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 )

It has been said that the most segregated time in America is 11 am on Sundays. Just walk into most churches in America and you will find whole congregations of the same racial species. People will drive an hour from their homes to a church in which they feel "at-home." We even have churches for ABA's and churches for FOB's.

There was a time in America, perhaps a century ago, it was common for Asian immigrant males to marry non-Asians in order to start a family, given the absence of Asian females in America, even if it was very much a social taboo back then. I personally know of many such mixed marriages from long ago. Nowaday, Asian females are avaliable here in America or just a plane ticket away in Asia. Heck, I got married in Asia.

The fact that America is still united is highly remarkable. The question really is, how long will this last?
Everyday, towns and cities in America are talking about secession, about breaking away and forming their own local governments. Much of the talk of secession is motivated by disparities.

The U.S. is undergoing the most dramatic demographic change in the world. Much of the change has accelerated within the last 35 years.
Expect more rioting and racial troubles in the years ahead in America between the "haves" and the "have-nots" races.
All it takes is a minor event to blow things out of proportion, to explode into the chaos and insanity of racial hatred.

Racial conflict in America used to be just a white vs. black thing. Now, it is white vs. black vs. asians vs. latinos vs. what-not. It is like living in a world with a dozen nations having nuclear weapons; the risk of nuclear holocaust increases exponentially because of the various permutations for conflict.

Ironically, America now gives money and relief to those who cause problems. The Rodney King riot was a windfall to the inner city of LA because of federal aid and relief jobs. With a policy like that, who wouldn't riot?
P. Tong
Saturday, January 19, 2002 at 22:39:23 (PST)

Are white separatists in a western state going to succeed from the USA?

Weird
Saturday, January 19, 2002 at 05:47:45 (PST)

Shrewd Fujianese,

I am from Hong Kong and I think Hong Kong sucks. Hell to those darn Brits, who established a crony economy, a rote learning school system, a pricey real estate market, opened HK to vietnamese boat people (I am against the policy, not the vietnamese ppl) but left them behind after 1997. HK will soon fall behind Shanghai and Beijing.
FOP
Friday, January 18, 2002 at 12:10:14 (PST)

I agree with T.H.Lien.

Not China should learn from the west, she should also learn from the rest of the world. I'd rather call it Modernized or Globalized than Westernized. Western system has its flaws. Indiscriminately following the western model without a thorough understanding of its weakness and goodness is doomed to fail. India is the most populous democractic country on earth. However, it is also festered with rampant corruption. The country ranks one of the poorest. Does India benefit from following the western model? I guess not. In fact, China experimented with western capitalist system between 1911 & 1949. She failed big time and gave rise to the communists. Nowadays, the communist government is doing the right thing. It's nurturing a budding capitalist system. On the other hand, it's gradually opening channels for freedom of expression. Before implementing a new system, one needs to understand how it works first. China is in the learning mode.
FOP
Friday, January 18, 2002 at 11:53:41 (PST)

China will be strong again:
Democracy necessarily following from capitalist development is an interesting theory which hasn't panned out in the real world. Hong Kong had no real democracy until some 11th-hour reforms by Patten et al which got swept away very quickly once Beijing came into power. Conversely, statism and the heavy hand of government can and have run economies into the ground (e.g. Argentina, Latin America's premier "formerly developed country"). And you should recall that China's government looks towards Singapore, not South Korea or Japan, and certainly not Taiwan, as a model of political development.

And, saying that Asian countries are Westernized simply because of the presence of American pop and 7-11s holds about as much water as saying America is Latinized cuz we listened to J-Lo or Sinicized cuz there's a "Peking Garden" or "Wong's Kitchen" within delivery distance of most of the American population.

P. Tong: Chicken and egg problem. Are people only getting married within their group because they have grown up with them for day one, or is it actually the case that (my god!) people just want to live among members of their own group, regardless of their belief in American civics?
T.H. Lien
Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 20:42:43 (PST)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS