Suchergebnisse

The system of states that has evolved since World War II has not resolved the basic political problems facing Asia. Furthermore, American efforts to sustain, and hopefully stabilize, the non-Communist regimes have entangled the United States unnecessarily in the domestic political processes of several Asian countries. Resurgent forces of ethnic and local identity increasingly challenge the authority of central governments and bring into question the efficacy of anti-pluralist, nationalistic schemes. The foreseeable future appears laden with struggles by these classic forces, which dominated pre-colonial Asia and now underlie ideological and nationalist conflicts. Regional competition between traditional ethnic enemies, as well as between larger Asian powers, is reasserting itself, calling into question the efforts by the superpowers, and the United Nations, to play dominant roles in the settlement of these conflicts. More certain is a constant secondary role by the United States, due to its technological superiority, economic abundance, and cultural vigor. The kind of American presence in Asia over the next two decades will be significantly modified. While military assistance may, in many cases, continue, termination of alliances on mainland Asia may eventually follow the withdrawal from Vietnam. The major motive for the American desire to disengage flows from domestic pressures. However, the quest for relaxation of tension with China will help account for the new American tolerance of political change in Asia.

THE DIVERSE POLICIES OF BURMESE A ND THAI GOVERNMENTS obscure the similarities between these two countries. To contrast their political styles highlights these similar features and also reveals a general political change that applies also to much of Asia. That trend is towards the politization of military leaders and their creation of political parties to sustain their power base. Civilian experts and civil organizations increasingly serve these military governments and thereby tend to bolster their legitimacy.It is two decades since the European powers commenced their withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Considerable political experimentation followed as leaders of these states adjusted their freshly won sovereignty to fit their weakened condition. Democracy burst on the region like a river in spate. Without exception every central government employed elections to legitimize itself. Then (but for the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore) military juntas moved to seize power from impotent legislatures. Liberals saw military totalitarianism sweeping Asia, conservatives viewed the nationalization practices as statism that crushed private initiative.

Based on chapter of thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Cal.