In The Voice of Asia, Ishihara says that 'the day of imperial powers whose millitary might was the ultimate instrument in geopolitics is finally drawing to a close...'. That is certainly true. Now that financial witch doctors and isolated terrorist groups can wreak havoc across continents, governments have become, well, quite impotent in recent years. Neither Mahathir nor Ishihara could have predicted the overwhelming influence that rogue, scurrilous currency traders and zealous, fanatical terrorist groups now wield with horrifying strategic abandon. Their book, the Voice of Asia, was written well before the advent of Asia-centered global financial meltdown and escalating terrorism towards the leaders of industrialized nations.

In many ways, the Voice of Asia forshadows the growth of Orwellian-style regional millitary and economic trading blocks such as Europe, the Americas and East Asia. Mahathir's call for an East Asian Economic Caucus underscores the need for stability in the Asian region; however, it seems to me that there is a clear dispute as to who should provide the necessary leadership and direction for this Asian regional block. In the book, Mahathir favors an Asia for Asians stance, while Ishihara ( of the Japan That Can Say NO! fame) clearly in direct opposition to U.S. President Bill Clinton believes that Japan should lead and direct the emerging Asian economic bloc. Ishihara advances the belief that only Japan, once it has reverted fully back into the Asian sphere, can lead and speak for Asia, and should do so with a strong yen which not only supports Asian trade, but also acts as an effective countercurrency to the dollar and as a viable currency for international trade and investment. Currently, over half of Japan's international trade, and almost all of its global investment is undertaken in dollars.

Mahathir, whose unorthodox and iconoclastic views on the role of government and foreign trade and investment grabbed headlines worldwide in 1998, clearly articulated his thoughts on what he sees as the growing moral decay of the West (more than a few Christian leaders of the American religious right would have to agree with him). He goes further to stress the need for cooperation among nations in the region, especially in the area of economics and trade. Of the two individuals, however, Ishihara is clearly the more vocal (which is hard to believe, considering some of Mahathir's antics of late). Mahathir comes across as a rather subdued, sedate and erudite thinker of things geopolitical. If Ishihara were likened to America's Malcolm X, then Mahathir certainly would be akin to America's Martin Luther King.

In reading the book, one sometimes gets the feeling that these guys clearly realize that they are playing a game whose rules and structure were designed by the very individuals that they are railing against. One gets the feeling that a young, dynamic, hungry underdog (Asia) is pitted against a staid, brutish, older and bullying incumbent (the West). Armed might is useful, and in some cases effective, but now other things (such as hedge funds) play an important role in international relations. Both Mahathir and Ishihara realize that there is more to be gained from peace and economic stability. They have written an interesting and thought provoking book for the intelligent, internationally aware layperson.

This book was a blast from the past. He wrote this when the Nikkei was at its peek. Now it is testing 20 year lows. First among equals seems like a dream now when most expect China to leave Japan behind in this century. While his predictions were way off, the substance of his arguments were valid then and remain valid today. He was the leading critic of Japan's centrally controlled economy. He was their leading advocate for trade liberalization. I wonder what happened to him. His critique of US industrial organization fell on open ears in corporate america, who reformed, but it is too bad that his critique of his domestic economic policy fell on deaf ears. Japan refused to change and they continue on their decade long recession.

The reason you should read this book is to become familiar with Japan's hostilies towards the US, and maybe to learn a bit about the trade and military agreements between the two countries. Mostly, the book is too vague to convincingly defend Ishihara's points of view, which makes me think it was just written to get an edge during an election, merely echoing popular Japanese sentiments.