11 ms·

The agreement with China was signed by Thatcher. That's long ago, mid-1980s. At the time, they were naively certain that increased economic liberalization and i

• aluminum96 4y ago
  Maybe it was wishful thinking, but it also worked in several cases! South Korea was a high-profile success of this strategy, for instance, with a successful transition to democracy in the 90s.
  • pjc50 4y ago
    This is kind of memory-holed, possibly because South Korea was a US ally long before it was a democracy, and "west aligned" tended to trump "democratic" a lot.
    • jpgvm 4y ago
      West-aligned still trumps democratic. The West generally doesn't have a problem with authoritarianism but rather with competition or obstruction of their economic goals. When the opposite is true they will gladly turn a blind eye to any number of atrocities. See here: Saudi-Arabia, Oman, UAE, Philippines, Egypt (military junta), Turkey, etc. If being friendly with an authoritarian state yields economic or military geographical advantage then that overrides any ideological hang-ups involved.
  • kragen 4y ago
    Also Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, and much of Latin America had capitalist dictatorships before democracy. But I don't think it was free markets that led to democracy in those cases so much as it was US political influence.
    • throwaway2037 4y ago
      I'm confused about Indonesia ("reformasi"). You wrote <<US political influence>>. Can you explain how this worked in the context of Indonesia? As I understand, one of the major catalysts of Indonesian democratic reform was the Asian currency crisis.
      • kragen 4y ago
        No, I don't know enough.
    • notlukesky 4y ago
      The US overthrew the democratic government of Sukarno and killed up to 3 million Indonesians funding the terrorist movements and proxy wars till the US backed military took over as “saviors”. The CIA considered this a successful playbook and named it as the Jakarta Method. They attack democracies that they don’t like labeling them autocratic and dictatorships. Then install their military juntas. See numerous examples like Chile, Ethiopia, Iran etc. Stephen Kinzer has written extensively on this in the book Overthrow: https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change-ebook/dp/B000Q67L00 https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Cha... On overthrowing the Iranian democracy and installing the Shah: https://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/B00SLTBESY/ https://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/B00S...? On the Jakarta Method: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommunist-Crusade/dp/1541724003/ref=mp_s_a_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommun...?
      • kragen 4y ago
        Yes, different variations of that also happened throughout much of South and Central America. They installed capitalist dictatorships to open the countries' markets to US products and establish capitalism, then (in many cases, though obviously not in Iran) pressured those dictatorships to cede power to democracy. I don't think capitalism alone would have destabilized dictatorship as a form of government.
      • 4y ago
  • quartesixte 4y ago
    Brought about by a very bloody decade-long struggle for democracy led by student activists. That transition to democracy in Korea was written and paid for in blood. Successful? Yes. With high costs? Also yes. And they’re still dealing with the fallout.
  • 1-6 4y ago
    I wouldn’t say it’s a huge success because South Korea and the United States are still spending a lot to keep others away from interfering with their Democracy. Without huge military spending, cybersecurity, and education, it can quickly get influenced by China or attacked by North Korea.
    • chitowneats 4y ago
      It's not called the Korean Miracle for nothing. The idea that South Korea is not a huge success because it still has adversaries is a bit much.
• femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Wishful thinking, but common at the time. Gorbachev had the same aspirations when it came to communism spreading from Russia to other countries. Of course the West had other plans. In retrospect I think the failure wrt China is that the integration didn't go far enough, most likely because China started to threaten the economic hegemony of the U.S.
• rayiner 4y ago
  Britain was naive in thinking that it’s own secret to achieving democracy was its economic system.
• ur-whale 4y ago
  > Wishful thinking? The exact same kind of thinking the led US to invade Irak. We're bringing democracy! They will love us over there! What could possibly go wrong! With exactly zero understanding of the history and culture of the place. I mean had Bremer ever crossed a US border once in his life before he was posted there? That level of blindness and self-righteousness, while rather commonly on display in the US, is unfortunately not an american monopoly.
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    > Same about 1990s Russia: the west hoped a new economic system would lead to political freedom. Wishful thinking? > The exact same kind of thinking the led US to invade Irak. Encouraging (maybe there's a better word to use) a different way of running a foreign economy to bring about political change is not the exact same kind of thinking as overthrowing a foreign government to bring about political change. Yeah, there is the belief that political change needs to happen, but in practice these things are very different.
  • jkaptur 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Early_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Early_career
    • actionfromafar 4y ago
      So he should really have known better. Malice or incompetence?
  • kzrdude 4y ago
    It surely feels like dark times, but it's even darker now when democracy in the US is under threat. Belief in democracy abroad or at home seems to have gone away and in its place there is cynicism, implicit "might makes right" and political tribalism.
• int_19h 4y ago
  In Russia, it actually did that in the 90s, but it lasted for less that a decade. A big part of it is that the "democrats" (which was a catch-all term for all Western-minded liberals) favored a quick reset of the vestigial planned economy into a free market-based one; words like "shock therapy" were thrown around. The idea was that any inconveniences would be temporary, and more than made up for when the transition is complete. The immediate result, however, was a significant drop in quality of life for the majority of the population, with a corresponding rise in crime. And because the "democrats" were the ones spearheading the efforts, they carried the reputational hit. This gave people like Putin the opportunity to ride to power on "strong hand" policies that were supposed to fix all that. I grew up in Russia during that era, and remember the rhetoric then. One thing I'd say the West did very wrong was to let organizations like the IMF run wild, pushing for their (austerity-centric) ideological view of the economy through loans. Then again, from what I've read later, it wouldn't be the first or the last time they messed up a country they were supposed to help.
  • femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    As the debt crisis deepens in Europe one has to wonder if we've learned our lessons yet. What happens to Italy next will tell the tale.
  • tcmart14 4y ago
    Its been awhile since I've read up on that part of Russia, so I could very well be wrong. But it seemed like Russia was doomed from the beginning because almost at the onset, control was pretty much consolidated into Oligarchs.
    • Ericson2314 4y ago
      The oligarchs sized economic power in the vacuum of dismantled central planning.
    • MomoXenosaga 4y ago
      China was already experimenting with capitalism since the late 70s- and China had a diaspora from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore to help them. Russia had nothing.
• ddoolin 4y ago
  Doesn't feel like that long ago since that same line of thinking is still applied to China today. Read enough and you'll be convinced of the imminent collapse of China any day now.
  • seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > Read enough and you'll be convinced of the imminent collapse of China any day now. Those arguments always sound like straw men though: they are designed because they are easy to tear down. China is...weird. You can't really take anything at face value, good or bad. And I say that having lived there for 9 years. E.g. sometimes a ghost mall or district is one waiting to be populated, otherwise times it's just waiting to be torn down (either way positive GDP is generated).
  • Gibbon1 4y ago
    Western economists have been predicting the collapse of China soon for the last 30 years.
    • ddoolin 4y ago
      Exactly. I should've added (wrongly) after "convinced" in my original reply. :)
      • ertian 4y ago
        They'll be wrong until the moment they're right. The USSR looked similarly durable in the 1980s, and the few voices saying it was rotten at the core and on the verge of collapse were waved off. And then all of a sudden it collapsed.
        • Gibbon1 4y ago
          I had first hand reports from the field in the 1980's that the soviet union was falling apart socially and economically. Friend was a Russian studies major, spent two years in the soviet union. Another friend also spent six months there. And one of the board members of my old old company was in the oil and gas business and traveled to Russian a lot.
• this_user 4y ago
  Naive or not, there wasn't really an alternative for Britain anyway. China had made it clear that they wanted HK back, and would get it back one way or the other. The best they could do was sign an agreement that offered as much protection to the city for as long as possible and then hope things would change in China over time.
  • kzrdude 4y ago
    So China was too powerful to ignore their threats? Even today don't you think there is an alternative to handing stuff over to threats of military violence? In your view how is it different from today's situation where China might declare the same thing about Taiwan?
    • gowld 4y ago
      Look at the map. Is UK going to fight a war with China over Hong Kong? UK has no legitimate claim to Hong Kong, so the non-China option is independence. Taiwan has always had a local military.
    • bobthepanda 4y ago
      There are a couple things that make the Hong Kong situation more complicated. * by 1997 (handover date) Britain lacked a colonial empire from which it could assist in a defense of Hong Kong, and of the overseas posts it did have, the regiments were fairly small. Sending a large military force all the way from Britain itself would take too long in any sort of conflict. Taiwan has always come with the implicit security guarantee of the United States, which maintains a very active presence in the Pacific. * the PLA has the law of numbers on their side, not only due to part 1 but because of how large their army is in general, and the border between Hong Kong and the rest of China is a fairly small river. The PLA generally lacks the amphibious capacity to do a land invasion of Taiwan. * the New Territories in Hong Kong, unlike the rest of it, were signed over in a 99 year lease. 1997 was the end of those 99 years. The New Territories are a mountainous area with a good deal of Hong Kong's postwar population and also its major water supplies; without it and bordering a hostile China, Hong Kong would quickly cease to be a functioning city. Holding onto the territories wouldn't last a very long time due to parts 1 and 2, and unlike Taiwan where international law depends on who you think China is, the UK would clearly be in the wrong by violating the 99 year lease unilaterally.
• Aunche 4y ago
  > they were naively certain that increased economic liberalization and increased market economic activity in China would lead to political freedom as well. Thatcher was a lot of things but naive certainly wasn't one of them. The Western powers simply wanted to become closer to China for economic and geopolitical reasons, but need an excuse to back away from the Red Scare. "Bringing Democracy" is the oldest page of the manufacturing consent playbook. It's honestly embarrassing of how well it works (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
  • refurb 4y ago
    Not only that but the UK in the 80’s had no choice. There was no way the UK could project power to actually keep HK or force China to follow the agreement. I would regard it more as a “pull out” than anything. Set up HK the best you can than wash your hands of it.
  • markdestouches 4y ago
    Well, the middle eastern shenanigans are biting them in the ass right now.
  • BurningFrog 4y ago
    I think the real story was that China would take Hong Kong by force if there was no agreement, and by agreeing to a peaceful transfer Thatcher could make the transition more civilized. Looking back, I think it worked quite well for as long as it did.
    • hangonhn 4y ago
      Deng Xiaoping famously told Thatcher that China could take Hong Kong in a day when Thatcher tried to work out how the UK can hang onto HK island (HK island was signed over to the UK in perpetuity while other parts of HK was a 99 years lease, IIRC). I think Thatcher did make the most of a weak hand. HK is definitely better off in a peaceful hand over than China taking it by force. I think a lot of us former Hong Kongers wished the autonomy had endured at least for the 50 years that was promised but we also knew there was no force behind that promise.
• xbmcuser 4y ago
  Western countries have been complicit specially the US in derailing many democracies for it own purposes. HongKong plight is just the excuse needed to malign China they dont really give a f*k about peoples freedom or democracy case in point current Pakistan causi military take over of a democratic government with support from US. Or the turning a blind eye to growing fascism in India but as long as its a country they can use against China it is okay. It is okay to support fascist kings and generals as long as they tow your line otherwise they are unacceptable and those countries need democracies. But democracies that do not toe your line need to be destroyed.
• whimsicalism 4y ago
  What happened to Russia post "liberalization" in the 90s was very influential on Chinese elite's views on liberalizing. Russia basically got shafted and fed on by a combination of politicians & Western consultants.
• thsijustin 4y ago
  What political freedom have markets provides the west except in the form of wishful thinking? The US is getting more fascist in observable ways. Suspension habeas corpus in GWs time, pepper spraying college students in 2008 for a seated protest in Cali, to no abortion rights, and the political snowflakes in both parties calling for each other’s heads, kids in cages and yet everyone tucks their chin and goes on, inequality and taxation without holistic demographic representation; SCOTUS Justices openly demanding the public just accept things it does not like. Keep complaining about Russia and China, USians. Virtue signaling while actually operating as moral relativists is creating the culture you talk to be against in your own backyard.
• pacija 4y ago
  Ah, dear old Maggie and her goal of bringing political freedom to oppressed ones. She failed because, despite best intentions, she was too naive. Are you serious? I am not, I am being sarcastic.
  • Gibbon1 4y ago
    She also thought by closing out heavy industry she could break the unions. And then companies would open new factories in Britain out competing Europe on labor costs. One out of two ain't so bad. /s
• MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  Thatcher was dealt a bad hand. When the British wanted Hong Kong they in their Western mindset considered that "99 years" was the same as "forever". Consider that the UK only barely managed to defend the Falklands. Thatcher saved her and her country's face in the negotiations which is the main job of any politician.