Logics of geopolitics Re: Mo^ hi`nh li.ch su+?

[Alexander H L Vu <vuh000@mail.Uni-Mainz.DE>]

Bac Viet and Thach,

Just some remarks from me. Paul Kennedy's main thesis in his "The rise and
fall of great powers" is the "imperial overstretch". All the great empires
in history broke down because their territorial range "overstretched"
their real capacity. He then went on to predict the collapse of the Soviet
Union (the book was written in 1987), saying that Russia has to reduce its
boundaries and give up its power claims upon East Europe as well as
the other Soviet Republics. Winston Churchill was wise when he decided not
to keep the British Empire after WW2. Great Britain can survive but the
Empire with India  et al. certainly not. History has proved Kennedy's
(and Gorbachov's) wiseness. Gorbachov was not able to land softly as
Churchill was because the Soviet problems were much heavier than the
British ones.

You can apply the theory to other cases as well, for example Vietnam's
policy toward Indochina from the 18th century to present. All the wars in
Vietnam from the Tayson-Gialong through the French conquest to the two
Vietnam wars (more exactly Indochina wars) showed that the good strategist
must not cut off Laos, Cambodia and Thailand from the map of battles. Some
authors even argue that Vietnam would not be vital economically without
the rest of Indochina. So, if VN's not able to cover the whole Indochina,
it remains highly vulnerable. This smells a bit colonialist. However it
contains a piece of truth.

The logic of geopolitics dictates that earlier or later the Dai
Viet-Champa conflict has to cease and the two regions have to be united
under a single rule, be it originated from Dai Viet or Champa. The reasons
are:

- If Champa is too powerful, Dai Viet cannot survive between two giants.
So Dai Viet will eventually be incorporated either into China or into
Champa.

- If Dai Viet is too powerful, it will eventually swallow Champa,
eliminating this permanent threat.

- Any balance of power between the two regions can be sustained only in
short term, while in the long run there is at any time thousand reasons
for this balance of power not to keep up. (E.g.: demographic growth in Dai
Viet, policy change in China, etc)

The past says that it was Dai Viet which triumphed over Champa in this
survival race. (I do not know why).

In some respects, Minh Mang just followed this logic in his penetration to
Laos and Cambodia. His Dai Nam was, however, not able to held
permanently under Hue's control the entire land stretch to the east side
of Mekong, perhaps because of the obsolete Chinese-style institutions. It
were the French who was able to fulfill Minh Mang's dream, this endeavor
was sealed by the French-Siam treaty which divided the whole Indochina
into two halves: French Indochina and Thailand. The reasons for the French
domination: advanced military technologies + sophisticated political
institutions.

Bac Viet's thesis about Champa, in my interpretation, includes an
"imperial understretch" thesis as well. I do know if this thesis is ever
proved. Maybe we need a proper formulation. I see, however, a link to
American isolationism, the ideology that limits the US horizon within the
western hemisphere, saying the Americas to the Americans, but indifferent
towards any hegemonist endeavors occuring in the rest of the world.
Huntington's model is a version of this isolationism. This school of
thought would be willing to leave West Pacific (except South Pacific) to
China, the emerging power in the region. I see in American isolationism an
"imperial understretch" because I think America's real capacity allows it
to cover more than just the Americas and Europe.

On the other hand, if China won't change its obsolete institutions, it
will not be able to cover the West Pacific region. It seems that Beijing
is not able to swallow Hong Kong, not to say Taiwan. But if the elite in
Beijing endeavors to make their institutions fit to the conditions of
globalization in broader sense, that is, among others, to develop a
cultural imperialism (an East-West synthetic civilization for example), to
design China's institutions no more on ethno-national base, etc. then we
have possibly to become nothing but a Chinese satellite. I do not know
whether this scenario is good or bad but it is a possibility.

Lam