Malaysia/Vietnam
Als emeritierter Professor hat man Zeit, sich gründlicher mit politischer Problematik und mit Geschichte (ohne die ein Verständniss der gegenwärtigen Politik kaum möglich ist) zu befassen. Wie macht man das am besten? Meiner Ansicht nach hilft es auf jeden Fall, wenn man sich vor Ort informiert. So war ich kürzlich in Malaysia und Vietnam, um mich an Ort und Stelle mit den gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen vertraut zu machen. Ich lebte 1960 bis 1967 in Malaysia, und habe es in den folgenden Jahren wiederholt besucht, das letzte Mal vor etwa 5-6 Jahren. Mein Vietnambesuch war der erste.
MALAYSIA: Der Fortschritt in Malaysia seit der Unabhängigkeit ist erstaunlich. Ein modernes Autostrassensystem, ein moderner Flughafen, eine aus dem Boden gestampfte neue Hauptstadt (Putrajaya) nicht weit von Kuala Lumpur. 1960 ging die Autofahrt von Singapore nach Kuala Lumpur über eine gewundene enge Strasse durch Gummi- und Ölpalmenplantagen, und zum Teil durch den Dschungel, heute geht das einige Male schneller über eine moderne Autostrasse. Die Fortschritte sind sicherlich zu einem grossen Teil auf die Zukunftsvision und die Energie des letzten Premierministers Dr. Mohammed Mahathir zurückzuführen (der erst kürzlich seinen common sense unter Beweis stellte, als er in London auf einer islamischen Konferenz erklärte, Bush, Blair und Howard sollten als Kriegsverbrecher wegen der Invasion des Iraq vor einen internationalen Gerichtshof gestellt werden).“ Es gab immer Spannungen zwischen den Volksgruppen in Malaysia (Malaien, Chinesen, Inder), die sich 1969 in Rassenkrawallen mit Toten entluden, doch scheinen diese Spannungen seitdem einigermassen unter Kontrolle gehalten worden zu sein. Insgesamt war mein Eindruck sehr positiv, und man kann Malaysia nur das allerbeste für die Zukunft wünschen.
VIETNAM: Mein Besuch beschränkte sich auf Ho Chi Minh City, mit vielen Besuchen verschiedener Museen, von Märkten und einer Wasserpuppen-Vorführung, eine alte vietnamesische Tradition. Ich brachte viel Zeit damit zu, über den Vietnamkrieg nachzulesen und die angelesenen Informationen in Museen zu vertiefen. Die Leute sehr freundlich, intelligent und energisch. Millionen im Vietnamkrieg umgebracht, und Vergiftungen durch die en gros abgeworfenen Herbizide immer noch neu erworben. Wofür das alles? Man lese nach in:
Marc Frey: Geschichte des Vietnamkrieges. Die Tragödie in Asien und das Ende des amerikanischen Traumes. Zweite Auflage Verlag C.H. Beck, München 1999.
Marc Frey ist (oder war) wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Nordamerikaprogramm der Universität Bonn. Seine Hauptarbeitsgebiete sind die amerikanische Zeitgeschichte und die Geschichte der Dekolonisierung in Südostasien.
Leute, die sich mit europäischer Geschichte befassen, lassen andere Gebiete oft völlig ausser Acht. Aber ist es nicht wichtig, die Motive verschiedener Nationen (oder vielmehr ihrer Regierungen) zu verstehen, indem man ihre Handlungen in anderen Gegenden der Erde ebenfalls berücksichtigt? Das erste grosse Morden im 20. Jahrhundert fand wohl im amerikanisch-philippinischen Krieg statt (bis zu einer Million Zivilisten getötet), und der Vietnamkrieg war der am längsten dauernde Krieg des 20. Jahrhunderts, mit weitaus massiveren Flächenbombardierungen als im 2. Weltkrieg.
Übrigens: sowohl in Malaysia wie auch in Vietnam fällt auf, dass junge Menschen das Strassenbild bestimmen (Millionen von kleinen Motorrädern in Ho Chi Minh City, meist mit jungen Leuten! Man braucht so einigen Mut, sich über die Strassen zu wagen). Kommt man dagegen nach Europa oder Australien: weitaus vergreister!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Because a post without comments is a sad thing, I have had a go with Babelfish and my shabby German at translating this one for us obligate Anglophones, in hope of eliciting comment for you. I hope you don’t mind, and please correct me if I have the sense terribly wrong anywhere:
“As an Emeritus Professor, one has time to be concerned more thoroughly with political problems and with history (without which understanding of present politics is hardly possible). How does one do this best? My opinion is that it helps to obtain local information. Thus, I recently visited Malaysia and Vietnam, in order to familiarise myself on the spot with present developments. I lived from 1960 to 1967 in Malaysia, and have visited it repeatedly since, the last time five or six years ago. This was my first visit to Vietnam.
MALAYSIA: The progress in Malaysia since independence is amazing. A modern motor road system; a modern airport; a new capital (Putrajaya) built from the ground up, not far from Kuala Lumpur. The drive from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur in 1960 was a narrow winding road through rubber and oil palm plantations, and at times through the jungle. It now goes several times faster over a modern motorway. This progress is certainly due in large part to the vision and energy of the last Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohammed (who only recently proved his common sense when he told an Islamic conference in London that Bush, Blair, and Howard should be tried as war criminals before the International Court of Justice). There have always been tensions between the ethnic groups in Malaysia (Malays, Chinese, Indian), which exploded in 1969 in deadly race riots, but it seemed that these tensions to have to some extent been held in control since then. Altogether my impression was very positive, and one can expect only the very best for Malaysia’s future.
VIETNAM: My visit was limited to Ho Chi Minh City, with many visits to different museums, markets, and a water doll demonstration (an old vietnamese tradition). I had a lot of time to think over the Viet Nam war and the background information I read about it in the museums. The people were very friendly, intelligent, and energetic. Millions were killed in the Viet Nam war, and they are still being poisoned by the herbicides used then. What was this all for? One may find out in:
Marc Frey: History of the Vietnam War. Tragedy in Asia and the end of the American Dream. Second Edition, Verlag C.H. Beck, Munich 1999. (auf Deutsch)
(Marc Frey is (or was) a Research Fellow in the North America program of the University of Bonn. His chief research interests are American contemporary history and the history of the decolonisation of Southeast Asia.)
People who are concerned with European history often ignore other areas completely. But surely it is important to understand the motives of different nations (or rather their governments) by considering their actions in other parts of the planet? The first great bloodletting of the 20th century was probably the US-Phillipine War (up to one million civilians killed) and the Vietnam War was the longest continuous war of the 20th century, with a heavier campaign of bombing than in the Second World War.
By the way: both in Malaysia and Viet Nam it is noticeable that young people dominate the streetscape (Millions of small motorcycles in Ho Chi Minh City, usually with young people! One needs a great deal of courage to venture out on such roads). When you come back to Europe or Australia, what a bunch of creaky old geezers we seem to be!”
July 20th, 2008 at 10:27 am
My apologies for the delay. I just returned to Armidale.
“these tensions to have to some extent been held in control since the”
I would replace “to some extent” with ‘largely”.
“what a bunch of creaky old geezers we seem to be”
This reads good and makes the point, but I said “vergreister”. which literally translated means “more senile”
Altogether a good translation. Congratulations, you are not an obligate anglophone! Why don’t you translate some of my other German posts, for example the one on the character of Islam. I would feel honoured.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Thank you very much!
I shall have a go at your Islam post. I could not find a translation of ‘vergreister’ anywhere on the web and had to take a stab from the contexts it seemed to be used in.
A brief (half a) Socratic dialogue in response to Mahathir’s assertion, at least so far as Blair and Howard are concerned:
Q. Is it reasonable to suppose that, by any diplomatic effort whatsoever, the UK and Australia could have persuaded the United States *not* to invade Iraq?
Q. Is it not true that the rules of engagement of the UK and Australian forces in Iraq took considerable more care to avoid civilian casualties than the American rules of engagement?
Q. [If you answer 'no' to the first question, and 'yes' to the question- which I think are the correct answers] Then is it not true that, whether or not you suppose the invasion to be justified, Blair and Howard *saved* lives by committing forces to the invasion of Iraq and could in no world on this side of Alice’s looking glass be rationally tried as war criminals?
July 20th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Your questions should be addressed to Dr. Mahathir, but I shall try to reply on his behalf:
Q 1: America would have had to go it alone if Great Britain and Australia would not have joined in. I have some doubt (but cannot be sure, of course) hat it would have done so. My answer therefore is a provisional Yes.
Q 2. I don’t know, but they probably have.
Q 3: Since my answer to Q 1 was a provisional Yes, Great Britain and Australia could indeed have saved a lot of lives.
And finally: do you seriously believe that Great Britain and Australia supported the war because they wanted to hold America back from greater sins? I thought it was all about a moral issue, to liberate Iraq from a ruthless dictator. Alexander Downer declared a few days ago that he was in total agreement with John McCain that Iraq was much better off without than with Saddam Hussein (which may be true, if you ignore the costs of achieving the grand aim).
July 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
No, I do not at all believe that restraining the US from greater sins was the motivation of Great Britain and Australia. But I do not believe that motive is at all important. ‘Once you know the consequences of a thing, you know all there is to know about it.’ (Peirce, I think)
I believe in casting down ruthless tyrants whenever practicable. My most considered post on the Iraq war is probably this one, from when I read a book called “Why the War Was Wrong’.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am
It is statements like Mahatir Mohammed’s that strengthen the case for the US *Not* to increase backing to the UN’s war crimes tribunal. It only makes common sense in a lip-service sense to increase his standing in the muslim world.
Casting down dictatorships just gets harder and more bloody the longer you leave a dictator to lead a failing state. eg. casting down Robert Mugabe would have been easier six months ago than it is now. It will be harder and bloodier again in six months time, but the necessity will become ever more apparent as the country of Zimbabwe becomes a failed state.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Marco, it is fairly obvious that Dr. Mahathir knew very well that no action would be taken, and in that sense you are quite right in saying that “It only makes common sense in a lip-service sense to increase his standing in the muslim world.”
On the other hand, he probably sincerely believes that member of the U.S. government committed war crimes.
“strengthen the case for the US *Not* to increase backing to the UN’s war crimes tribunal”
Yes indeed, I agree, the U.S. government has good reasons not to want his nationals put before an international war crimes tribunal.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Well, we may agree to disagree, but the way you tell a politician is lying is if they are moving their lips. Therefore in no way do I even suspect that he may be sincere in his accusations. So the statement “Howard should be tried for war crimes” by Mahatir, should be viewed with the same skepticism as George W’s statement “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”.
Both statements are designed to define a common enemy to the audience - they are usually scripted by their political team and have nothing to do with what they know or what they believe.
I think Australia should be solely judged on its own actions, rather than its support of an overall strategy of defining the “Worlds” enemies independently of the UN and waging war on them where necessary. The UN is hopeless at effectively defining situations where force is necessary (such as in Bosnia). There are too many non-democratic elements (ie. dictators) that have too much influence in the UN.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
For the more general case of putting western politicians put before an international court of justice, see here:
http://blog.une.edu.au/klausrohde/2008/08/06/the-rwanda-genocide/
August 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
There are a few points I wanted to make when I first read this post, which are probably not helpful, so I have been refraining from making them, but I feel very weak-willed today:
(1) You make the very good point that it is important to find out things for oneself by investigating the facts on the ground, but the sources of information on politics, society, and recent history in Vietnam you cite are only museums operated by the Vietnamese government and a book written on the other side of the world. Can you report on any conversations you had on these topics with actual Vietnamese citizens?
(2) If you had gone to a (hypothetical) European country, say somewhere in the Balkans, that practiced the same sort of systematic racial discrimination practiced in Malaysia, and which had treated a leading opposition politician in the shameful and appalling way in which Anwar Ibrahim has been treated, I am sure you would have mentioned these facts.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
(1) You make the very good point that it is important to find out things for oneself by investigating the facts on the ground, but the sources of information on politics, society, and recent history in Vietnam you cite are only museums operated by the Vietnamese government and a book written on the other side of the world. Can you report on any conversations you had on these topics with actual Vietnamese citizens?
I refer to two books written by German historians, one published in 1969 (during the Vietnam war), the other 15 or 20 years later. This does not mean that I have not used other sources. The museums were quite interesting but show only what had been published in the western press anyway. Nothing strikingly new and all surprisingly low key. I spent 6 days in Ho Chih Minh City: few people who speak English, and vast numbers of young people who were not even born until after the war was over. So, not many chances to make a personal survey of opinions regarding the war. However, as mentioned earlier, I has a lengthy conversation with a Vietnamese taxi driver on the way to the airport in Sydney: he left Vietnam because he is anti-communist, but said that Vietnam seems to be doing well now and that he might visit it (he has relatives there).
(2) If you had gone to a (hypothetical) European country, say somewhere in the Balkans, that practiced the same sort of systematic racial discrimination practiced in Malaysia, and which had treated a leading opposition politician in the shameful and appalling way in which Anwar Ibrahim has been treated, I am sure you would have mentioned these facts.
I have quite detailed information about the “systematic racial discrimination” in Malaysia. I left in 1967 and racial disturbances leading to quite a few deaths occurred in 1969, after the opposition parties (Tamils, Chinese) held a victory rally celebrating their results in elections. Infuriated Malays pulled Chinese out of their cars and hacked them to death, making it quite clear that they would not accept any loss of political power to people who - they think - were imported by the British into what they believe is rightfully their country. Many Chinese left at that time, including a student of mine who had a good position as a lecturer at the university in K.L. I was not there when things were worked out at the time, but it is obvious that a sort of deal was struck: Malays continued to hold important government positions and control the military (in fact, at that time onely one regiment (?) (I believe the intelligence and communication one), had any significant number of Chinese. The Chinese, on the other hand, controlled the economy to a large degree. I have kept contact with my old friends in Malaysia, many unfortunately dead by now and almost all of them Chinese. On a visit to Malaysia about 6 years ago I asked my best (Chinese) friend about the “discrimination”. He replied (I have forgotten the exact words): democracy of the western style will not work in Malaysia. - The reasons are obvious: it would lead to bloodshed. - On my last visit a Chinese friend grumbled somewhat when I mentioned how impressed I was by Putrajaya: “Yes, our (i.e. the Chinese) money.” But allover the atmosphere is as relaxed as one can hope for under the circumstances. My advice: westerners should keep their advice to themselves and let the locals work out their own destiny (as Mahathir, by the way, very successfully did when tackling the East Asian financial crisis of the 90’s).
August 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
In that Thomas Friedman book I was reading, he relates an anecdote that every time Mahathir opened his mouth during the East Asian financial crisis, the ringgit went spiralling downwards, until Anwar Ibrahim and some other members of his government took him aside and politely told him to shut up. So I don’t know, Mahathir taking credit for successful management of the crisis I will treat with a grain of salt.
If I were to say, as an American citizen, that Western European ideas of habeas corpus do not apply under our peculiar New World conditions, and that your democratic ideals would lead to violence in our unique multi-ethnic society, so that we should be left to work out our own destiny and you could keep your advice about Guantanamo Bay to yourself, etc. - do you think you would listen to me? The Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Japan- these countries are showing that democracy ‘of the western style’ can work under East Asian conditions. Why should Malaysia be any different? The racial violence of Malaysia historically was not worse than racial violence in South Africa or (somewhat earlier) the United State, which violence was emphatically *not* accepted by the international community as a good excuse for maintaining institutionalised racism in those countries.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
It is well known that Anwar Ibrahim, as Finance Minister under Mahathir, was deeply involved in advocating introduction of the Islamic financial system into Malaysia, and to this day Malaysia is indeed at the forefront of switching (to a degree) to such a system. Ibrahim even said that, in the long term, the Western and Islamic financial systems could not co-exist (in Malaysia, I assume). Nevertheless, Mahathir was Prime Minister at the time and the buck stops with him. It seems also that there were disagreements between Mahathir and Ibrahim about how to confront the Asian financial crisis in the 90’s, which might have contributed to Ibrahim’s fall.
Concerning racialism in Malaysia: when I was at the University of Malaysia, about 80% of the students were Chinese. The government changed this by discriminating against the Chinese (almost all scholarships given to Malays), with the result that now about 80% (??) of students are Malays, i.e., closer to the ethnic mix in the country. But it seems to be changing know. During my last visit (earlier this year) I noticed that the government was planning a change, more scholarships to Chinese at the expense of the Malays. - Government policy was aimed at helping the indigenous people to catch up: Chinese have a long tradition of family support for their childrens’ education (from my experience: 12 children, fairly poor family, all or most sons and daughters at university). Malays did not have that tradition. ——-Apart from that, Malaysia has a western style democracy (several parties, free elections). One cannot compare Korea, Taiwan and Japan with Malaysia, all of which have an almost homogenous ethnic background.
Of course everybody should have the freedom
August 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
It is well known that Anwar Ibrahim, as Finance Minister under Mahathir, was deeply involved in advocating introduction of the Islamic financial system into Malaysia, and to this day Malaysia is indeed at the forefront of switching (to a degree) to such a system. Ibrahim even said that, in the long term, the Western and Islamic financial systems could not co-exist (in Malaysia, I assume). Nevertheless, Mahathir was Prime Minister at the time and the buck stops with him. It seems also that there were disagreements between Mahathir and Ibrahim about how to confront the Asian financial crisis in the 90’s, which might have contributed to Ibrahim’s fall.
Concerning racialism in Malaysia: when I was at the University of Malaysia, about 80% of the students were Chinese. The government changed this by discriminating against the Chinese (almost all scholarships given to Malays), with the result that now about 80% (??) of students are Malays, i.e., closer to the ethnic mix in the country. But it seems to be changing know. During my last visit (earlier this year) I noticed that the government was planning a change, more scholarships to Chinese at the expense of the Malays. - Government policy was aimed at helping the indigenous people to catch up: Chinese have a long tradition of family support for their childrens’ education (from my experience: 12 children, fairly poor family, all or most sons and daughters at university). Malays did not have that tradition. ——-Apart from that, Malaysia has a western style democracy (several parties, free elections). One cannot compare Korea, Taiwan and Japan, all of which have an almost homogeneous ethnic background,with Malaysia.
Of course everybody should have the freedom to say what he/she wants, and people can do this in Malaysia, as far as I can see.
Also and very importantly, Chinese in Malaysia are allowed their own schools (although I am not quite up to date with details: to what level etc.). I believe this is more than many Western countries can offer.
Finally, Chinese do very well in finance and business in Malaysia, they are indeed fairly dominant in that respect.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I accept the point of this comment, which I take to be that Malaysian-style democracy is not all that different from Western-style democracy compared to some of the other options around, and also the point of the last comment, which I take to be that there are sound and compelling historical reasons for the differences between Malaysian-style democracy and Western-style democracy.
But still… I suspect that if you had visited an emerging ethnically-mixed country in Eastern Europe that mapped precisely onto the Malaysian situation, you would have mentioned the political suppression of the economically-dominant Vlogyars and the terrible treatment of former Minister Avramovich, without making too many excuses based on Biedervolkia’s history of ethnic conflict and autocratic rule. That is really the only point I wanted to make.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“But still… I suspect that if you had visited an emerging ethnically-mixed country in Eastern Europe that mapped precisely onto the Malaysian situation, you would have mentioned the political suppression of the economically-dominant Vlogyars and the terrible treatment of former Minister Avramovich, without making too many excuses based on Biedervolkia’s history of ethnic conflict and autocratic rule. That is really the only point I wanted to make.”
“…Mapped precisely….” ???? Sorry, nothing in history or geography maps precisely. In other words, there are no null models in historical geography, everything is unique. I still have to meet Biedervolkia.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
precisely = more or less
‘Near enough is good enough’, as we used to say at the State Department
I accept the point that it is permissible to quibble about details until the end of time, and never confirm nor deny what the other person (that would be me) is asserting. And I did predict my comment was not going to be helpful. It was only meant as a kind of ‘thought experiment’. So… have a good weekend!
August 15th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Thanks. And the same.