[on the opening of economies in closed nations] from - http://www.solohq.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0581.shtml

I think it is more accurate to say that the prevailing economic philosphy indicates that governments will become more open as economic freedoms increase, but not necessarily more free in regards to individual civil liberties. It's reasonable to assume that foriegn investments are inversely proportional to the transparency of a government. In China's case, foriegn investment dropped drastically following the SARS epidemic in China (if you can call it an epidemic) China's secrecy regarding the number of SARS cases and deaths sent shockwaves through the calm assumption that it's economic policies were generally fair and open. No one would invest in a country that could confiscate the property of that investment on the slightest whim. But wheather chinese individuals can practice fulong gong or burn chinese communist flags and portraits of Mao Ze Dong seems to bear little international relevance on markets and open economies. My biggest fear is that China will become economically open but retain it's closed ruling elite of philosopher kings (hats of again to Plato for that one) thus giving it the military and economic power of any western nation, but the dictatorial decision making that would make Hitler seem like a cakewalk.

I can never help but wonder what the world would have been like if the west had backed the nationalists just after WWII. China would have been and probably still be the dominate world power, economically and militarily, and probably on generally friendly terms with all other westernized market based democracies, and there would have been no korean war, no vietnam war, no cold war, and the soviet union would have probably collapses decades earlier. Oh and millions of chinese, koreans, vietnamese and camodians would not have been slaughtered. Thanks Truman!

Michael

Hong Zhang
SOLO Parenting Leader

Post 8
Friday, March 25 - 2:57pm Reply
Link
Edit

Michael,


I appreciate your sentiment that China might have been free of Communism had West backed the nationalists. However, my understanding of history makes me believe that the Communist’s take over of Mainland was inevitable, whether Americans backed Jiang or not. Soviet was backing Mao. The nation and people had already got fed up with Jiang’s vast corruptions. Mao’s Land Reform movement in the countryside seized the properties of rich landlords (who were in general pro-KMT), and distributed them to the poor peasants, thus wining the loyalty of the majority of common peasants. Mao’s people were masters of mass propaganda and Communist Utopian ideals appealed to the city folks as well. And oftentimes, backing by a foreign power is not necessarily a good thing and it tends to alienate domestic populations as has been shown on numerous occasions. I quite believe that even if US was fully committed to support KMT, they still could not have won. Look at Vietnam. And China was so much bigger and more complex than Vietnam.

Michael F Dickey

Post 9
Friday, March 25 - 10:22pm Reply
Link
Edit

Hong Zhang said:
"And oftentimes, backing by a foreign power is not necessarily a good thing and it tends to alienate domestic populations as has been shown on numerous occasions. I quite believe that even if US was fully committed to support KMT, they still could not have won. Look at Vietnam. And China was so much bigger and more complex than Vietnam"

Hong, thanks for your comments. I have no doubt you have a different and far more informed perspective on all this then a disconnected westerner such as myself (I remember you mentioning that your parents had fled the intellectual purges, is that correct?) I would freely admit that I really dont know how the world would have turned out if the US had backed the nationalists and they succeeded in defeating Mao, but I am hard pressed to imagine it could have possibly been *worse* than the 30 million killed by mao and 60 million killed by Stalin. Especially looking at Tawain today. And South Korea fared just fine after fighting a war with a lot of foriegners involved on both sides and today it is one of the worlds freest and richest nations.

Vietnam is a seperate issue, nearly every military engagement was a victory, and South Vietnam fended off the Soviet backed north for 1 month shy of two full years after the last US soldier left. The Vietnam war was won, with only a modicum amount of support South Vietnam would be another South Korea. Recall the now oft repeated 80% voter turnout in the elections of South Vietnam in the late 70's. (cited as a reason to not be incredibly excited by the voter turnout in iraq by liberals struggling to find something negative and always struggling to connect Iraq with the Vietnam war) The democratically controlled US congress completely abandoned indochina to the communists by making it illegal to provide any aide whatsoever. Vietnam fell, then Laos, then Cambodia, and then millions died. Where were the peace activists then? The vietnam war was lost by the brainwashed anti-war activists who had been hijacked by communists (as even admitted to by Tod Gitlin, a leading anti-war activist during the vietnam war and founder of the Students for a Democractic society) See my Free Vietnam page for some telling passages by Vietnamese reporters about the war. e.g.

http://www.matus1976.com/politics/vietnam/free_vietnam.htm

Uwe Siemon-Netto's, A journalist who covered much of the Vietnam war, said in his mea culpe to the English magazine Encounter,1979

"
"...today's Vietnam tragedy may have a lot to do with the way we reported yesterday's Vietnam tragedy; considering that we journalists might have our fair share of guilt for the inhuman way the world treats those who are being expelled by an inhuman regime which some of us had pictured as heroic"
"

and

Former South Vietnamese native, NLF Supporter, and Anti-American protester Doan Van Toai had this to say about modern Vietnam said:

"if liberty and democracy are worth struggling for in the Philippines, in Chile, in South Korea or in South Africa, they are no less worth defending in Communist countries like Vietnam. Everyone remembers the numerous demonstrations protesting United States involvement in Vietnam and the war crimes of the Thieu regime. But some of those people who were then so passionately committed to democratic principles and human rights have developed a strange indifference now that these same principles are under assault in Communist Vietnam"

And paralleling comments above by Uwe Siemon-Netto, Doan Van Toai says in his own mea culpe

"Looking back now on the Vietnam war, I feel nothing but sorrow for my own naivete in believing that the Communists were revolutionaries worthy of support. In fact, they betrayed the Vietnamese people and deceived progressives throughout the world. The responsibility for the tragedies that have engulfed my compatriots is mine."


The Korean war lasted almost as long, was with as unfamiliar a people as indochina, and saw almost as many people killed, yet it did not have anywhere near the kind of anti-war movement that the vietnam war had, and South Korea todays stands as a clear emblem to the moral legitmatcy of the korean war and what *should* have happened in Vietnam.

Incidently, April 30th is the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, there will be a (hopefully) large gathering in DC in sad recognition of this date and hopefully to bring some attention to the tragedy. I urge anyone who can go and who cares about freedom to attend.

www.april30.org

Michael

Hong Zhang
SOLO Parenting Leader

Post 10
Saturday, March 26 - 6:19am Reply
Link
Edit

Michael,
I agree with you that it could not have possibly been worse if things had turned out any differently in China.

I would freely admit that I really dont know how the world would have turned out if the US had backed the nationalists and they succeeded in defeating Mao,
It's just that this is a futile question to ask. As I see it, Mao's Communists backed by the Soviet had deceived the whole nation and people, and they were destined to win. Maybe I am just too fatalistic and always see the inevitability in the past, especially in this case.

Michael Stuart Kelly

Post 11
Saturday, March 26 - 1:37pm Reply
Link
Edit

Michael D: "The democratically controlled US congress completely abandoned indochina to the communists by making it illegal to provide any aide whatsoever. Vietnam fell, then Laos, then Cambodia, and then millions died. Where were the peace activists then?"

That is a damn good question. And I think your points about South Korea and Vietnam are extremely enlightening. Thank you.

Hi Hong - After living in an highly corrupt country (Brazil during the end of the military rule years - and even beyond) I basically agree with you on your speculation about Mao winning despite foreign intervention. With poor communication facilities and widespread hunger and blatant corruption tortuously extending for years, have-nots definitely think that ANY change will be preferable to those in power, especially if there is a promise of improvement for them. If a foreign government supports the corrupt ones, it even makes it easy for the opposition (Mao, for example) sell the idea of a Western monster.

That kind of thing went on in Brazil for a long time and was ultimately defeated by better communications (satellite broadcasting, optical cables and Internet, and better publications).

China can presently rattle its sword at the West, but I don't think it can fool its people on that scale any longer. The only thing a bully understands is a bigger club, so the West must not abandon Taiwan militarily under any circumstances. On the contrary, I believe that Taiwan's ideological culture will eventually conquer mainland China through hightech communications and just plain successful living. Mainland China's own people then will happily do the dirty work.

Imagine that! Now trying to tell Australia what to do! Bullies don't have a lick of sense sometimes.

Michael [kelly]