1999 (45 page)

Political freedom in these countries does not meet American or European standards. But they do provide basic economic, social, and religious rights, and in absolute terms they look like Disneyland compared to their drab communist neighbors. In South Korea students have been arrested for holding demonstrations to urge
that free elections be held earlier; in North Korea there are no demonstrations, no free elections, and no freedom at all. In Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore young people are sometimes lectured by their stern Prime Minister for letting their hair grow too long; in Pol Pot's Cambodia they were machine-gunned for holding hands.

Progress toward democracy around the world may never proceed at the speedy pace we would prefer. In view of the poor record of the twentieth century's various revolutions and “national-liberation movements,” we should be thankful it is proceeding at all. In fact, throughout noncommunist Asia today we see nations moving toward representative democracy. In one of the most significant political achievements of the twentieth century, 90 percent of South Korea's eligible voters went to the polls in December 1987 to end an era of authoritarianism and begin an era of democracy. Taiwan has also taken irrevocable steps toward free, multiparty elections. Hong Kong may soon have representational self-government. Thailand has strengthened its democracy. In all these nations, material progress may well be matched by political progress by 1999.

South Korea is a classic example of how national security and economic growth have prepared the ground for the seeds of sturdy representative government. Some critics contend that it took too long to achieve democracy. But those who take the historical perspective, especially in the context of the rest of the Third World, must conclude that South Korea's accomplishments in providing political stability, producing economic progress, and moving toward democracy are spectacular.

Across the 38th parallel from South Korea the people incarcerated in communist dictator Kim Il-Sung's closed society know neither the challenges and benefits of democracy nor the satisfactions of economic success. This is not because North Koreans are any less hard-working than South Koreans. It is because they live under a system that demands servility rather than encourages initiative. Totalitarian communism such as North Korea's is the cause of Asia's worst failures and greatest suffering.

Those who opposed United States participation in the Vietnam War because they thought communism would bring prosperity to
Asia must now face the hard facts of the hard life tens of millions now lead in today's Indochina. As Lenin said, “Facts are stubborn things.”

Vietnam is one of the world's poorest nations, with a per capita income of less than $160. In South Vietnam before the fall of Saigon in 1975 it was $500. For the 600,000 South Vietnamese who drowned in the South China Sea trying to escape the savageries of their Soviet-backed conquerors from the north, the communist peace was the peace of the grave. Even thirteen years after the end of the war, at a time when Americans are understandably eager to put the Vietnam experience behind them, 1,500 boat people are still putting Vietnam behind them every month.

Communism also killed the once-independent, prosperous nation of Cambodia. In a matter of days the brutal Khmer Rouge, acting according to a grim master plan prepared years before when their leaders lived in Paris, emptied the city of Phnom Penh so that they could create an agrarian communist society. Families, those with educations, monks and priests, racial minorities, and all suspected and imagined resisters were slaughtered. Children were encouraged to turn their parents in to the executioners. During the next three years over two million out of seven million starved or were liquidated. Today, after being occupied by 140,000 Vietnamese troops, Cambodia is one of the most malnourished nations in the world. Twenty-one percent of its children die before reaching age five, the average life expectancy is forty-six years, and the per-capita income is $80 a year. For all intents and purposes, the nation of Cambodia has ceased to exist.

Today's Cambodia will be tomorrow's Philippines if the ruthless, brutal communist New People's Army succeeds at its avowed goal of overthrowing the elected government. The NPA has used negotiations with Manila as all communists do: to consolidate military gains and to sap the will of the enemy to win. Neither the government of Mrs. Aquino nor a democratic Philippines will survive unless she accepts the fact that the NPA must be defeated militarily.

Neither the administration nor the Congress has paid sufficient attention to this critical situation. If the Philippines becomes another Third World battleground, American interests, those of
Japan and our Western allies, and those of the Philippines' neighbors throughout the South Pacific, including Australia, all will suffer.

Mrs. Aquino's election as President rejuvenated the spirit of the Filipino people. A majority still support her. But political legitimacy without economic growth and military security is fragile. And in the Philippines personal legitimacy is rare among government officials. No one questions President Aquino's own integrity. But in view of the fact that her family is one of the two richest in the country, it is particularly important for her to make sure that the “Philippine disease,” a deadly combination of nepotism and corruption, does not infect her government.

We should not make the mistake of treating the Filipinos as our little brown brothers. We do them no favors when we subsidize policies we know will fail. We should substantially increase our economic aid, but only if it is used to implement sound economic policies. Otherwise we waste money on building false hopes. As tens of thousands have shown after they emigrated to the United States, the Filipinos are a talented and hard-working people. All they need is government that will tap their enormous potential. If President Aquino vigorously implements a market-oriented economic policy she will be able to harness the energy and enthusiasm of her people and attract the foreign investment she needs to spur greater growth.

The Philippines' neighbor to the south, Indonesia, is one of the least known, most underrated nations in the world. It was the first Asian country I visited as Vice President in 1953. I saw it through the eyes of President Sukarno, one of the most charismatic leaders I have ever met. He had elaborate dreams for the future of his newly independent country. But his irresponsible policies and personal corruption turned into a nightmare for Indonesia. His successor, President Suharto, has slowly brought the nation back from the chaos of Sukarno's last years. Indonesia could well become a giant in the twenty-first century. It is rich in natural resources. It has enormous strategic importance. It is the fifth most populous nation in the world. The Indonesians, blood brothers of the Filipinos, are a capable people with great potential. All they need is continued strong leadership to provide political stability and new
economic policies that reward initiative and attract foreign investment.

Two of Indonesia's neighbors, New Zealand and Australia, are among the most important and promising nations of non-communist Asia and also the most frequently overlooked. One does not have to agree with its foreign policy to agree that New Zealand's Labor government is providing a vivid example of how economic policies that rely on private enterprise are far more effective in providing progress than policies that put excessive faith in government planning. If Australia's Labor government, whose foreign policy is much more to our liking, were to follow New Zealand's example, this geographical giant would without question become an economic giant in the next century.

If the malignant cancer of Vietnam can be prevented from spreading, the future of noncommunist Southeast Asia is bright. One reason is the dramatic change in China's attitude toward its neighbors. In 1953, all the leaders I met in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia feared the communist giant to the north for its support of revolutionaries in their countries. Today China has good relations with all its neighbors except Taiwan. It is still feared, but for different reasons. As China modernizes its economy it could swamp the smaller economies, particularly in labor-intensive, mass-production industries such as textiles. That is why farsighted leaders in Malaysia and Thailand are planning moves into high-technology industries.

Violent change drags a nation down, while peaceful change can take it to infinite heights. The legacies of both are written on the face of the Far East. Its stark contrast between freedom and tyranny should help other developing nations that face this choice make the right one.

On the Asian subcontinent, the struggle between India and Pakistan is a tragic example of a Third World conflict that would exist even if there were no Soviet Union. India is the world's largest democracy with close ties to the Soviets. Pakistan is a United States ally that is gradually evolving toward democracy. Since they were granted independence from Great Britain in 1947 over five
million people have been killed in the slaughter that followed partition and in two wars between the two new countries. With 250,000 belligerent, heavily armed troops still facing off across the border, this conflict can only be compared with the Mideast as the major source of instability in the Third World.

India is a country of great hope and great misery. In 1999 it will have over a billion people. One third of the world's poor live there. In one area India has had remarkable economic progress. In the 1960s it combined wise use of technological and financial aid with free-market incentives, and the agricultural sector responded with an explosive boom. India now produces enough food to feed its 800 million people and still have some left over for export. This is one of the world's most exciting examples of how wise government policies can unleash the energies of an able people and solve a problem many thought could not be solved.

The rest of the Third World should learn lessons from India's successes in the 1960s. It should also learn from India's failures in the 1970s and 1980s. A promising industrial base grew in the 1960s, but government bureaucracy, the poison that saps the vitality of most Third World economies, grew faster. Like Chinese and Filipinos, Indians who leave home prosper in nations such as the United States that do not frustrate initiative and hard work. The average Indian emigrant to the United States has a higher income than an average American. But in India the remarkable industry of individual Indians is wasted in an economy stifled by excessive government regulation and protectionism.

Yet to its great credit and despite incredible odds, India still has one of the Third World's few working democracies. In 1947, when India received its independence, it had a population of over 400 million: 250 million Hindus, 90 million Muslims, 6 million Sikhs, and millions of Buddhists and Christians; 500 independent princes and maharajahs; 23 main languages with 200 dialects; and 3,000 castes with 60 million “untouchables” at the bottom of the heap. Whatever differences we may have with Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors, governing such a country with a democracy, except for a brief period of martial law under Mrs. Gandhi, is one of the most remarkable political achievements of the twentieth century. One is reminded of Dr. Johnson's famous comment on a woman
preaching, “It is like a dog walking on its hind legs. It is not done well, but you are surprised that it is done at all.” Those who believe India is not governed well should remember how miraculous it is that it is governed at all.

Pakistan has also suffered from political and economic strife throughout its thirty years of independence. Since 1977 it has been led by President Zia ul-Haq, an enlightened military leader who has provided the political stability essential for economic growth. But he recognizes his people's democratic aspirations and has implemented a process of gradual democratization that, if not frustrated by political violence or Soviet pressure from Afghanistan, will lead to another round of free elections in 1990.

Traditionally Pakistan has been an ally of the United States, while India's foreign policy has tilted toward the Soviet Union. Pakistan today holds the front line against Soviet expansion into South Asia. It supports the Afghan freedom fighters and plays host to over three million refugees. These courageous policies have been deadly dangerous. In retribution Soviet aircraft attacked Pakistan over 600 times in 1986 alone, and the number of attacks increased in 1987. Soviet agents are attempting to destabilize Pakistan with terrorist bombings and by fueling ethnic strife.

That a democratic nation such as India can have a pro-communist foreign policy is one of the geopolitical paradoxes of this century. It is the only major noncommunist country that has not condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and is one of the few nations to have full diplomatic relations with Kabul. It is the only noncommunist country to have an embassy in Phnom Penh. It has extensive military and economic relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviets deal directly with almost all levels of the Indian public and private economy and even contribute to Indian politicians. In 1985 India supported the United States at the UN 8.9 percent of the time—less than communist Mongolia.