Return to: Home | Politics | International Politics

The dark side of paradise

Published 17 July 2008

A special New Statesman focus on South East Asia with Philip Bowring, Joe Cummings, Marina Mahathir, Elizabeth Pisani, Ziauddin Sardar, Ruth Padel, Sholto Byrnes and more. Edited by Rachel Aspden and Sholto Byrnes

The dreamy, white-sand beaches of south-east Asia will welcome millions of western tourists this summer. From the west coast of Thailand, excursions will head to Ko Tapu, the island made famous as the lair of the Bond villain Scaramanga in The Man With the Golden Gun. Others will be lured by the clifftop kecak dances on Bali, where flames illuminate the tales of the Ramayana, performed in an 11th-century Hindu temple as the sun sets on the Lombok Strait. Cultural visitors will head to the ancient royal capital of Angkor in Cambodia, while the South China Sea is heaven for divers.

But cast your mind back to the beginning of this year, and there is another picture that speaks to a somewhat darker truth about the region than the paradisiacal vistas painted by tourist brochures suggest.

As General Suharto lay dying in a Jakarta hospital in January, western commentators bemoaned the failure to bring the former Indonesian dictator to justice. A "tyrant", they called him, a man responsible for murdering up to half a million of his countrymen in a purge of communists in the late 1960s, accused of stealing as much as $35bn from the state during his 31-year rule (which ended in 1998) and who held the dubious honour of being declared the most corrupt leader of all time by the NGO Transparency International.

None of this stopped a string of local luminaries coming to pay their respects. Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia for 22 years; Singapore's founding father, now minister mentor, Lee Kuan Yew; the sultan of Brunei: all visited as Suharto fought his last battle. "I feel sad to see a very old friend with whom I had worked closely over the last 30 years, not really getting the honour that he deserves," said Lee, who came to full power in 1965, two years before Suharto. Dr Mahathir held the old dictator's hand and shed a tear. Even the leader of East Timor, José Ramos-Horta, had kind words for the man who ordered the invasion and subsequent repression of his country in 1975, and he asked the Pope to pray for him.

After his death, the west was unanimous in its condemnation of his rule. "Suharto's legacy speaks for itself. We regret that, on this occasion, we must write harshly of the dead. Very harshly," concluded a New Statesman leader. Yet closer to home, different sentiments were expressed. The president of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, praised Suharto's promotion of regional unity, while Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono eulogised the "many great services" he had done for the nation. The truth is that, surprising - even repugnant - as outside observers may find this seeming indulgence of a man they considered a brutal despot, it was only to be expected that his death would be marked more generously in the region. For although in some respects Suharto may have been an exception, in many others he was the rule.

Most tourists continue to be blissfully unaware of the region's internal politics. Few larking about in the water park on Singapore's Sentosa Island turn their thoughts to Chee Soon Juan, the long-standing opposition leader who has been bankrupted by defamation suits, banned from standing for elections and frequently imprisoned - all for actions and campaigns that would be taken for granted in a liberal democracy. Nor does it seem likely that many who visit the Shoe Museum in Manila, home to Imelda Marcos's footwear collection, reflect for long on how it was that her late husband, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, managed to turn the Philippines into a nation of "40 million cowards and one son of a bitch", as a US official put it.

Yet, as the balance of power and wealth moves inexorably east over the course of what China's Deng Xiaoping and India's Rajiv Gandhi predicted would be the "Asian century", governments and businesses need to know more about the group of countries to the south-east of "Chindia". Skyscraper cities are the visible evidence of decades of growth (5.7 per cent across the region in 2008, according to the Asian Development Bank; down from 6.5 per cent in 2007, but still buoyant compared to the 1.8 per cent the OECD estimates for the UK this year). Individually, the members of Asean (the Association of South-East Asian Nations) may not be big players, but collectively they are a part of what Fareed Zakaria, in his book The Post-American World, refers to as "the rise of the rest". And at a time when Islam's place in the world and the extent to which liberal democracies should either accommodate or confront it is the subject of constant debate, not to seek a greater understanding of an area with more Muslims than the entire Arab Middle East would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Asian values

Chief among the lessons that need to be learned are the historical reasons why liberal democracy has been so absent from the region, and why one should not expect its imminent arrival. The western powers will have to accept that their future partners - and they must act towards them as partners, shedding any lingering superiority to their former imperial possessions - may be part of the growing club of nations where an authoritarian "guided democracy" holds sway. Indeed, proponents of the "Asian values" school of thought reject the suggestion that modernisation should be accompanied by liberalisation.

As Lee Kuan Yew put it in a speech in Tokyo, in 1992: "With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries . . . What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient."

Put bluntly, liberal democracy has no historic roots in the Asean countries; and after independence (all were colonised apart from Thailand) there were plenty of reasons why more authoritarian forms of government swiftly became the norm. These were states, but not nation states in the classic 19th-century European sense. Some owed their very creation to European empires. The boundary between Malaysia and Indonesia, for instance, corresponds to the early 19th-century division of influence agreed by the British and the Dutch. Singapore was a swampy island populated by a few fishermen until it was founded as a city state by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. The Philippines never existed as a unit prior to rule by the Spanish and then the Americans (400 years of convent, 50 years of Hollywood, as the saying goes). They, and many other neighbouring states, faced not only battles to maintain territorial integrity on independence, but also struggles to forge national identities.

Far from aiding this process, experiments with democracy in the 1940s and 1950s suggested it was a system that gave too free a voice to separatist tendencies and stoked racial tension. After 17 different cabinets in 13 years, President Sukarno introduced "guided democracy" in Indonesia in 1957. Five years later, the military took over in Burma, ending democracy for good. No one disputes the countless atrocities the generals have since inflicted on that unfortunate country. At the time, however, many were sympathetic to the move. "If they hadn't stepped in, the country would have disintegrated," one diplomat then stationed in Rangoon told me.

The lack of homogeneity caused serious problems. Did the large Chinese diaspora, which held levels of wealth disproportionate to its size in many countries, owe its allegiance to the new states, or did it look to the home country? It was an important question during the decades of the domino effect, when first Vietnam, then Cambodia and Laos, fell under communist rule.

Singapore grip

Stability became the goal. And the means to achieving it - removing dissent from the public sphere, building up institutions such as the monarchy in Thailand and the army in Burma - were presented as being both necessary and true to local values and customs. To adat, the system of customary law ingrained in the culture from Malaysia, across Indonesia, to the Muslim south of the Philippines, and to compadrazgo, the network of client-patron kinship in the rest of that country; to Confucianism in the Chinese communities; drawing on the passivity and fatalism of Buddhism in the northern countries, and on the essentially conservative nature of the Muslim south.

Why is all this relevant today? The answer lies in the fact that there is still not one functioning liberal democracy in south-east Asia. Burma's tragic story is well known. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are only beginning to recover from the decades when communists of various shades, supported by both China and the USSR, wreaked havoc throughout Indochina; Vietnam and Laos are still nominally communist today, while Cambodia's prime minister is a former member of the Khmer Rouge.

Thailand continues its well-worn pattern of oscillating between tentative democracy and army-led coups, with the monarchy playing a stabilising, moderate role. Singapore's elections are a byword for predictability, not least because any party other than the ruling PAP faces huge obstacles to getting on to the ballot. The rigidity of Malaysia's political system has been highlighted recently by the response of the governing coalition to the prospect of losing power for the first time, provoking a crisis in which the opposition leader has been framed for sexual assault. And in the Philippines and Indonesia, both supposedly democracies since the falls of Marcos and Suharto, respectively, elections are so marred by corruption and vote-rigging that it would be a joke to suggest they merit the description "free and fair".

If they paused to consider the political repression in the region, it would seem intolerable to the tourists jetting in to the airports of south-east Asia. But those shiny new temples of commerce, many of which put Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle to shame for space, convenience and cleanliness, are symbolic of why revolution is not around the corner, and why the citizens of many of these countries accept more authoritarian forms of government. It has been those governments that have kept the order necessary for growth.

Such cultural factors should also call into question the levels of demand for western-style liberal democracy. The Thai people showed that there was something more important to them than democracy when they accepted the coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 because it was thought to be sanctioned by the king. There is at least some truth to those Asian values that Lee Kuan Yew talked about. Dr Mahathir put it another way in 2003: "In some countries sleeping naked on the beach as a sign of protest is considered democracy - if that is democracy then this is not needed."

That "not needed" may sound chilling to Europeans baking in the tropical sun this summer. Should they be lucky enough to enjoy lengthy interaction with local people, however, they may be surprised to find that many are not bothered by such remarks. The west had better wake up to the fact that other parts of the world don't necessarily share its values. In the age of the Asian century, it's time we stopped being surprised.

The Asean nations

Brunei Population: 380,000. GDP per capita: $32,167. Religion: 67 per cent Muslim, 13 per cent Buddhist, 10 per cent Christian. Absolute monarchy. Legally, the sultan "can do no wrong" personally or officially.
Burma Population: 55 million. GDP per capita: $239. Religion: 89 per cent Buddhist. Brutal military dictatorship since 1962.
Cambodia Population: 14 million. GDP per capita: $600. Religion: 95 per cent Buddhist. Faltering - some say failing - democracy.
Indonesia Population: 237 million. GDP per capita: $1,925. Religion: 86 per cent Muslim. Dictatorship until 1998; shaky democracy.
Laos Population: seven million. GDP per capita: $656. Religion: 65 per cent Buddhist, 33 per cent animist. One-party communist state.
Malaysia Population: 25 million. GDP per capita: $6,948. Religion: 60 per cent Muslim, 19 per cent Buddhist, 9 per cent Christian, 6 per cent Hindu. Democracy, although ruling coalition has never lost a general election.
Philippines Population: 93 million. GDP per capita: $1,625. Religion: 81 per cent Roman Catholic, 5 per cent Muslim. Chaotic, corruption-ridden democracy since fall of the dictator Marcos in 1986.
Singapore Population: five million. GDP per capita: $35,163. Religion: 43 per cent Buddhist, 15 per cent Muslim,15 per cent Christian, 9 per cent Taoist. Democracy in name; opposition parties face obstacles to getting on to the ballot.
ThailandPopulation: 65 million. GDP per capita: $3,737. Religion: 95 per cent Buddhist. Alternates between tentative democracy and coups.
Vietnam Population: 86 million. GDP per capita: $818. Religion: 85 per cent Buddhist. Communist state moving towards market economy.

Research by Alex Iossifidis

Post this article to

25 comments from readers

MarkBin
18 July 2008 at 02:50

Lee Kuan Yew's valuing "a government which is honest, effective and efficient" over "freedoms and liberties of the individual" is fraught with one big problem: no government is Asia is "honest, effective and efficient".

Serosch
18 July 2008 at 08:43

Yes, Markbin, and we in Europe do so much better don't we.

Viscount Firm
18 July 2008 at 09:52

Damn you sir!

MarkBin
19 July 2008 at 08:10

Serosch, what's the point in your comment? I would be the last person to defend any government in Europe, but I'm fed up of Asian dictators of excusing their abuses through so-called different values. It's complete bollocks.

Johnboy
19 July 2008 at 18:15

Serosch, this has nothing whatever to do with Europe. You don't always have to relativise. In doing so you're guilty of the same thing as countless political leaders who excuse their own behaviour by comparing it to that of others.

Riaz Ahmad
19 July 2008 at 19:25

As usual, the western journalists begin the story from where it suits them. The invasion of East Timor was conducted on America's behalf and so was the invasion of Cyprus. Long before 9/11, the west was part and parcel of extermination of the Islamist political movement in Algeria and Egypt, US in particular was very happy with the slaughter of the communist in Indonesia. It is a bit shameful to critisise others for the sins the west devised and were part of. Those who pride themselves in freedom and democracy, conducted the two biggest slaughters in the far east, the western hypocrites make no mention of nuclear bombs in Japan and the use of napalm, agent orange and phosphorus bombs in regular carpet bombing of Veitnam.

MarkBin
20 July 2008 at 03:59

As usual, people like Riaz Ahmad begin the story from where it suits them. No mention of the Western free world's opposition to totalitarianism, hence policies to contain communism. No mention of the mass atrocities of Stalin and Lenin and the fear of the domino effect. I'm not defending it, but there's always an alternative starting point to your version of anti-US history.

fairplay
20 July 2008 at 07:27

who cares what the west thinks? we in the west support democracy in the form of centuries old crime cabals running things for us. how is asia any different? go to south east asia and you will see something you dont see often in the west. ie. lots of smiling faces

raggedyman
20 July 2008 at 11:10

MarkBin :

It seems ironic that the world's 'greatest' democracy has spent much of the post-war period propping up totalitarian regimes & dictatorships as a bulwark against the spread of socialism/communism.

Ho Chi Minh and his rebel fighters fought with the French and British during WWII against the Japanese on the understanding of independence and liberation for their people.

Once the Japanese were defeated the rebel fighters demanded their independence from their colonial rulers. This was denied them by the British and in order to repel them it became necessary to release the Japanese soldiers from the stockade to assist in the battle - leading to one of history's more bizarre moments.

Ho Chi Minh was more freedom fighter and nationalist than he was communist. Here are some quotes:

"Nothing is more valuable than independence and freedom."

"I follow only one party: the Vietnamese party."

"It is better to sacrifice everything than to live in slavery!"

"The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of United States aggression they have risen up, united as one man."

"We have to win independence at any cost, even if the Truong Son mountains burn."

"It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."

Doesn't the US departure from Vietnam in 1975 and the subsequent history of the region not prove, if nothing else, that the domino theory was the utmost tosh.

The many millions who perished in Korea and Vietnam died for something far more egregious and infamous - realpolitik and regional hegemony.

And isn't the war against terror simply the domino theory reborn giving us today Iraq and Afghanistan?

MarkBin
21 July 2008 at 07:16

raggedyman

Can't quite understand why you quote Ho Chi Minh

saying, "Nothing is more valuable than independence and freedom," "I follow only one party: the Vietnamese party," "It is better to sacrifice everything than to live in slavery," "The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of United States aggression they have risen up, united as one man," "We have to win independence at any cost, even if the Truong Son mountains burn," "It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."

He may have said these things, but one cannot argue that the Vietnamese people now have freedom. Communism has seen to it that they haven't.

I also don't see how defeat in Vietnam proves the domino theory was tosh. The US army was tactically defeated by unconventional warfare. Nevertheless, there are many other victories to show the theory was a success ie the Soviet Union has broken up and much of the former communist states now have democracy, China is now (authoritarian) capitalist but getting freer by the decade, South Koreans have democracy (would you prefer the peninsula to be ruled by Kim Jong Il? Sure you'll duck this question) As for the Korean War, had Mao not sent a million Chinese to fight there (defying China's non-interference policy) the people probably wouldn't be living under Kim now. Remember who invaded who.

Having achieved so much in the industrial revolution, the realisation of universal suffrage and the huge sacrifice the West made in WWII, it is entirely understandable that the Allied nations would be jittery about isms furthered by single party political systems.

The war on terror is the result of extremists (Bush and Co) taking over the White House. I don't support it.

You might deem US efforts as being inspired by the quest for hegemony, but if that means nurturing democracy, freedom of speech and human rights, as the US has succeeded in doing in South Korea and Taiwan (yeah I know they both had repressive regimes for a while) then I'm all for it. I don't equate the policy to contain communism to the current massive overreaction to Islamic extremism. I also don't defend the British empire. But that tiny fragment of history in which the West defeated communism was something those of us who like to have a choice of non state-run newspapers to read in the morning and the freedom to publicly criticise our MPs without the fear of being locked up are, in my opinion, rightfully proud.

raggedyman
21 July 2008 at 12:24

MarkBin:

Can't quite understand why you quote Ho Chi Minh

I am trying to make the point that many communist revolutionary movements were primarily 'nationalist' movements seeking liberation from various forms of colonial subjugation. This contributes to the idea that aspects of the 'cold war' and the 'domino theory' were bogus.

The reason the US doggedly stayed in Vietnam almost in the end seeking a programme of systematic extermination of a whole population was precisely because of the fear enshrined in the domino theory that to lose would be to open the floodgates to the global domination of communism. I believe that the nominal communism that has been steadily fading in Vietnam post-1975 is hardly the 'rise of Mordor' predicted by the 'domino theory' and which was used to justify the horrors being perpetrated in Vietnam and Cambodia

Neither of the world's two greatest imperia acquitted themselves well over Korea - it was a division mutually agreed upon with the only ones not being consulted being the Koreans themselves.

The Korean War was infamous again for its deliberate targeting of civilians (since admitted by the US Government) and helped Truman bring about the McCarthyite era of the 1950s - something that would have been hard to imagine without the Korean War.

The use of the threat of external enemies has long been a tactic of authoritarian governments seeking to restrict the liberties of their citizens.

As one bemused citizen of the newly democratised east European countries put it - 'we now have the freedom to say what we like, the trouble is nobody seems interested in what we have to say'.

Free speech does not by definition mean an empowered citizenry. Zizek is probably closer to the truth when he describes us as living in 'a post-democratic consumerism'.

MarkBin
21 July 2008 at 13:24

raggedyman

I'm not dumb enough to think democracy is the answer to everything, but I do possess enough analytical powers to decipher that 'we now have the freedom to say what we like, the trouble is nobody seems interested in what we have to say' is better than 'we daren't say anything critical of the government for fear of being locked up or ruined' - which is the case in Vietnam nowadays.

It's noted that you failed to address the point about who invaded who in the Korean war (I think you overlook the post WWII context of Korea - surely you're not going to tell me Hitler was a contrived threat) and whether Koreans would be better under Kim Jong Il or Lee Myung-bak.

As for colonial subjugation, that is fair comment and something I'm going to argue against. Although I would say the colonialism was the result of fierce competition between the more clearly defined European nation states of that period. There are tiny echoes of that in Asia at the moment but the region is, so far, being less expansionist as it feeds its industrialisation than Europe was.

Free speech does not by definition mean empowered citizenry. Let me tell you, having lived in China and possessing the ability to read Chinese, the people living under democracy in the UK are a damn sight more empowered than the people under one-party rule in the Middle Kingdom.

I don't dispute for a minute that authoritarian governments use the threat of external enemies to consolidate their power. But the point you're missing is that the government's claims of Uighur and Tibetan separatist "threats" in China are not subject to any public scrutiny, whereas the "threats" of al Qaeda and Iran in the West are under constant scrutiny by the media and academics. If they weren't, where would your healthy scepticism come from? You would surely rally behind the ruling party, accepting, like most, what the state-run, nationalist newspapers tell them.

Douglas Chalmers
21 July 2008 at 22:39

Since when did a "jazz critic" become an expert on international politics? Europeans and Anglo Westerners in particular should just shut up and mind their own business as regards Asia!

What have you ever done for the place anyway? Something to be proud of ? Like what you are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan (West Asia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tch6t-md_-Q )? And helping multinational oil + gas corporations (Chevron) exploit Burma?

Have you forgotten Western "intervention" in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960's-70's? A great way for some countries' military-industrial complexes to churn out more profits at the cost of huma suffering, uhh! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0

raggedyman
21 July 2008 at 23:33

MarkBin:

When I say 'nominally' communist with regard to Vietnam I use the term advisedly. Vietnamese history post-1975 seems quite instructive in this regard. The rapid move during the 1980s to an open liberalised economy accompanied worsening relations with the Soviet Union.

Even by the end of the decade eager corporate and business interests in the US were lobbying hard for a softening approach towards Vietnam. By 1994 Clinton had succumbed completely and the US trade embargo was lifted. Since then the Vietnamese have become the fastest growing economy amongst the Asian Tigers - with much of the inward investment coming from the US. They have recently been welcomed as a permanent member of the Security Council. It would seem that corporate capitalism finds authoritarian governments with a pliant workforce rather good for business. As this article suggests liberal democracy may actually hinder rather than facilitate profit-maximisation for corporate capitalists; thank goodness it is so attenuated in the US these days.

Also curious is the bang-up rates for Vietnam - that is the number of their citizens they lock up per 100,000 of population. For Vietnam it is globally quite low at 116 whilst for Malaysia it is 164 and for Taiwan it is 248, 263 for Singapore and for Brunei a staggering 486. The British who have a high rate for Europe lock up 152 for every 100,000 of their pop. Of course by far the world leaders here are the Americans who have a total of 2.5 million of their citizens imprisoned - with a total of 751 of their citizens to every 100,00 they are the world record-holders. Well it's something to mull over.

With regard to liberal democracies I believe their main advantage is in providing a 'safety valve' during times of economic downturn. The dimwit politicians exist for you to throw eggs at when things go wrong. God forbid someone like Bush was actually running the world's greatest superpower for example. Its a trick to have us all debating and critiquing Bush when its really something systemic at work; still the media have a lot of fun.

Recent archival evidence suggests that Stalin was a reluctant agreer to Kim II Sung's plans to reunify Korea. Stalin was very fearful of US involvement in the peninsular and was somewhat surprised when Truman acted. It's hard to think of a more pointless war or a more destructive one. It pretty much leveled every major Korean city and cost 3.5 million lives. In response to recent remarks by Obama concerning winning in Afghanistan Howard Zinn sagely remarks, using the Korean and Vietnam wars as examples, that in war in the modern period surely nobody is a winner. The Korean War began and ended at the 38th parallel with hardly a square meter of territory gained or lost.

I also think that since the US were busy encircling the Soviets and the Chinese and had already showed their willingness to use atomic weapons that Stalin and Mao on the whole were more entitled to their paranoia than Truman was to his.

I am still confidently expecting, once the diplomatic dancing has finally finished, for the Israelis to strike militarily at Iran - I do not expect the 'fearless' gaze of our media who proved so obligingly myopic over Iraq to make a blind bit of difference in this regard. We are truly disempowered I believe by the modern world system but, as you say, we can at least say what we like. That is unless your a Dr Kelly of course.

MarkBin
22 July 2008 at 02:17

Raggedyman

"Even by the end of the decade eager corporate and business interests in the US were lobbying hard for a softening approach towards Vietnam. By 1994 Clinton had succumbed completely and the US trade embargo was lifted. Since then the Vietnamese have become the fastest growing economy amongst the Asian Tigers - with much of the inward investment coming from the US. They have recently been welcomed as a permanent member of the Security Council. It would seem that corporate capitalism finds authoritarian governments with a pliant workforce rather good for business."

I quite agree. The protagonists of global capitalism have done much to strengthen one party states, either it be through the chaos that ensued with Russia's democracy experiment or propaganda as used by the Chinese that claims the government has brought the population amazing economic growth (in reality it's merely relaxed the rules, permitting massive foreign investment/exploitation). Greed has trumped human rights.

As for the bang up rates, well, Vietnam might be quite low in comparison to the US, although I doubt the verity of the figures. But you have to consider for what crimes are people being locked up. The US undoubtedly has a much higher rate of violent crime than Vietnam, but I'm sure the US does not lock up political prisoners, with the exception of Guantanamo.

"With regard to liberal democracies I believe their main advantage is in providing a 'safety valve' during times of economic downturn."

It goes beyond that. I'm no Conservative supporter (am a Green Party member) but the government has performed a raft of U-turns over the past year as a result of media and opposition pressure. The current debate over civil liberties in the UK is not something the people of China would be afforded. Trust me.

"God forbid someone like Bush was actually running the world's greatest superpower for example."

Really? I'm totally convinced that Bush and his oil cartel were in total charge of events post 911.

"Recent archival evidence suggests that Stalin was a reluctant agreer to Kim II Sung's plans to reunify Korea. Stalin was very fearful of US involvement in the peninsular and was somewhat surprised when Truman acted."

Oh pplleeeaaase don't give me that Stalin sympathy. The man was a dictator who purged those who opposed him and much worse.

"It's hard to think of a more pointless war or a more destructive one."

So what was the answer? Let Kim impose authoritarian rule over the entire peninsula? I'm sure the 48 million Koreans south of the DMZ thank their lucky stars they don't live on the other side right now. That has to be a consideration?

"In response to recent remarks by Obama concerning winning in Afghanistan Howard Zinn sagely remarks, using the Korean and Vietnam wars as examples, that in war in the modern period surely nobody is a winner."

Well, like I said before conventional armies don't win against guerrilla forces. That can be seen from the Parliamentarian rebels who beat the Cavaliers to Vietnam. It might not be the case with Iraq, though. The test will come after the Yanks pull out.

"I also think that since the US were busy encircling the Soviets and the Chinese and had already showed their willingness to use atomic weapons that Stalin and Mao on the whole were more entitled to their paranoia than Truman was to his."

Two points. I've said it before but you're either blind or not prepared to consider it. You have to look at the context of dictators and their starting of WWII to see why Allied leaders were rightly not prepared to tolerate communist dictators, especially expansionist ones like Stalin. Secondly, had it not been for the atom bombs, I wouldn't have been born as my POW grandfather would have starved to death before any land invasion force reached him. I'm thankful for that and thankful those bombs haven't been used in anger since.

"I am still confidently expecting, once the diplomatic dancing has finally finished, for the Israelis to strike militarily at Iran - I do not expect the 'fearless' gaze of our media who proved so obligingly myopic over Iraq to make a blind bit of difference in this regard. We are truly disempowered I believe by the modern world system but, as you say, we can at least say what we like. That is unless your a Dr Kelly of course."

Agreed. Iraq was in part due to a failure by our media, as Jeffrey Sachs eloquently pointed out in last year's Reith Lectures. But I don't believe it was specifically the fault of journalists, more the organisations they work for. We have sleep-walked into the age of the press office, where the entire corporate and public world is protected by a wall of PR professionals. But like I said before our society is marginally better in that we have the freedom to say what we want, which has to be better than not having it, surely? We absolutely have more power to change things than those in Asia. Maybe many in the West are happy with the way things are.

Douglas Chalmers
22 July 2008 at 05:27

The dark side of paradise is Byrnes' hypocritical view of supposedly "authoritarian guided democracy" in Asia whilst actually bemoaning the fact that Western "liberal democracy" is actually foundering.

The reality is that Europe and the USA have gone from war to war of their own making and ended up with their wealth and their future squandered by the Neocons. The results are now becoming painfully evident across the Atlantic, at least.

To say that "the Philippines never existed as a unit prior to rule by the Spanish and then the Americans..." is offensive garbage as well as historical tripe. Typically, it is the shallow view of Westerners who still seem to imagine that nothing quite actually existed anywhere in Asia before they arrived.

In fact, it was the Spanish-American war of 1898 which led to the US "eagle's wingspan of 10,000 miles" from Cuba to the Philippines. That gave them a base across the Pacific in Asia from where they launched their depredations and gunboat diplomacy upon Japan and China in particular.

But, raggedyman and MarkBin, that and the British interference led to wars over Korea (Koguryeo) as China and Russia contended. The West helped arm the Japanese who then went their own way after defeating the Russians.

Thus, using Japan as a wedge against China and Russia backfired badly and Japan went on to occupy Manchuria (Manchukuo) and eventually most of China. Total regional domination and the attack on Pearl Harbor were therefore the result of your precious so-clever Machiavellian Western interference and manipulation.

So much for "blowback" and "unknown unknowns" and the war in Vietnam (as in Korea, it was known as "the American war") came to an end through Ho's use of strategies from Sun Zu's "art of war". In the end, the American peoples' own revulsion at their military's atrocities and the horror of 10'000's of dead and wounded stopped the war.

Actually, they mostly couldn't give a damn about the suffering of the Vietnamese and Cambodian people as they don't care about the million dead Iraqis or the 4 million Iraqi refugees displaced within their own country today. That was the same with the supposedly UN mission in Korea and not China's fault at all.

Now the US and NATO (the Neocons) want to expand their disgusting war into Pakistan in order to suppress the entire region. That means pressuring India and China again. And again, the US military is chomping at the bit wanting to use nuclear weapons "tactically" just as they wanted to with China over their defence of neighboring Korea.

But, what comes next? BURMA? That IS the intent of this kind of article, isn't it? To gauge support for another military adventure or even lack of interest in what happens there so that the military-industrial complex of the West can go on creating strife and wars to profit from at their leisure.

MarkBin
22 July 2008 at 06:32

Douglas Chalmers

"That was the same with the supposedly UN mission in Korea and not China's fault at all."

Of course, let's completely overlook who invaded who and who decided to send a million to fight a legitimate UN force that was determined not to allow a repeat of WWII's totalitarian expansionism.

Of course you will duck whether you'd rather be living under the regime of Kim Jong Il or Lee Myung-bak. Questions of that sort cause immense inconvenience to your neo-Marxist ideology.

Douglas Chalmers
22 July 2008 at 07:04

Neither a Marxist nor a totalitarian be, MarkBin, thank you very much.China has 14 countries on its borders and Taiwan and Japan off its coast but only the British and the Americans (and the Frenchies) have a right to be there, eh?

So utterly presumptious and merely over another of the UN's litany of failed attempts to covertly permit US-NATO hegemony around the globe. Rwanda, Timor Leste, Yugoslavia-Kosovo, etc etc, on and on.

Back in the 1940's-50's, the UN was a US plaything, nothing more. How could it ever "legitimately" sanction anything, especially in Asia, after the mass murder of 100,000's of innocent Japanese civilians by nuclear weapons and the fire-bombing of Tokio?

But, as this topic is about S.E.Asia, lets have a look at the Singapore the British built and remember that their money still walks and talks there. It was only really briefly part of Malaysia (Malaya) in the past few centuries and yet may well return to the fold.

They were stuck under the "authoritarian" rule of the British (English) and yet they seceded from the "authoritarian" rule of the Malayan sultans as soon as they could. Is that not democracy? Singaporeans (S'greans) are proud of their independence.

That makes them appreciative of the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and not of the British colony they were lumbered with. If you are jealous, whose fault is that? Sure, he is a lawyer and his regime runs the place more or less as the British did. Who did he learn that from?

But he was right in saying "...democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries..." when the World Bank and all the Western investment rackets were busliy plundering every country they could weasel their way into.

The Philippines was an awful example and all the more so as the USA had its military bases there callously exploiting the population while sleazy Marcos maintained martial law over what was a post-war democracy.

Why would any other country in ASEAN (not "Asean") want to become like that? So much for your Western values!

In the meantime, Singapore remains strong while Malaysia is falling apart with racism and political scandals, not the least being the murder of Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaaribuu in 2006 - http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?Itemid=31&id=253&optio...

raggedyman
22 July 2008 at 09:53

Doug:

It may have escaped your attention but I haven't yet disagreed with a word you have written. In my view, for example, there is a resurgence of Anglo-Saxon hegemony going on in Africa spearheaded since the 1980s by Uganda and Rwanda. The blood spilt in the Sudanese and Congolese wars is in large measure traceable back to the shiny doors in London and Washington.

MarkBin:

YOU seemed to have ducked my point about the convenience of anti-colonialist movements adopting communist ideology to further their anti-imperialist causes - everything so far said in regard to Vietnam seems to vindicate my view that the 'domino theory' is up there with the 'war on terror' as phoney propaganda in the service of advancing an hidden neo-colonialist agenda. The Americans became heavily involved in the post-war period in crushing opposition to existing colonial regimes - indeed, in the late forties, it restored much of the Japanese imperial administration in South Korea leading to some ugly violence in putting down Korean domestic opposition. This is well documented. The merging of nationalist/anti-imperialist movements with communist ideology had been forged in the 1920s/30s and had become all but indistinguishable post-1945. In fact since in developing and third world countries democratically elected governments were most likely to have been elected by the 'poor' they also tended to have left/socialist leaning policies. This may help to explain why the world's 'greatest democracy' has spent much of the post-war period removing democracies in favour of autocratic right-wing regimes (as in Iran/Persia). Its an uncomfortable fact but the US prosecution of hegemonic control has largely been in the form of a 'war on the poor' as is the case currently with the so-called 'war on terror'.

DC is perfectly right re: the UN - at the time of the commencement of hostilities in Korea the Russian's were boycotting theUN on the grounds of non-membership of Mao's China. The so-called 'Republic of China' represented at the UN was based in Formosa/Taiwan where Chiang-Kai-Shek and the corrupt western-backed Kuomintang imposed its dictatorial rule with the help of the US pmilitary and the plunderings they had taken with them from mainland China. Mao himself headed an odd mix of Leninist-inspired communism and strong anti-imperialist nationalism whose huge popular appeal helps to explain the swift routing of the Kuomintang in the 1940s. Not surprisingly the US were not keen to welcome them into the UN fold.

There is some substance to the revisionist historian argument that war between south and north that finally went 'hot' in 1950 had the characterisitics of a civil war even if it rapidly developed into a prototypical proxy war of the principal regional powers. Again recent archival material released by the Russian's points to a rather duplicitous Stalin allowing the Chinese to clean up the mess whilst gathering useful intelligence of US military strength. North Koreans also played the two in the hopes of supporting their dream of Korean reunification. And incidentally it was MacArthur's tactics that brought the US to the Chinese border in breach of their own UN mandate (having gone well beyond the 38th parallel) and which prompted the two-year old 'jittery' Government of Mao's to respond militarily.

As in Iraq the big-time losers were the Koreans themselves particularly the civilians.

MarkBin
22 July 2008 at 13:44

Firstly, Doug, you can decry the 'mass murder' of thousands of Japanese but as I said earlier, without that action I would never have been born. Fact.

You also won't answer: who would you prefer to live under Kim or Lee?

"They were stuck under the "authoritarian" rule of the British (English) and yet they seceded from the "authoritarian" rule of the Malayan sultans as soon as they could. Is that not democracy? Singaporeans (S'greans) are proud of their independence."

Ridiculous. Any Singaporeans who try to take on the government are bankrupted or jailed. Shame you ignored that.

Your historical points might be correct, but what is the point of them? These nations are developed enough and far enough from their colonial history that the excuse about not introducing more democratic government answerable to the people does not wash. Shame you've swallowed that crap. It's also extremely laughable that you criticise Britain's authoritarian rule of these nations yet defend their current regimes for continuing the same despicable government practices. Hypocrite.

Your anti-US crap is inspired by envy and a lack of understanding of realpolitik. Of course the US could, would and should lead the UN post WWII. It was/is the most powerful nation on the planet. It works for its interests, just like all other empires have throughout history.

Raggedyman

I'm sure former colonies adopted to a certain extent communism in order to become independent. But it seems disingenuous to suggest it was solely about that. The governments of these countries have continued their so-called socialist systems, abusing the one party authoritarian status it has afforded them in order to control their populations. And what about India?

As for NK, the Russians handled the deal one side; the US the other. It just so happened that the Russian-backed north broke the treaty. It also seems bizarre that you are unable to see the wrong in this. Surely the US and allies had the right to defend the south? Nope, not if you're anti-US. Doesn't fit with the agenda. Anyone but the US. What should the world have done about the two Koreas, let them fight it out themselves? Bet you don't have an answer for that.

As for Mao, he took power illegally. Whether you agree with his ideology or not, when it comes to international he broke it. I don't defend the Kuomintang, they were corrupt and ruthless, something Mao's regime quickly became too. Breaching of the UN mandate? Why did they breach it? Nothing to do with Chinese and Russian involvement. Nope, all America's fault.

"As in Iraq the big-time losers were the Koreans themselves particularly the civilians."

But which side has the better standard of life today? Nah, you aint gonna answer it.

Douglas Chalmers
22 July 2008 at 16:32

In trying to stay on topic (Taiwan + Korea are not part of SE Asia), why has Byrnes strangely blamed "...the large Chinese diaspora..." first for being capitalists and then for somehow causing "the domino effect" and Communism in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Its hard to imagine those people as being in any way Communist but, again, Byrnes is simplistically re-interpreting history to sooth the guilt and shame of Westerners as regards the non-benign imperialist invasions by Britain and France which once made these countries all "protectorates" of the hegemonic bloodsuckers of the previous few centuries.

Byrnes also seems to be totally unaware that democracy is thriving in Indonesia since the fall of Suharto. Perhaps sadly so, though, as the the top people and talent are slowly being replaced by the former regime's lackeys as the unappreciative peasants and fundamentalists take over.

Likewise with the Philippines which has worked its way through illusions and delusions since democracy was restored by "people power" and the government of Corazon Aquino whose politician husband was murdered by the former regime. That IS democracy thriving, such as it is.

Again, Byrnes has forgotten that democracy was not somehow graciously bestowed upon SE Asians by the Western imperialist powers. Quite the reverse as they re-invaded after the end of WW2. So hypocritical since France and the Netherlands in particular were invaded and occupied by Germany.

It taught them nothing about respecting the rights or values of ASIAN peoples, uhh. Just like the mass migration of European and Russian Jews who soon did to the Palestinian Arabs (also Semetics) what was done to them by the Nazis. So much for the varying guises of racism and today it appears as whining about China.

raggedyman
22 July 2008 at 16:59

MarkBin:

It is true that I have not answered some of your questions but that is because they are unanswerable without lurching into the realms of counterfactualism. As the wise Buddha once suggested there are some questions that should be unasked.

The 'choice you offer me' of the modern day two Koreas is based on what did happen back in the 1950s. But there is no reason not to counterfactualise that a NK victory may have had very positive outcomes. The only certain thing is there would have been more Koreans about in the world.

The right to intervene in a civil war? As the self-appointed world's policeman? That is what the spirit of the UN charter is all about seeking to prevent. Surely?

Douglas Chalmers
22 July 2008 at 23:16

Yes, "the shiny doors in London and Washington', raggedyman, and that includes Dubai now as well. The ancient Eastern empire of Rome flourishes yet again as the Neocon empire is itself crumbling.

But the history of Korea is also the history of East Asia as they once ruled far and wide before even the Mongols. Both are actually nice people despite Western fears of the misnamed 'Mongol horde' and their influence on China and Japan and, in turn, upon SE Asia is profound.

Enjoy this music clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krYc9dg4aY

MarkBin
23 July 2008 at 01:18

Raggedyman

"The 'choice you offer me' of the modern day two Koreas is based on what did happen back in the 1950s. But there is no reason not to counterfactualise that a NK victory may have had very positive outcomes. The only certain thing is there would have been more Koreans about in the world."

"May have had very positive outcomes" is neither here nor there. It's the reality of people's lives today that should be the focus. I'm impressed with yours and Doug's knowledge of Asian modern history - you exceed me. But I do know about the realities of life in Asia today and the differences between what these countries' governments claim and what is actually happening.

We both know that you and I, given the choice, would prefer to live in South Korea over the DPRK. To blame the North's situation on the US is disingenuous. The regime has been propped up by China's and Russia's dictatorships merely to create a wall against the spread of democracy. It's also interesting that China breaches international law when it comes to NK asylum seekers (some friend, eh?) . I also don't know how you can claim there would have been more Koreans about had there been no wars. It is fair to say that more people have died in famines in the North since the 1950s than died in the war - all this due to a few communist kings putting their positions above their populations.

Back to South East Asia. Doug quoted the Singapore leaders earlier to support his argument that Asia is not suited to democracy. I think this is rather feeble. The test of whether people in Asian countries want democracy has to come from the people. I can't believe someone as intelligent as you would fall for what the leaders say. Those holding power would say people don't want democracy, wouldn't they? Besides, every Chinese person I've spoken to about this expects they will be able to vote for a variety of parties within their lifetimes. And every Indian I've spoken to wouldn't trade their democracy for a one-party system like China's.

nawawimohamad
25 July 2008 at 11:25

It is an interesting article that describes the general picture in the S.E. Asian region. However politicians are all the same. Many of them want power, some want money and others want both (albeit some want women also).

They have never cared about people. They are the ones who gave the orders to bomb, mass muder, sabotage, torture, imprison and other atrocities. Whatever they do are just to ensure that the status quo is maintained.

I see them like the "queen ant =the politician" and "the rest of the ants=the population" except that instead of producing babies (or rather laying eggs), the politicians accumulate power and resouces and then use them at their whimps and fancies and the majority of population are not concerned at all while the remaining few can do nothing about it .

The jounalists? They are just story tellers. The stories? They are just different versions of Goldilock and the three wolves, Jack and the bean stalk,............