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 )

3rd gen Asian patriot: Hmm, as a wild shot in the dark, you wouldn't happen to read National Review a lot?

How many US-born children of immigrants do you know who are actually more fluent in their parents' national language than in English? Maybe this is a problem among Latinos who are less likely to have access to education and who have the option to take Spanish-medium education in the public schools (and Latinos in Cali overwhelmingly vote AGAINST programs like this), but it's not really relavent to an Asian-American youth population most of which grows up with ridiculously poor command of their ancestral language. China has far more of a problem with minorities being unable to speak the national language. And almost 100% of China's national minorities are not even immigrants but belong to the land just as much or even more than their Han neighbours.

The United States has no large, overriding unitary culture which tells us what festivals to celebrate, what gods to believe in, etc. A national culture is not needed so much as a national commitment to a core set of values which cut across all cultures: the sanctity of the family against efforts to tear it apart, the willingness to stand up and die for our nation when it is threatened, the freedom of the individual from government pressure to conform or assimilate to values of the majority which are non-universal, the inviolability of free speech/belief/thought. China's way ahead of us on the family part (no welfare system subsidizing irresponsible men and women and removing the incentive to form stable family units), way ahead of us on nationalism (a side effect of strict government control over education and the media), running about even with us on the government forcing people to conform to non-universal majority values, and only falls behind us on the inviolability of free speech/belief/thought.

I don't see either the US or China as likely to break up in any significant cultural sense, though plenty of regions in both countries would love to tell the central governments to go to hell and stop draining regional tax revenues to pay for government programs which bring benefit only to people with connections. Regional governments withholding taxes from the central government already happens in China without there being any desire for self-government behind it, only a desire for better government.

T.H. Lien
   Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 01:55:21 (PST)
3rd gen asian patriot,

I've heard the same arguement networks have been using against cable. If we go back to the original 3 channels on TV you will be able to have the 60's national culture again.

As for English, unless you don't want a higher education in this country you're going to have to learn it. I've been these ethnic ghetto, last I check there is no way your going to reach even high school Chinese literacy level here in the USA.

But like you mentioned before it is ever changing and the dams are openning.


AC dropout
   Monday, January 21, 2002 at 12:16:33 (PST)
P Tong:
What you say about regional divisions is very true. This is the fine line we walk when we stray away from the "melting pot" society of previous years.
Recently many ethnic groups have been demanding more and more ethnic cultural/language services and institutions in the area in which they live.
While this is quite reasonable, it does have a darker side.
Ethnic groups can now live, shop, watch TV, pay their taxes, and eventually die without having to learn the language and customs of their new homeland. In our case, the United States.
Many new immigrants are naturally drawn to these "cultural islands" as they are similar to the land they left behind. This of course causes them to grow and before long the region becomes mostly populated with a certain ethnic group.
Many immigrants say they chose to come to these areas during their "transitional" period, but then say they end up staying because they feel more comfortable there. Or is there more to it?
Their "self ghettoization" can only lead to problems. With no incentive to learn the national language or culture, many groups feel less confident mingling with others (the main reason most chose to live in areas similar to their homeland) and so rarely leave their ethnic zones.
Therefore many feel left out or denied (not neccessarily by purpose, but by default) of better job and social opportunities.
What is commonly their answer to these problems? Well, more ethnic rights and representation of course. And in many cases they want this "greater" ethnic representation in communities in which they live (which is already ethnic in it's make-up). And so the vicious cycle continues.
Yes, the United States is a land for everyone and it's culture is everchanging with the influence of all it's citizens and new immigrants. That is it's beauty.
But with so many different people, a "national" culture is needed to act as the glue of the nation.
Different people can only see each other as brothers when they have something in common. That is what makes strong nations and instills nationalism in people.
If no "national" culture exists, at least to a certain degree, you end up with divisions and the possible balkanization of the state.
So please, enrich our great nation with your cultures and ideas but keep in mind it's a two-way street.
There is a national culture in this country and it is only by accepting certain aspects of it (get out more, travel, try new things) that you will better become a part of the great nation-building experiment started over 200 years ago.

Sorry of this seems a bit long winded.

3rd gen asian patriot
   Sunday, January 20, 2002 at 18:43:19 (PST)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS