Can China Avoid the Soviet Union's Fate? | Asian American Issues

CAN CHINA AVOID THE SOVIET UNION'S FATE?

he People's Republic of China likes to compare itself with the United States. Both governments were forged to throw off the imperial yoke. Both are amalgams of many races and nationalities. Both are great continental powers capable of harnessing immense resources to promote national agendas around the world.
     Beijing's bosses cite these parallels to justify China's ambition of returning Taiwan to the fold -- forcibly if necessary -- and violently suppressing movements for Tibetan independence, Moslem separatism and religious tolerance. The party line: "In a few decades we will be as prosperous, unified and democratic as you Americans."
     Unfortunately, some observers see closer parallels to the former Soviet Union.
     Founded in 1910 to free Russian peasants from oppressive landowners and a weak imperial government, the Soviet government quickly and ruthlessly expanded into a superpower that rivaled the United States in military might and reach. On top of nearly 300 million citizens of several dozen captive nationalities, the Soviet Union became the puppetmasters of virtually every Eastern European government. By 1989 it was buckling under the burden of superpower competition. In 1991 the communists lost power to the reformist Yeltsin. The Soviet Union broke apart into Russia and a dozen independent republics. Today Russia is a nation of 150 million struggling to build a capitalist economy from the rubble of the communist meltdown.
     Among the Soviets' earliest converts were Mao Tsetung, Zhou Enlai and other young Chinese intellectuals who saw in communism salvation for the Chinese people from western imperialism and internal corruption. Mao's long struggle against Chiang Kaishek and the Kuomingtang would have ended disasterously without the support of dozens of ethnic minorities in northwestern China who believed his promise of ultimate political autonomy. Their help proved more valuable to Mao than the billions in American aid and direct military assistance to Chiang. By 1949 the Kuomingtang had fled to Taiwan and the PRC ruled the mainland.
     Beijing's bosses have been as ruthless as the Soviets in consolidating territory and suppressing separatist movements. But they have been far more successful in creating a functioning economy. They began capitalist reforms in 1979. By 2001 China's economy had become free enough to enter the World Trade Organization. For the past two decades it has grown at an average annual rate of 9%. Few of China's 1.25 billion go hungry and about 125 million enjoy living standards comparable to Malaysia and the Philippines. By some measure China has just surpassed Japan in GDP and will surpass the U.S. by 2025.
     But China's future as a united nation is far from assured.
     Even assuming peaceful reunification with Taiwan and victory over Tibetan separatists, Beijing's leaders face some big hurdles. They must integrate a billion subsistence-level farmers and workers into the consumer economy of the east coast or face ethnic discontent on a scale that would dwarf America's racial strife of the 1960s. Yet burdening the developed regions could breed separatist sentiment in Guangdong, Fujien, Manchuria and other regions. Over 100 languages and dialects are spoken in China. Long-suppressed religious minorities are becoming better organized thanks to the internet and other communications technology.
     Are China's prospects for staying united more like those of the U.S. or of the former Soviet Union?

(Updated )

china will never end up like the soviet union. History has shown china remained as one although various foreign powers invaded and meddle with its affairs in the 1800's and pre-WW2 era. Those evil westerners might feel happy to see china being torn apart,they can support all anti-china campaigns as they want (like the free-tibet movement,free-xinjiang movement,etc.) but china will most unlikely to be broken into pieces like the former ussr.China is just not Yugoslavia of the balkans,chinese societies and ethnic groups just arent squabbling to the extend of what had happened in the other parts of the world like yugoslavia.
holler
Monday, November 19, 2001 at 05:36:11 (PST)

Another Realist, I agree with you completely. I would add Mongolia as well. There are, in fact, more Mongolians in China now than in Mongolia itself.

AC dropout, great points.
Realist
Sunday, November 18, 2001 at 19:14:18 (PST)

Tang blood and Taiwan soul, despite warring states, Eastern Turkestan, that's right, China was able to keep together and has done so for the past 5,000 years. One of the most impressive characteristics of China and her history is her resilience and ability to stay together for so long. Other empires have come and gone. And efforts by separatists to break away have always failed. Tang blood and Taiwan soul, your sarcasm on Communist slogans shows how jaded and ignorant you are. China is changing, reforming, and modernizing every day. Your efforts to divide the country will fail, just as other efforts to divide China have failed over the past 5,000 years.
Realist
Sunday, November 18, 2001 at 19:12:23 (PST)

Tang blood and Taiwan soul, I'm sorry you got smacked around. That probably is not the best way to teach. However, that does not justify splitting a country, and independence for Taiwan is not justifiable. Reunification is inevitable and it will occur.
Realist
Sunday, November 18, 2001 at 18:54:58 (PST)

KM, if you are so concerned about Tibet and minorities in China, what about the U.S.? Let's see how the U.S. treated "native minorities".....From an examination of U.S. history, we see that American Indians were massacred and herded onto reservations, where their culture and way of life was impossible. Tibet has been part of China over a 1,000 years, by your own admission, much longer than the U.S. has been in existence. By your logic, the U.S. should return all of North America to the American Indians. Is this what you are advocating? Hypocrite.
Realist
Sunday, November 18, 2001 at 18:51:10 (PST)

I have to agree with Realist and Another Realist.

In its 5000 year history China has fallen apart and put itself back together again a couple of times. I don't see why it would not be able to do so in 21st century, if the scenior of implosion is going to occur. It put itself together after the first half 20th with it Chinese warlords running around, foriegn invaders, and civil war.

Personally I don't believe the poor county peasant / rich city dweller issue due to China's restrictive population movement nor entry to the WTO which will destabilize China internal industries for a short time in the 21st century will force it to fall apart.

China has shown that it is will the modernize at their own pace which they dictate and are suceeding thus far.

I mean they even have 8 other parties other than the Communist Party in China now. They use the 8 other parties as "consultants." Its a far cry from western versions of democracy. But they are moving and reforming in the right direction.

AC dropout
Saturday, November 17, 2001 at 18:00:30 (PST)

AC dropout,

The difference between the U.S. and China is that extremist groups in the U.S. have the right to hold their own demonstrations and have free rein to perpetuate their beliefs. As far as I know, this is not the case in China, with the crackdowns on Falun Gong and such. It does not matter whether the minority group is credible or not. While it is true that many Americans as of late are feeling overzealously patriotic, for the most part we are not taking it out on people of MidEastern background. If there happened to be zealots in China stirring up anarchy and they happened to be of a certain ethnic minority, would the Chinese government punish only the zealots or would it punish the minority? Right now, I can't bring myself to believe that Chinese government would uniformly and fairly punish the troublemakers. It doesn't matter if ethnic minority groups in China are treated relatively well. As long as there is violent suppression of religious, ideological, philosophical, and other groups for espousing their beliefs openly, the Chinese government is still acting in a fascist-like manner.

"It doesn't matter is the seperatist is a non-violent pagan like Ghandi or the Dali Lama. A nation has the right to preserve the union if it chooses to do so. The UK had every right to shoot Ghandi if they wanted to when he was trying to free India. But they choose not to."

China's present claim to Tibet is based entirely on the influence that Mongol and Manchuk emperors exercised over Tibet in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, respectively.

The UK chose not to act in a fascist manner.

I don't think you have a good understanding of fascism really is. Look it up if you care to.
KM, 24
Friday, November 16, 2001 at 13:25:29 (PST)

AC dropout:
As I recall, people discussing that vote went through some pretty interesting contortions to try to convince people that "guanyu" should also be their language of interaction with common people, like trying to lie about the writing of the word "guan" as not being the word "official" but actually another word entirely (can't recall off hand). Also Sun himself was pretty ambiguous on the whole issue, but what forced his hand was trying to appease Northerners who were convinced a vote for Cantonese meant a vote for some southern separatists who would split up the country.

And yes I know corporal punishment is "the way," cuz I got smacked on the hand, upside the head, whatever, several times myself. I was a slow learner and my parents can barely speak Mandarin themselves. Felt like I was under foreign occupation in my own country, ya know?

What's with my ignorance of politics? Excuse me? Japan is a successful socialist country? It WAS a successful socialist country, cuz unlike the Soviets they found a reasonably successful industrial management policy which let them capture world markets. But they lose their brightest thinkers every year. Read up on people like Shuji Nakamura, whose inventions laid the basis for billions of dollars of business in high-capacity optical disks, but got 30,000 yen for his efforts. Besides, the trouble with communism is that it is too easy to play the system rather than add real value to the economy. Not that it doesn't happen under democracy, but at least it is less common.
Tang blood and Taiwan soul
Friday, November 16, 2001 at 10:50:27 (PST)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS