ARTICLE: "Vietnam Leader to Push Economic Ties on U.S. Trip: As Human Rights Gains Scrutiny, Triet Signal Reply," by James Hookway and Paul Beckett, Wall Street Journal, 14 June 2007, p. A8.POLITICAL MEMO: "An Unexpected Odd Couple: Free Markets and Freedom," by Patricia Cohen, New York Times , 14 June 2007, p. A4.
Vietnam will face all the same pushback China has and continues to receive: yes, you're turning capitalistic but not democratic at the same time.
What should Triet do? Exact same game plan:
He will also respond to criticism of Vietnam's human-rights record by urging U.S. political leaders to pay more attention instead to the countries' growing economic ties."
No surprise:
As it has opened to more foreign investment, Vietnam's economy has boomed.
So can we be patient on the rise in incomes or must we demand instant democracy?
After all, the academics argue, democracy and development went hand in hand in America, right?
Unless you weren't white or didn't own land at first.
Unless you were a slave for the first century or so.
Unless you were black and living in the South until the 1960s.
Unless you were part of any immigrant wave in which you were systematically denied your social, political and economic rights for years and decades following your arrival--as in, no Irish allowed or no Catholics allowed.
Unless you couldn't vote directly for senators until the turn of the 20th century.
Unless you were Native Americans.
Unless you were female and didn't vote whatsoever until about 80 years ago.
Unless you're gay and lesbian today and can't get married or enjoy spousal benefits.
Unless, unless, unless.
Ah yes, but we were perfect from the start. Where it took decades or even centuries to achieve democracy to achieve elsewhere.
Our sense of our own history is so queerly warped.
Ah, but let the academics debate it endlessly while the businessmen spread economic freedom in the meantime ....
| Permalink |
Comments (8)
one of my favorite posts yet!
Posted by robert sutton | June 14, 2007 3:56 PM
Go back even farther. We inherited our political framework from England. Back in the old country, the rule of law, trial by jury, property rights. all kinds of stuff that is absolutely basic came along bit by bit, centuries before we got widely spread participation in a democratic process. So, the focus on "democracy" is not really right. The focus should be on rule of law, transparency, due process, secure and clear property rights, etc., etc. China can do better on all these things.
Posted by Lexington Green | June 14, 2007 6:32 PM
Nationally, and in each of the instances stated above (white but don't own land, slave in our first century, part of an immigrant wave, female until about 80 years ago, etc.), the pattern of denying freedom and equality caused huge delays in integrating these groups into our national economy and community. Adverse remnants of these decisions are still with us today.
In hindsight, do we believe that these denials of freedom and equality were necessary and appropriate?
Internationally, this exact same pattern is seen in the Core's relationship with the Gap. The Core's denial of freedom and equality to the Gap has caused huge delays in integrating these nations into the global economy and in connecting them to the international community (example: China - Lost to communism for almost 100 years). Adverse consequences of these decisions are still with us today (example: Middle East).
Considering these results and looking forward, do we believe that continuing to deny freedom and equality to the Gap is necessary and appropriate?
Posted by Bill C. | June 14, 2007 10:54 PM
Question is how to end the political inequality. My answer is that economic freedom takes precedence. Political freedom with no real economic opportunity is Yeltsin's Russia. That gets you Putin's retrenchment.
Posted by Tom Barnett | June 15, 2007 8:10 AM
Couldn't agree more Tom. People are so quick to forget that our country has taken over 230 years to reach the idealistic "harmony" that we have today.
We didn't write a perfect constitution right off the bat. It wasn't until 1788 that we wrote our current constitution, and that's been amended how many times?
We had a civil war roughly eighty years after we finally won our independence. How many people died in that one again?
All we can really do as a country is plant ideas and be an example for others to follow. It's up to our elected leaders to see whether or not we're a good example that people around the world will want to emulate, or a bad example that people want no part of. If our government keeps arguing about the latest hot button political issues and ignoring serious ones, and if the 24-hour a day media keeps covering events like Paris Hilton's moves in prison as opposed to something that might actually inform the public about the country/world, then i fear we might end up as the latter.
Posted by Jim F. | June 15, 2007 12:19 PM
Recently re-read Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. He defines "democracy" in a minimalist fashion, i.e., a system in which elections are used to select the political leaders of a country. A good idea because it applies a sort of market mechanism to political leadership, but not in itself something that brings about the radical transformation of relationships of individuals within the society. That stuff has its roots in economics. (Wow, was my reaction to this post).
Posted by stuart abrams | June 15, 2007 12:47 PM
Jim F: let's remember that we get the government and the media that we elect and pay for and watch and deserve. the electorate/market is the final arbiter and the place to lay most of the blame for these complaints.
Posted by Anonymous
|
June 15, 2007 4:46 PM
In the instances of slaves, women, etc., was not the granting of political freedom first the factor which allowed for the achievement of greater economic freedom by these groups? Do we believe that these groups would have attained economic freedom -- and integration into the national community -- had they continued to be dominated and enslaved by earlier white male immigrants?
In the instances of China and Vietnam, did not the achievement of political freedom (from the West) precede the attainment of greater economic freedom by these nations? Do we believe that these nations would have attained greater economic freedom -- and integration into the international community -- had they continued to be dominated and exploited by the West (look to the Middle East to answer this question).
Posted by Bill C. | June 15, 2007 9:18 PM