China and Vietnam in context

A large country next to a smaller one cannot help but be patronizing and exercise at least some hegemony.  This is always resented in the smaller country, even when the interference helped the country and was needed and the larger country was the only nation that could do anything.  We see this in the Americas regarding the States, in parts of Europe regarding Germany, and in East Europe regarding Russia.

As with most of SE Asia, there are large numbers of Chinese ethnics in Vietnam, mainly in the cities in enclaves somewhat removed from the rest of the population, such as the Cholon area of HCMC.  They tend to hold onto their South Chinese language and Chinese names more than perhaps they should.  These populations are entrepreneurial and generally successful, and as one might expect this can generate resentment.

While the Vietnamese language seems Sinitic today, scholars tell us that it is not at all related to the Sino-Tibetan family of languages.  Of course nowadays over half the vocabulary is from Chinese borrowings, but borrowing is one thing, it is not descent.  Even the Vietnamese tonal system that causes American learners so much difficulty apparently was borrowed from Chinese in the first millennium and Vietnamese had previously been atonal.

Vietnamese religion is Chinese in many ways, with the major Taoist deities and Confucian notions of the universe widely accepted.  Most important, the Buddhism is Mahayana out of China, not at all like the nearby Theravada Buddhism of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.  Vietnam does have its own local twists on things and several native religious groups.  Of course there is a significant Roman Catholic population in Vietnam, much larger proportionately than in China.

The Communist Parties in Vietnam and China have followed similar paths, both opening to the rest of the world and creating institutions designed to prevent "Cult of Personality" figures and dictatorship by one man.  These include limited terms and mandatory retirements.  They are in this way distinct from the other two remaining Communist states, Cuba and North Korea.

They have also both had considerable success economically, unlike Cuba and North Korea, which remain poor and seem to be getting poorer, although there are signs of light in Cuba nothing much will happen until the Castro's are gone.

One hopeful thing that is happening in China and Vietnam is that they are evolving toward meritocracy, both in who becomes a party member (family still counts but less and less) and who rises in the party.  Both also have their problems with corruption, but not really any more than practically any other country on this planet -- although the Western press tends to give it more attention, for its own reasons.

Still, the Chinese, like all ethnic groups, have their tendency to nationalism and the population has its share of anti-foreign bigots who think only Chinese institutions are valid.  Americans, Russians, Germans, Japanese, and so on, all suffer from bad reps because of similar attitudes found in those countries.  Such nationalism is often used by politicians to gain unfair and irrational advantage.

Right now China has its hands full in the western autonomous regions, where it is obvious they are not welcome, and should look to removing itself from them, but this might be impossible because of this nationalism found in the Chinese party.  As long as China practices trying to rule over other peoples or nations, their claims to any sort of moral standing or legitimacy will remain hanging.  It is seen as nothing more than old-fashioned imperialism.

Expansionist adventurism elsewhere, even for essential materials, is bound to hurt China in the short run, and won't ever help.

American - Vietnamese War

I told myself I would avoid the Vietnam (American) War until I had posted 100 blogs.  Now that I have reached that number it is time I forced myself to deal with it.  The subject is of course painful on many levels.

I was a student during most of the war and had a student deferral, so there was never any real risk I might be drafted.  As a result, at the time, I was not personally interested except as a thing that dominated American politics.

I remember at the time thinking the U.S. had to be there because otherwise the Communists would take another country -- domino theory, it was called -- and our freedom and so on was at risk.  I think most Americans had views similar to that.

I didn't realize at the time, although there were plenty of signs of it there, that the regime (I usually avoid that word as it is loaded, but it is appropriate here) in the South, at least at first, was a corrupt autocracy rather determined to suppress Buddhism and other religions in favor of Roman Catholics.  Obviously it would be unpopular and led to the immolations of monks and other protests.

So the U.S. arranged for a military coup and replaced the government.  Although I suppose that was necessary, it made the reality clear to most thinking Vietnamese that this was not really a war for their freedom but something the Americans were doing in their own interest.  Most Vietnamese tended from then on to hand over things to the Americans, and let them pay for it, in both money and lives.  (Not that there weren't exceptions).

As the years passed, though, things in the South improved and more and more the government there became responsive while American military strength slowly won the war.

However, democracies have a serious problem waging war overseas, when the cost in lives and money is high and when it seems to go on and on.  Long-term commitment and determination like that is not possible in a democracy.  Far too many politicians are very willing to use it as a way to office, and the public becomes cold about it and not willing to make sacrifices.  Public support dried up and public opposition grew.

(A comparison with the British experience in the Boer war is useful, which, if pursued could have early on produced a reasonable South African state, but instead produced Apartheid when the British had to give up because of domestic pressure.)

First, the Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese by cutting off funding, then Nixon and Kissinger saw the political reality and cut their losses, in effect surrendering without doing so formally.  This, ironically, when the war was really almost won.

The result was maybe a decade of considerable suffering in Vietnam, especially by those who had bet on the wrong horse, and a decade of hard-line rule until the government in the north evolved into the sensible thing it is now.  Once New Thinking came in, things settled down and now you have a peaceful, united, prosperous country.

Was the benefit of achieving a united Vietnam and the benefits of New Thinking worth it?  It is all ironic and shows how it behooves us to realize both sides were seriously wrong in what they thought they were doing.  Both that and no one can predict the future.

China and Vietnam

I'm reading that Kissinger analyzes Chinese behavior as a part of an overall long-term strategy of asserting and take "territory" and then back off for awhile to let the "enemy" relax and go back to sleep, all the time preparing for the next advance.

I don't think so.  I think the Chinese withdrawal was a case of adults getting their way inside China.  It also won't cause others to go back to sleep.  People have memories, and the betrayal of Chinese behavior will be remembered.