Sertorio wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:40 am
neverfail wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:43 am
Within your own and my own lifespan your country Portugal was an autocracy ruled by a political strongman that many have described as a dictator. But midway along it underwent a largely peaceful people's revoltuion that propelled it into becoming a democracy. Your preference for the Beijing regime over the Taipei one leads me to speculate that you would prefer your country to regress backwards to the time and regime of Salazar than to persevere with the better regime of government that has superceded and replaced his since.
Our revolution and freeing from a dictatorship was due exclusively to our own efforts, and we did not need the intrusion of any third party to achieve our objectives. Any people, whether Chinese or American can do the same, and no country should interfere in their affairs. I do not prefer the Beijing regime over Taipei's, because it's not up to me to have any preferences in respect of other people's affairs. But I prefer a China capable of resisting US imperialism, to a Taipei submitted to the American diktat. Just as I would prefer an independent Australia capable of a normal relationship with China, than an Australia willing to foster American illegitimate interests in Asia.
I just cannot understand how an apparently intelligent person like you could be so unmindful of them geostrategic context within which Portugal's and Spains transformation from autocracies into modern democratic states came about. Do you really believe that it would have happened had the USSR pale of command reached the Atlantic coast of Europe in the years immediately after the end of the Second World War - as Stalin's empire made every effort short of open warfare to do? Of course not! Any upheaval in Iberia or elsewhere would have resulted in yet more sad and sorry one party tyrannies in thrall to Moscow just like Poland, Czeckoslovakia and Hungary.
When "the people" took to the streets in both Lisbon and Madrid back in the 1970's to push for the transformation of their countries into modetrn democratic states I take note of the fact that the posture of the United States was one of non-interference (despite the fact that in the case of Portugal the local Communist party initially became a significent player in the politics of your newly democratic homeland).
Oh Sertorio: would you cease being such a PROUD European and summons up enough humulity (i.e. soundness of judgement) to acknowledge the moral indebitedness of Europe to the United States for having devoted decades (at risk to itself of thermonuclear obliterration by and from the USSR the whole time) in sheltering the western side of your European subcontinent from becoming nothing but a sad and sorry clutch of Stalinist tyrannies?
On the other side of the World the US role in the western Pacific/eastern Asia rim is likewise one of maintaining the power balance
. Until the end of the 1980's the balance was to match that of the USSR but today it is containment of the equally overweening global power ambitions of the PRC.
I consider that particular US interest in the region to be a perfectly legetimate one.
Do you truly believe that rule by the CCP represents the will of the Chinese people?
They might tolerate it because they can do nothing to dislodge it and in any case there has been enough improvement in living conditions there to mitigate public discontent. Which does not make one party rule by the CCP good news for the rest of us. Historically, the CCP came to power as the consequence of a long and bloody civil war and as such represents another winner-take-all gaining of power by CONQUEST: just like the earlier gaining of power and imposition of their ways after the post-Bolshevik red triumph that came about at the end of the 1918-1923 Russian Civil War.