[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.China underwent similar change as the other two regions, but of a different character altogether.The Chinese were ideologically committed to communist ideology, which they attempted to spread through the Southeast Asian region, unsettling the peoples who lived there.During the 1950s and early 1960s communist insurgencies were promoted in Malaya/Singapore and the Philippines, and in the mid-1960s Chinese communists col-luded unsuccessfully with the Indonesian Communist Party to institute a government that would be either communist or “near-communist.” But despite this ideological interference, the image of China as a struggling4Fed_159-240 10/29/06 10:29 AM Page 161General Context161nation attempting to modernize itself without much outside help offered an inspiration to Southeast Asians that earned it considerable respect and admiration.Several other countries of North Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan—were crucial to the economic reconstruction programs undertaken in this time frame, which drew worldwide acclaim.Obviously such programs served as an important catalyst to the governments of Southeast Asia, and many of their characteristics were imitated, particularly their paternalistic governments, economic policies, and efforts to harness religion as a legit-imizer of modernization and development.Malaysia, in particular, afforded these countries great respect when it inaugurated its slogan “Look East.”Indonesia also attempted to apply the principle of religious certification to its development policies, apparently in imitation of East Asian success.The Southeast Asian SettingThe beginning of the era was engaged in decolonization, starting with the Indonesian and Burmese declarations of independence in 1945 and concluding with Brunei’s celebration of its independence in 1980.However, in the period from 1945 to 1958 most of the states in Southeast Asia were recognized as independent even though former colonial powers still exercised considerable influence throughout the 1960s.The new nations that arose were amalgams of territories held by previous colonial powers, with some shaping by national elites that arose at various centers—for example, Jakarta, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur, and Rangoon—to decide which territories would be included in the new nations; if they erred, it was on the side of inclusion.These new nations spent much of the time until 1980 handling problems of national political integration and meeting some very severe setbacks along the way.The largest disruption was the Vietnam War, which had the practical effect of bringing about the unification of Vietnam, but geo-politically placed the nations of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam in the “communist world” and the nations of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore in the “free world” camp.As a result, political consolidation occurred under two vastly different ideological systems, with centralized forms of authority being established in the communist states and limited representative systems rising in the noncommunist grouping.In the latter, authoritarian forms of government emerged to dominate in all cases, although in the Philippines that authoritarianism was later rejected.By the end of the era, political consolidation had progressed far enough that observers were discussing the formation of civil values in many of the states of the region.The latter half of the era was dominated by the economic cooperation of the southern states in the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) and by the economic expansion of the region under the direction of international development banks (i.e., the International Monetary Fund, the4Fed_159-240 10/29/06 10:29 AM Page 162162Nation-States and Civil Values (1945–2000)World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank).Elites in these states were paternalistic and at times repressive, regarding their own well-being as inextricably tied to development of flourishing national economies.While all states except Brunei opted for representative government in the beginning, most had difficulty sustaining this choice, moving toward authoritarian forms and almost always limiting political participation [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.China underwent similar change as the other two regions, but of a different character altogether.The Chinese were ideologically committed to communist ideology, which they attempted to spread through the Southeast Asian region, unsettling the peoples who lived there.During the 1950s and early 1960s communist insurgencies were promoted in Malaya/Singapore and the Philippines, and in the mid-1960s Chinese communists col-luded unsuccessfully with the Indonesian Communist Party to institute a government that would be either communist or “near-communist.” But despite this ideological interference, the image of China as a struggling4Fed_159-240 10/29/06 10:29 AM Page 161General Context161nation attempting to modernize itself without much outside help offered an inspiration to Southeast Asians that earned it considerable respect and admiration.Several other countries of North Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan—were crucial to the economic reconstruction programs undertaken in this time frame, which drew worldwide acclaim.Obviously such programs served as an important catalyst to the governments of Southeast Asia, and many of their characteristics were imitated, particularly their paternalistic governments, economic policies, and efforts to harness religion as a legit-imizer of modernization and development.Malaysia, in particular, afforded these countries great respect when it inaugurated its slogan “Look East.”Indonesia also attempted to apply the principle of religious certification to its development policies, apparently in imitation of East Asian success.The Southeast Asian SettingThe beginning of the era was engaged in decolonization, starting with the Indonesian and Burmese declarations of independence in 1945 and concluding with Brunei’s celebration of its independence in 1980.However, in the period from 1945 to 1958 most of the states in Southeast Asia were recognized as independent even though former colonial powers still exercised considerable influence throughout the 1960s.The new nations that arose were amalgams of territories held by previous colonial powers, with some shaping by national elites that arose at various centers—for example, Jakarta, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur, and Rangoon—to decide which territories would be included in the new nations; if they erred, it was on the side of inclusion.These new nations spent much of the time until 1980 handling problems of national political integration and meeting some very severe setbacks along the way.The largest disruption was the Vietnam War, which had the practical effect of bringing about the unification of Vietnam, but geo-politically placed the nations of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam in the “communist world” and the nations of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore in the “free world” camp.As a result, political consolidation occurred under two vastly different ideological systems, with centralized forms of authority being established in the communist states and limited representative systems rising in the noncommunist grouping.In the latter, authoritarian forms of government emerged to dominate in all cases, although in the Philippines that authoritarianism was later rejected.By the end of the era, political consolidation had progressed far enough that observers were discussing the formation of civil values in many of the states of the region.The latter half of the era was dominated by the economic cooperation of the southern states in the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) and by the economic expansion of the region under the direction of international development banks (i.e., the International Monetary Fund, the4Fed_159-240 10/29/06 10:29 AM Page 162162Nation-States and Civil Values (1945–2000)World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank).Elites in these states were paternalistic and at times repressive, regarding their own well-being as inextricably tied to development of flourishing national economies.While all states except Brunei opted for representative government in the beginning, most had difficulty sustaining this choice, moving toward authoritarian forms and almost always limiting political participation [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]