Subject: NEW AH Challenge: Inverted Countries; Congo and Cote D'Ivoire Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:11:13 GMT From: Byzantine Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 >There are reasons that Botswana is a success while Congo is not, not >least of which is a benign colonial history, relative ethnic homogeneity >of a small and concentrated population, sophisticated yet decentralized >decision-making structures, and proximity to a quasi-First World >economy. You can't introduce those factors to Congo. Yes, I was aware of that -- unfortunately they _are_ quite different :(. I guess what I'm looking for is some way to turn Congo into a (relatively) stable _and_ (relatively) rich country. The country that came into my mind before Botswana was Tanzania. But Tanzania, though stable and recently democratic, isn't rich. Though this is miraculous given what it was at independence, I'm looking for a double miracle :) Perhaps we should modify the objective: With a POD not later than 1800, have OTL 1999 Congo and 1999 Cote d'Ivoire (pre-coup) change places. Byzantine Subject: Re: NEW AH Challenge: Inverted Countries; Congo and Cote D'Ivoire Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:11:47 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Byzantine wrote: > > >There are reasons that Botswana is a success while Congo is not, not > >least of which is a benign colonial history, relative ethnic homogeneity > >of a small and concentrated population, sophisticated yet decentralized > >decision-making structures, and proximity to a quasi-First World > >economy. You can't introduce those factors to Congo. > > Yes, I was aware of that -- unfortunately they _are_ quite different :(. I > guess what I'm looking for is some way to turn Congo into a (relatively) > stable _and_ (relatively) rich country. The country that came into my mind > before Botswana was Tanzania. But Tanzania, though stable and recently > democratic, isn't rich. Though this is miraculous given what it was at > independence, I'm looking for a double miracle :) True, and it would be nice. I fear, however, that Tanzania is not rich simply because it is not able to become rich, at least not with a POD prior to the 16th century. All of the Newly Industrialized Countries of East Asia -- South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore -- either have long traditions of statehood and high levels of domestic integration or are coherent and united entities, with histories stretching centuries if not millennia. Tanzania, for its part, is still in the process of building the Tanzanian nation. > Perhaps we should modify the objective: > > With a POD not later than 1800, have OTL 1999 Congo and 1999 Cote d'Ivoire > (pre-coup) change places. Oh, fun. I'll tackle this later. > Byzantine -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: NEW AH Challenge: Inverted Countries; Congo and Cote D'Ivoire Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:49:54 -0400 From: Old Toby Organization: The University of Michigan Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Randy McDonald wrote: > > prior to the 16th century. All of the Newly Industrialized Countries of > East Asia -- South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore -- > either have long traditions of statehood and high levels of domestic > integration or are coherent and united entities, with histories > stretching centuries if not millennia. Um, let's run a check on that. South Korea: While South Korea per se doesn't have a long history, the united Korea has long traditions of statehood. Both North and South Korea have high levels of domestic integration and are coherent and united entities. Taiwan: Was part of the Chinese state for 2 centuries, and a Japanese colony for half a century, so I guess you could argue that it has a long tradition of statehood, but it doesn't really have much of a record before 1949 as an independent or self governing entity. In many ways it has a highly divided population (natives vs. mainlanders), Thailand: Has a solid core that has a long history as a sovereign nation, although the borders have fluctuated a bit. Malaysia: Is composed of a number of states, each with it's own history of colonization. Malaya (peninsular Malaysia) was only formed into a single state after WWII, having previously been divided between the Straits Settlements (which also included Singapore) and the Federated and Unfederated Malay States. Sarawak and Sabah (on Borneo) didn't join until the 1960s. Besides these political divisions, the population is divided between Malays, Chinese, Indians, and various aboriginal peoples. It can't really be said to meet any of your criteria, although its components might. Singapore: Only existed since the early 19th century. Had no history of independence prior to the 1960s. Has multicultural population. Furthermore, we should consider the context in which these countries are found. North Korea meets the exact same criteria as South Korea. China has an extremely long history of statehood and is highly integrated, coherent, and united (HIC&U). Vietnam likewise has a long history of statehood and is currently fairly well HIC&U. Cambodia and Laos also have long histories of statehood, though with variable boundries and often not independent. Burma has a long history as a sovereign nation and a solid and coherent core. The periphery is filled with non-Burmese populations, but Thailand has the same situation, that this is a problem for Burma seems more a symptom than a cause. Brunei has a fairly long history as a state and is pretty coherent (then again, it's doing pretty well, it might have joined your list if oil hadn't given it an alternate route to wealth). The core areas of the Philippenes have a long history of unity, and it's pretty HIC&U except for Mindanao. Indonesia is a piece of colonial era pressboard, yet until recently it was doing fairly well. It seems that any long history of statehood among the "Asian tigers" is a property of the long history of statehood in East Asia in general, not a particular property of the sucessful states. Old Toby Least Known Dog on the Net Subject: Re: NEW AH Challenge: Inverted Countries; Congo and Cote D'Ivoire Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:56:13 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Old Toby wrote: > > Randy McDonald wrote: > > > > prior to the 16th century. All of the Newly Industrialized Countries of > > East Asia -- South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore -- > > either have long traditions of statehood and high levels of domestic > > integration or are coherent and united entities, with histories > > stretching centuries if not millennia. > > Um, let's run a check on that. > > South Korea: While South Korea per se doesn't have a long history, > the united Korea has long traditions of statehood. Both North and > South Korea have high levels of domestic integration and are coherent > and united entities. OK. Admittedly the Koreas belong to the high end of the unity/integration; even the fragmentation of Korea can be put down to the competition of two different successor states. > Taiwan: Was part of the Chinese state for 2 centuries, and a > Japanese colony for half a century, so I guess you could argue > that it has a long tradition of statehood, but it doesn't really > have much of a record before 1949 as an independent or self governing > entity. In many ways it has a highly divided population (natives vs. > mainlanders), True. Then again, the Taiwanese regime still formally identifies itself as the legitimate government of all China, as do a strong minority of Taiwanese. Then again, you could argue that I'm pointlessly playing with semantics. :-) > Thailand: Has a solid core that has a long history as a sovereign > nation, although the borders have fluctuated a bit. Quite. > Malaysia: Is composed of a number of states, each with it's own > history of colonization. Malaya (peninsular Malaysia) was only > formed into a single state after WWII, having previously been > divided between the Straits Settlements (which also included > Singapore) and the Federated and Unfederated Malay States. Sarawak > and Sabah (on Borneo) didn't join until the 1960s. Besides these > political divisions, the population is divided between Malays, > Chinese, Indians, and various aboriginal peoples. It can't really > be said to meet any of your criteria, although its components might. That is my impression. > Singapore: Only existed since the early 19th century. Had no history > of independence prior to the 1960s. Has multicultural population. Multicultural, yes, but with a three-quarters Chinese majority and a long history of separate rule from the rest of Malaya. > Furthermore, we should consider the context in which these countries > are found. North Korea meets the exact same criteria as South Korea. True, North Korea isn't much of an economic success; then again, North Korea is also manufacturing IRBMs and nuclear weapons. You could call North Korea a success in all of the wrong areas. > China has an extremely long history of statehood and is highly > integrated, coherent, and united (HIC&U). Not necessarily -- in recent years, the Chinese state has been more notable for its failures (the Taiping, Western colonialism, warlordism, the Japanese invasion) and lack of solidarity, at least until the People's Republic came about. > Vietnam likewise has a long > history of statehood and is currently fairly well HIC&U. Yes, and now that Vietnam is united and stable the country is making a moderate degree of progress. Since the 1860's, however, Vietnam was divided in one form or another -- Cochin China was separate from the rest of Vietnam in Indochina, and then came the division and war between North and South -- until 1975, and then it was subjected to gruesome rounds of purges in both halves of the country, and then by prolonged war in Cambodia. > Cambodia and > Laos also have long histories of statehood, though with variable boundries > and often not independent. Hmm. Laotian unification came historically late, while both Laos and Cambodia have traditionally found themselves caught in the sphere of larger and more powerful empires -- first Thailand, then France, then Vietnam, now who knows what (an informal Sino-Thai condominium?). Both of these countries have historically suffered from very weak states -- the Mekong delta used to be Cambodian, for instance, never mind historical Laotian-Isaan links. > Burma has a long history as a sovereign nation > and a solid and coherent core. The periphery is filled with non-Burmese > populations, but Thailand has the same situation, that this is a problem > for Burma seems more a symptom than a cause. Not necessarily. The outlying non-Thai peoples of Thailand -- hill tribes in the north, Isaaners (sp?) in the northeast, Chinese in Bangkok and other major cities -- have historically been closely related to Thailand, have been governed from Bangkok, and live in a country that acts as a functioning melting pot. Burma has historically been divided into sub-states and until independence Burma never had uncontested sovereignty to the peripheral non-Burmese areas. > Brunei has a fairly long > history as a state and is pretty coherent (then again, it's doing pretty > well, it might have joined your list if oil hadn't given it an alternate > route to wealth). Perhaps, but Brunei is basically a weak state -- most of Sarawak used to be Bruneian until the Brookes came along, and if it wasn't for a British protectorate that ended only in 1984 Brunei Darussalem might never have survived to the present. More to the point, Brunei's prosperity is based almost entirely on oil and not, say, on microchip factories; absent the oil, Brunei would look more like Sabah than anything else. > The core areas of the Philippenes have a long history > of unity, and it's pretty HIC&U except for Mindanao. It's my impression that Filipino unity is a relatively recent construct, introduced in the 19th century over a vast mosaic of peoples and cultures and limited until recently to an elite. > Indonesia is a piece > of colonial era pressboard, Not necessarily. Indonesia might well have been a construct of Dutch colonialism, but Dutch colonialism endured for three years; by the time that Aceh fell in 1901, the Dutch East Indies had been united within more-or-less Indonesia's current frontiers for almost a century. > yet until recently it was doing fairly well. See above. > It seems that any long history of statehood among the "Asian tigers" > is a property of the long history of statehood in East Asia in general, > not a particular property of the sucessful states. While that factors is obviously important, I still think that there is a positive correlation between the strength and historical depth of a state and that country's modern prosperity. > > Old Toby > Least Known Dog on the Net -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada