination and colonialism, were created at the Bandung Conference.
Professor Acharya suggested that the hostility of Western powers through the years towards the Bandung Principles has served to sabotage its influence and reduce its credibility.
He reflected on the West’s attempts back then to prevent the conference from being held and to manipulate its outcomes. The British had tried to persuade countries not to attend, and when that did not work, colluded with the United States to influence delegations attending the conference and derail the dialogue.
Circling back to the present, Professor Acharya noted that the UN Charter did not specifically recognise issues of racial inequality. He noted that “nobody can say that they violated the principle of racial equality in the UN Charter [because] it is not in the UN Charter.”
He said, “Another thing that has contributed to the persistence of race and racism in today's international relations is the absence of a global norm of racial equality.”
Academic racism and gatekeeping in international relations
Professor Acharya displayed several charts which tracked phrase usage and popularity in scholarly writing about international relations. The term “sovereign equality” gained traction in the 1920s along with decolonisation, but the term “racial equality” got very meagre attention. Academic racism still prevails in the form of traditionalism and heavy gatekeeping.
Also, Professor Acharya stated that he searched all 22 volumes of the San Francisco Conference and found very little mention of “racism” or “colonialism”. In fact, only fascist imperialism from Germany, Japan and Italy were mentioned, and French and British imperialism were left out of any discussion. This same finding was observed in the UN Charter as well, where little mention of colonialism was made even at the time when such imperialism was at its peak.
Referencing the UN Charter, Professor Acharya argued that “human rights became a catch-all phrase, subsuming all kinds of discrimination, including racial discrimination … that is the worst thing that could have happened for those who think about racial equality as a distinctive norm.”
The key to the “power within” nations
Professor Acharya advocated for nations to reframe the mindset with which they approach the issues of racism and racial inequality into a “positive, enabling” one. He referenced one of his writings titled ‘Hierarchies of Weakness’, in the Foreign Affairs magazine (July 2022), that explains how certain “social cleavages” pertaining to gender, class, race, income inequality, and religious intolerance, can undermine the power of that nation.
He referred to this power as “a nation's ability to manage and reduce its domestic cleavages, to strengthen its position and role in international affairs.” He argued that the success of this effort relies on civil society’s active participation, and that by addressing these cleavages through internal dialogue and policies, nations not only achieve greater domestic stability, but also stand to gain more power and influence on the international stage.
Professor Quah concurred with this, and observed that in Singapore, there is clear acknowledgement of the importance of civil society in maintaining good internal racial relations. He cited the Ethnic Integration Policy of Singapore’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) as a case in point. The policy regulates the proportion of different ethnicities living in Singapore’s public housing “to preserve Singapore’s multi-cultural identity and promote racial integration and harmony”.
Tackling racial inequality and injustice, as well as other social divisions, is the pivotal factor in unlocking the “power within” nations, a concept championed by Professor Acharya as a more significant determinant of the standing and influence of nations – and therefore the future of world order – than conventional notions of hard or soft power.