The political and economical developments in the 1970's that affected the bilateral relationship between China and the United States has its roots in the 1950's. According to the World System Theory, China is classified as a late developer and accordingly started its position in the global economy on the outside looking in. As a periphery country, it would be necessary for China to find that opportunity to push their way into the market and ascend to the core. Their initial attempts at a communist economy of equality for the masses based on an agricultural system failed. Colonization did not sit well with the Chinese first by western intruders and then the violent Japanese Imperialist Army. It was natural that China wanted some "alone time" to regroup and follow their own path to recovery.
Unfortunately, the Modernization Theory which believes a country can build from within and jump into the market as an equal player does not fit in this part of the world. They missed the initial industrial thrust and would have to play catch-up and they would need help to do it. They turned first to the USSR, alienating the power players of the global economy. After a falling out in 1960, the Chinese one decade later would soften up to the prospect of Sino-American cooperation.
There are several issues that will nag at the Chinese and Americans regardless of any treaty that is made. Two very different cultures can never have a true 100% understanding. However, the one issue that will not be resolved in the near future and will continue to cause China and America from ever being core "partners" in the global economy is a small southeastern island off China's coast - Taiwan.
I understand the PRC's perspective. The Guomingdao and the Red Army were at civil war establishing their government - much like our own Civil War. This war was interrupted by Japanese colonization. Of the two groups, the Red Army was the one who made efforts to combat the intruders - not successfully, but they would be seen as protector of the people. It was not hard for the "people" and "peasants" of China (the majority of the population) to determine who had their best interests at heart.
So the opposition party hides out on Taiwan and the United States blocks the path. I try to think of our own Civil War and how I would feel if another nation crossed annexed one of the colonies to the Confederates. How intrusive!
I believe it was in 2005 (I thought I had the article in my military files, but I can't find it) when the United States signed another 50-year agreement with Taiwan. So in my opinion, unless we break that agreement and fail AGAIN in the Asian Pacific region as a "protector of democracy" starting the dominoes falling again, we will not have any significant cooperation with China.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it
I just wanted to post a quick blog for comment. It isnt one of our objectives for the week, but as I was reading I thought it relevant enough to discuss.
I was reading about the Vietnam War in our book and even though I knew most of the details, reading about it after having been stationed in Iraq hit me rather hard.
If you take a pen and scratch out "Vietnam" and insert "Iraq" in most of those pages, it reads like today's newspaper on our operations in Iraq. Now I am not anti-Iraq war. I spent a good share of 2006 and 2007 there and can tell you first hand that the work we did over there while not understood by a majority of free Americans, did a lot of good.
But to play devil's advocate, I am sure that those on the ground in Vietnam in battling the on-slaught of communism didn't consier some of the ruthless tactics that the South Vietnam government under Diem used to flush out anti-government "insurgents" would have provoked many to revolt. One must not forget how the United States was established - by insurgents who were tired of British provocation.
Anyways, I know this subject was off topic, but it was on my mind. comment as you please.
I will be running in the marathon tomorrow and heading for the cruise ship to recover. I will post again as I get internet access!
I was reading about the Vietnam War in our book and even though I knew most of the details, reading about it after having been stationed in Iraq hit me rather hard.
If you take a pen and scratch out "Vietnam" and insert "Iraq" in most of those pages, it reads like today's newspaper on our operations in Iraq. Now I am not anti-Iraq war. I spent a good share of 2006 and 2007 there and can tell you first hand that the work we did over there while not understood by a majority of free Americans, did a lot of good.
But to play devil's advocate, I am sure that those on the ground in Vietnam in battling the on-slaught of communism didn't consier some of the ruthless tactics that the South Vietnam government under Diem used to flush out anti-government "insurgents" would have provoked many to revolt. One must not forget how the United States was established - by insurgents who were tired of British provocation.
Anyways, I know this subject was off topic, but it was on my mind. comment as you please.
I will be running in the marathon tomorrow and heading for the cruise ship to recover. I will post again as I get internet access!
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Week Two: Economic Models of China and Japan
The economic models of China and Japan are rooted in similarities; however, could not have evolved more differently. Both countries built their economy from an authoritarian one-party government model. This evolved from two themes common to Asian Pacific culture. The first is the absolute respect for the hierarchal relationship. Starting in the most basic unit, the family, Asian cultures respect their elders as well as those in authority over them. Secondly, cultural collectivism is a common facet of Asian nations. Unlike the west, peoples from countries such as Japan and China would prefer to make decisions collectively rather than by majority. The culture of a people trained to obey those in authority and to collectively agree on the best way to succeed, lend themselves perfectly to an authoritarian one-party government.
Economically, both of these countries use this state model to run their economies. This is where the similarities divide. Japan built a Market Economy with a twist. In Adam Smith’s model, the market is the invisible hand which controls the ebb and flow of the economy. Japan’s version replaces the market with MITI. With MITI as the invisible hand, it could be construed that Japan follows a Planned Economic route; however, the Japanese government doesn’t own any aspect of business. MITI simply guides private enterprises to consider the best for Japan in its endeavors. Any controls placed on a private company are for the best of Japan and with the culture of collectivism and hierarchal respect for authority, it is an easy sell.
China, on the other hand, has had a more difficult time revving up the economic machine. Their problems started when they shunned the international market and began looking internally for ways to build a self-sustaining system. Japan, pre-WWII and even after their defeat and occupation by the United States continued learning from the international market and determining where they could plug in and rebuild their country. China, instead, turned to the Soviet Union and isolated themselves from the major players of the international market. By adopting the Soviet model, China’s political body took control of every facet of the economy. The political body was not stable post WWII so as the government floundered along went the economy. Mao recognized the inadequacies of the Soviet model and tried on two occasions to revert back to the peasant population and use mass uprisings to bring glory back to China. Unfortunately, placing economic controls into the hands of the uneducated simply couldn’t work. Peasants are used to being controlled. Although a wave of euphoria swept through them as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution took over; their inability to plan strategically in an international market forced the Communist Party to resume the Soviet blueprint and forcibly take control of the economic model.
Both countries still maintain their one-party, authoritarian schemes. Japan, not surprisingly has held the number two spot in the world economy for sometime. What is surprising is that China, despite the slow start and huge obstacles it endured is quickly catching up. They both are an example to late developers that it is possible to compete in the world market regardless of when they entered the game. Peeking over at the west and watching the collapse of a two-party democratic free market has to make one wonder if the style of government really matters at all or if the market has a crest and a valley for every player.
Economically, both of these countries use this state model to run their economies. This is where the similarities divide. Japan built a Market Economy with a twist. In Adam Smith’s model, the market is the invisible hand which controls the ebb and flow of the economy. Japan’s version replaces the market with MITI. With MITI as the invisible hand, it could be construed that Japan follows a Planned Economic route; however, the Japanese government doesn’t own any aspect of business. MITI simply guides private enterprises to consider the best for Japan in its endeavors. Any controls placed on a private company are for the best of Japan and with the culture of collectivism and hierarchal respect for authority, it is an easy sell.
China, on the other hand, has had a more difficult time revving up the economic machine. Their problems started when they shunned the international market and began looking internally for ways to build a self-sustaining system. Japan, pre-WWII and even after their defeat and occupation by the United States continued learning from the international market and determining where they could plug in and rebuild their country. China, instead, turned to the Soviet Union and isolated themselves from the major players of the international market. By adopting the Soviet model, China’s political body took control of every facet of the economy. The political body was not stable post WWII so as the government floundered along went the economy. Mao recognized the inadequacies of the Soviet model and tried on two occasions to revert back to the peasant population and use mass uprisings to bring glory back to China. Unfortunately, placing economic controls into the hands of the uneducated simply couldn’t work. Peasants are used to being controlled. Although a wave of euphoria swept through them as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution took over; their inability to plan strategically in an international market forced the Communist Party to resume the Soviet blueprint and forcibly take control of the economic model.
Both countries still maintain their one-party, authoritarian schemes. Japan, not surprisingly has held the number two spot in the world economy for sometime. What is surprising is that China, despite the slow start and huge obstacles it endured is quickly catching up. They both are an example to late developers that it is possible to compete in the world market regardless of when they entered the game. Peeking over at the west and watching the collapse of a two-party democratic free market has to make one wonder if the style of government really matters at all or if the market has a crest and a valley for every player.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Week One - Western Colonization, Effects on China and Japan
China and Japan reacted very differently to the Western pressures of colonialism in the early 19th century. Both countries were sovereign states with centuries of history and relatively stable governments for the region. Under the Developmental or Statist theory, both countries should have been able to easily move into the global market without problem. For Japan, this was the case; however, China took a very different path.
Neither country was accepting of the West. Both adopted isolationist methodologies and rejected Western efforts to open ports or establish trade agreements. This is where the similarities end. The modernization theory points a path of where the two countries divided sharply in their response to Western pressure.
Japan, understanding that the western nations were industrially mighty and relentless, began a proactive campaign to strengthen their state. They adopted the traditions of the west necessary to become competitive without losing their indigenous culture or social structure. Japan established a strong enough infrastructure to be on equal footing with the western powers so they could be trade partners, not colonized victims.
Geography was a downfall for China. Ch’ien Lung, in the early 18th century, denied British trade requests believing that there was nothing China needed from the outside world. Their vast lands were the center of the universe and everything their countrymen needed was already there. In many aspects, they were correct. As industry flourished and the workers’ tea habit became insatiable, Britain was turning more silver over to China in exchange for tea and not much else. However, the Chinese were not ready for the ruthlessness of the market and instead of evolving as Japan did to respond to the new global market, they allowed the market to dictate how business would be done in China. Britain fired first, introducing opium to the Chinese working class. This lead to two wars for the Chinese who were not prepared to deal with an international superpower, especially one with decades of battle experience. The result – treaties unfavorable to China and a coastline littered with foreign countries.
In 2009, it appears according to the world system theory that both China and Japan have moved into the core of highly developed countries; however, their path was not the same. China remained at the periphery for more years than it needed to because it relied on the mythology that they were a divine nation. Japan was aggressive in its approach, proactive from the start. Although they took a major hit after World War II, their methodology learned from the 19th century helped them bounce back quickly.
Neither country was accepting of the West. Both adopted isolationist methodologies and rejected Western efforts to open ports or establish trade agreements. This is where the similarities end. The modernization theory points a path of where the two countries divided sharply in their response to Western pressure.
Japan, understanding that the western nations were industrially mighty and relentless, began a proactive campaign to strengthen their state. They adopted the traditions of the west necessary to become competitive without losing their indigenous culture or social structure. Japan established a strong enough infrastructure to be on equal footing with the western powers so they could be trade partners, not colonized victims.
Geography was a downfall for China. Ch’ien Lung, in the early 18th century, denied British trade requests believing that there was nothing China needed from the outside world. Their vast lands were the center of the universe and everything their countrymen needed was already there. In many aspects, they were correct. As industry flourished and the workers’ tea habit became insatiable, Britain was turning more silver over to China in exchange for tea and not much else. However, the Chinese were not ready for the ruthlessness of the market and instead of evolving as Japan did to respond to the new global market, they allowed the market to dictate how business would be done in China. Britain fired first, introducing opium to the Chinese working class. This lead to two wars for the Chinese who were not prepared to deal with an international superpower, especially one with decades of battle experience. The result – treaties unfavorable to China and a coastline littered with foreign countries.
In 2009, it appears according to the world system theory that both China and Japan have moved into the core of highly developed countries; however, their path was not the same. China remained at the periphery for more years than it needed to because it relied on the mythology that they were a divine nation. Japan was aggressive in its approach, proactive from the start. Although they took a major hit after World War II, their methodology learned from the 19th century helped them bounce back quickly.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Introduction
I have created this blog in order to post my comments and thoughts regarding a class I am taking called Asia and the Modern World. A brief bio of the author: I am a United States military veteran of 18+ years and extremely devoted to my country and its causes around the world. That will instantly make me unpopular in many of my views especially on a topic such as this that requires me to explain why I feel colonialism around the globe, although not popular to those who were colonized, was extremely beneficial in the long run. I don't feel apologetic about it, although mainstream media and the current political correctness of our global population will try to bully into feeling so. Colonialism has worked and failed for many; however, for the countries with the fortitude to do something about their situation it will be shown to be an overwhelming success. The United States, one of the first in the world to be colonized is a classic example. On two occasions (1776, and 1812), it was pushed into battle against the world's premier fighting force and although out manned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered on most occasions, banded together long enough to become independent and a global force to be reckoned with. As I go through this course, I hope to see this theory of mine proven with the countries of the Asian Pacific - the subject of our first week of reading.
I more than welcome all comments, positive, negative. In past classes, I have done very well in writing from the other side's point of view. I look forward to writing this blog (my first blog) and seeing where the posts and responses take me.
I more than welcome all comments, positive, negative. In past classes, I have done very well in writing from the other side's point of view. I look forward to writing this blog (my first blog) and seeing where the posts and responses take me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)