Dec. 10 was International Human Rights Day. It was also the day that Augusto Pinochet, the former murderous dictator of Chile, died of heart disease at the age of 91.
News of his death caused two extreme reactions among Chileans. On the one hand, those who had been persecuted by him held celebrations throughout the capital. Loyal supporters of Pinochet who believed that he had been Chile's savior and that it was because of him that their country managed to avoid the "poison" of communism, meanwhile, were deeply saddened.
Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who guided Britain through its own set of liberalization policies, also said she was extremely saddened by Pinochet's death.
On the day before Pinochet died, a poll demonstrated the conflicting feelings of love and hate that Chileans had for him. Forty-five percent of respondents said Pinochet was one of the foremost rulers in Chilean history and should be honored with a state burial, while the remaining 55 percent thought a state burial would be a mockery of the victims of Pinochet's regime.
What lies behind these polarized reactions should not come as a surprise: it is economics.
Pinochet initiated a military coup on Sept. 11, 1973, that overthrew the leftist regime. During his 17 years in power, he pushed hard for market liberalization policies, which led to booming economic growth that quickly turned Chile into one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America.
In many ways, the policies Pinochet implemented adhered to the principles of economic liberalization.
They broke down trade regulations, reduced government interference, privatized state-held industries and allowed individuals to take responsibility for their own social insurance. They were in essence the same policies as those pushed through by Thatcher and former US president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and produced similar results.
But Pinochet had no knowledge of economics, which makes it hard to account for his break with the mainstream trend of the day and pursuit of the same economic liberalization policies as the US and Britain.
What he did was entrust much of the authority to a group of young government economists called the "Chicago boys," letting them turn Chile into a testing ground.
As their name suggests, the Chicago boys were educated at the University of Chicago. As everyone knows, the University of Chicago's economics department is a bastion of global economic liberalization, and the "Chicago school" is respected around the world. Its most famous leader, 1976 Nobel prize-winner Milton Friedman, passed away on Nov. 16. Although Friedman never actually taught the Chicago boys, during a visit to Chile he provided the Pinochet government with pointers on carrying out economic liberalization.
As a result, he was widely seen as having helped Pinochet develop Chile's economy and entrench his positions on economic matters.
We know that Pinochet's image as a dictator has left a deep impression on people. For trampling Chile's democratic tradition, he was considered one of the most notorious tyrants of 20th century Latin America.
The violence perpetrated by his regime included kidnappings, executions and shady secret army gatherings where cruel punishments were performed. During his 17-year reign, at least 3,197 people were killed for political reasons, more than 30,000 were persecuted, countless were illegally imprisoned and more than 10 million forced into exile.
Friedman was also dragged into the controversy. Between the time when the Nobel committee announced that he had won the award in 1976 and the the award ceremony, mass demonstrations erupted and well-respected experts publicly accused him of being unqualified for the award because he had helped an "evil man" commit "evil."
Although Pinochet may have maintained his regime's legitimacy through economic reform, it may very well be that economics led to his downfall by giving people enough capital to fight for their political freedom.
There is an important question hidden in this: Is economic liberalization feasible under tight military rule? Even if it is possible and produces good results, can it lengthen the lifespan of a military regime or even increase the severity of terror campaigns to root out dissidents?
The answer to this question may be found in the famous first chapter of Friedman's 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, entitled "The Relationship Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom."
This is the book that made Friedman and it is his most renowned work. In it, he says it is impossible not to prioritize one type of freedom over the other and that if the goal is to improve the welfare of citizens, then economic freedom takes precedent. This theory might be proven by the fact that economic liberalization has led to political democratization in both Chile and Taiwan.
Today, the more pressing question is whether or not China can follow the same road. If it can, then we can all hope for the emergence of a democratic China at some point in the future.
Wu Hui-lin is a research fellow at the Chung-Hua Institute of Economic Research
Translated by Marc Langer
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing