Will China End Up As The Soviet Union And Yugoslavia? The Omens Are Not Good

Gu Suhua writes from Beijing: Will China meet the same fate as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia?

What do they all have in common? A multinational empire in which the dominant nationality is surrounded by ethnic minorities. In the case of the Soviet Union, ethnic Russians made up about half of the Soviet population in 1991. In Yugoslavia, the dominant Serbs could not hold the federation together after the collapse of communism. In fact, all communist federations failed: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The latter only consisted of two main nationalities: Czechs and Slovaks. But they found they could not cohabit together and divorced. Why did all this happen?

Russia before the Bolshevik coup in 1917 and China before the communist takeover in 1949 were unitary states. Minorities had no special status. There was a common nationality and a shared citizenship. The tsarist regime never found a solution to the problems thrown up by the multi-ethnic nature of the Russian Empire. Vladimir Lenin wanted to yoke the nationalities to the Bolshevik chariot and offered them autonomy. They would have the right to secede from a Soviet state if they wished. This won over many of them.

Lenin’s nationality policy divided the Soviet Union into ethnic republics, such as Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Where a nationality was too few in numbers to qualify for a republic, they became autonomous regions within another republic, such as the Russian Federation. Smaller groups were granted autonomy status within an oblast or province. In doing this, Lenin created a nationality problem. Inside each ethnic republic, autonomous republic and so on, political, economic, social and cultural elites formed. Their national consciousness developed apace. These elites defended the status quo. Ethnic nationalism became reality.

Yugoslavia, a communist state from 1944, copied the Soviet model and set up ethnic republics within the Yugoslav Federation. When communism collapsed civil war erupted and each republic became a sovereign state.

When the People’s Republic of China was created in 1949 it was inevitable that it would follow the Soviet model. Each ethnic minority was given a territory and cultural autonomy. They acquired the right to form their own administration, teach their own language in schools and conduct business in their local language. The same thing happened as in the Soviet Union. Political, economic, social and cultural elites formed who wanted to defend the status quo. They also asked for more privileges and resources to be apportioned to them. One concession they won was the one child policy, in effect from 1979, did not apply to them.

China has now recognised that its ethnic policy has failed. Lenin assumed that as the economy developed, ethnic and other differences would melt away. The opposite happened in the Soviet Union. This is repeating itself in China at present.

Although ethnic minorities only account for 100 million of the 1.3 billion population, they are an increasing headache for Beijing. The policy of integrating all peoples in a common Chinese identity has failed spectacularly.

So what can China do to prevent the problem escalating? Some scholars propose that the problem can only be solved by establishing a federation. Others want the ethnic territorial divisions abolished.

Local elites favour the first option but are, naturally, vehemently opposed to the second. The latter would rob them of their privileged existence.

So what can Beijing do? There is a vigorous debate going on in the country about its future. The existing model has failed so what should replace it? Given the choice, Tibet and Xinjiang would declare independence. That is one option Beijing cannot countenance. The communists have created the problem and will have to compromise to placate ethnic sensibilities. Expect more ethnic conflict in China. And even a possible break-up of the country, say, in 10 years’ time.

–End–

6 Comments

1. Uncle B says:

   July 11, 2012 at 2:23 am

   Melted Pot
   Once again, the Great Corporate American Propaganda Whore spins her evil disinformation in American English, subtly suggesting the “Melting Pot” theory is superior to recognizing cultural and linguistic differences of each social component of the fabric of a stronger more resilient social system. I would have doubters ride the Canadian “Go-Train” system, where signs are pictographic for all languages to understand, and at any busy time of day, an astounding plethora of languages can be heard, as well as many ethnic based clothing variations, none necessarily ascribing to the Whore’s incantations disseminations and gross materialism – all under one flag, all understanding well their equal rights to the best health care system in the free world, and many other social safety nets. French and English still the ‘Official Languages’ but never imposed or preferential.
   China will survive and prosper. The U.S. will adapt to the new world wide realities or follow Detroit City and now, a bankrupted Californian city, into Third World-ship.
2. Cicero says:

   July 13, 2012 at 9:18 pm

   Lot of self-delusion and wishful thinking from Gu Suhua.
3. Trotzkii says:

   July 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm

   “When the People’s Republic of China was created in 1949 it was inevitable that it would follow the Soviet model.” … Why?
   Also, I think there are some serious cultural and ethnographic differences between European and Asian nationalities which makes the underlying premises of this argument suspect. For example, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were artificially created states that were the results of the collapsing Austro-Hungarian and German Empires’ own nationalities’ problems, as well as their defeat in the First World War. Conversely, China has had a sound empire that has lasted for hundreds of years (this is not to make the faulty argument that ‘It will last because it has lasted’, but is merely an observation that the states that these states were in when Communism was introduced shared little in common.
   It is problematic to assume that a historic determinism existed that dictated that Maoists would have followed the Leninist precedent, given that the Maoists were clearly self-aware of the difference of circumstance and environment between the theoretical circumstances for an Orthodox Marxist revolution, the Bolshevik revisionism thereof, and their own situation in China. That is to say, given that the Communists, both in Russia and China, showed a willingness to engage in revisionism toward Marxist theory, it’s not a fair assumption to say that one’s actions dictated the other’s; it ought not be said that because Bolsheviks did one thing, the Maoists would have necessarily taken that action. Simply the fact that they did offers little insight as to any actual connexions between the two factions.
4. RoninJ says:

   August 5, 2012 at 12:39 am

   I would venture to say that theory of this article is rather far off base. The Russian communists oppressed the Bolsheviks to near extinction. They carried out a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing that saw the murder and imprisonment of thousands of men women and children in the gulags and mass graves. Also to simply say that Russia collapsed because of ethnic lines ignores the fact that Russia’s communism was unsustainable in the first place. Any system that concentrates all the power and wealth of a people at the top while leaving the majority hungry and desperate eventually collapses under it’s own weight. China has been so far successful because they realized that in order to continue their survival they needed growth. Poverty and hunger play very large factors in the overthrow of governments. Also Uncle B your spouting off at the mouth missed the fact that this was one persons singular opinion that ignored all the factors in the Soviets demise.
5. LordEfan says:

   August 19, 2012 at 5:34 pm

   I have to agree with the other commenters. China has been largely successful with very little resistance. By maintaining the populations as they have, china has been largely peaceful. The soviet union was famous for a Stalin brand of communism that couldn’t stand up to snuff in the real world. Lenin had good initial ideas, but died to early to really have them make an impact. China is a different story however. China is built around a communal culture which gives an immediate boost to communism (or in China’s case) socialism. China has become less stringent and have become more open in order to build an ally with the US,and the single most valuable trading partner in the world. By keeping their order in place as they have, I believe that China will be very successful in their ventures.
6. Ecog says:

   August 28, 2012 at 9:39 am

   In my opinion United States of America will fall apart faster than China.