Criticism and bibliography. Reviews

Moscow: Vostochny Universitet Publ., 2004, 497 p.

The output data of the book under review indicates: scientific publication, approved for publication by the Academic Council of the Eastern University as a textbook.

I will immediately say that this is an excellent textbook both in its rich and versatile content, and in its clear and logical form and style of presentation of the material. The first is rich and versatile, the second is clear and logical. A special section of the publication (pp. 459-484) is devoted to a detailed course program on the history of Southeast Asia, which in itself can be considered as a synopsis of this history. The paper also contains a list of literature on the Southeast Asian region and its countries in Russian (pp. 485-494). Both can be useful not only for students, but also for researchers and practitioners who have not yet had such a program and a bibliography on the Southeast Asian region that reflects it in its entirety.

While appreciating the textbook, it should be emphasized that it is at the same time a serious scientific study of the history of Southeast Asia, written by two experienced specialists in the history of the countries of this region. Formally, the publication differs from the standard required for scientific work only by the absence of footnotes to sources in the text, which is not allowed in the textbook. The uniqueness of the book lies in the fact that it is the first study of the history of Southeast Asia from antiquity to the present day in the historiography of the USSR and Russia. Three books by the late E. O. Berzin (see bibliography), published in 1982, 1987, and 1995, brought this history up to the beginning of the 18th century. The book under review examines the history of all ten Southeast Asian countries (excluding the newly formed small state of East Timor, which was formed in 1999 from the former Portuguese colony and then province of Indonesia, and is still in the process of formation).

Methodologically, the authors use a formational approach (an incomplete "chain": communal system, feudalism, colonialism-capitalism with their Eastern specifics) in combination with a cultural and civilizational approach, which looks quite convincing. As the authors write, the historical path of the Southeast Asian peoples shows that "they have been a special civilizational community for quite a long period of time. Entering the arena of world history somewhat later than neighboring China and India, the Southeast Asian countries demonstrated the ability to integrate a wide variety of external influences into their spiritual and material culture, while leaving the main core of traditional ideas and meanings almost unchanged" (p. 456). It seems that this is a key formula for understanding both the distant past of the history of the Southeast Asian peoples and the current directions of their development.

The reviewed work consists of an Introduction, five main historical sections by period, a course program in Southeast Asia, a bibliography, and a Conclusion.

Section I " Southeast Asia to the seventh century "(pp. 5-21) deals with the geographical environment and ethnic groups of the region in ancient times, the ancient Vietnamese states and the beginning of statehood among the Monkhmer people and the peoples of the Malay - Indonesian world. It was a period of mainly primitive communal system and the beginning of statehood among a number of Southeast Asian peoples. According to the authors, there are two types of early class states in the region: coastal city-states ("nagars") and the "irrigation" type, which originated in the valleys of large rivers. The authors give a general definition of the Southeast Asian region, point to the antiquity of its numerous peoples (its settlement occurred from the Lower Paleolithic, the modern type of man appeared here about 40 thousand years ago). Agriculture in Southeast Asia has been known since the eighth millennium BC, and the type of rice farming that developed later in the Neolithic period was more or less the same for the entire ancient Southeast Asia. Here it should be clarified that in ancient times the territory of the Southeast Asian region was somewhat larger than it is now, and it included the valleys of the Xijiang and Yangtze Rivers with their right tributaries. The Ganges Valley in India was also the periphery of Southeast Asia. It is possible that this change in the scope of the Southeast Asian territory in history explains the apparent disagreement found in the literature, when the historical primacy of rice farming in the world is given either to China (according to its later outlines), or to Southeast Asia (according to its later outlines).

page 186

an early, ancient definition of it). Both statements are correct in their own way, since they imply the Yangtze Valley, which does not remove the priority of either China or Southeast Asia.

In the historiography of the initiators of irrigation rice planting, India is also mentioned. This assumption was expressed at one time by academician N. I. Vavilov, but, apparently, it was not confirmed. In the brilliant Atlas of World History compiled by John Heywood with the participation of colleagues (M., Astrel, 2004), the beginning of irrigation rice cultivation is attributed to 6500 BC. e. The area of distribution of this crop is marked by two fairly large specially shaded areas: one in the middle - lower Yangtze valley on its right side (about two large lakes south of the Yangtze), another, more extensive, in the area of the Yangtze's approach to the sea and its mouth, covering part of the left bank. More than a hundred rice-growing villages that used irrigation land appeared in these places in 6500-4000 BC. In the Ganges Valley, in India, the beginning of rice cultivation dates back to about 1000 BC. e. Southeast Asia in modern borders in connection with the beginning of rice cultivation in the Atlas is not mentioned. This could mean that the rice culture from the area of its original origin gradually, in the course of historical development and exchange, spread to other agricultural areas of Asia, becoming the main food grain there as well.

Section II " South-East Asia in the VII-XVI centuries "(pp. 22-73) It is devoted to the period of the "creeping" of native society into feudalism and the development of the latter in various forms. There are more historical materials covering this long period of time, and for the first time the authors give a coherent socio-economic and political picture of the region. It describes the emergence of new states and the formation of empires in Southeast Asia; it notes the influence of the culture and religions of India and China on them (the Vietas from the first century BC to the end of the IX century AD were generally dependent on various Chinese empires). Briefly, but succinctly and interestingly for the reader, historical events are described in a large number of states and peoples (sometimes ephemeral) on the territory of Southeast Asia, which continuously fought with each other and other neighbors, disintegrated, and transformed into other communities, including large empires. The authors focus on the Angkor (Kambujadesa) and Pagan (Burma) empires, the Thai state of Sukhothai, the Vietnamese Daivet, the Indonesian Srivijaya, Mataram, Majapahit, etc.

The authors ' proposed classification of the main types of socio-political structure in Southeast Asia in the pre-colonial era is valuable in scientific terms: Vietnamese (bureaucratic-feudal), maritime or Malay (military-feudal), and Indochina-Javanese (state-patriarchal).

Section III " Southeast Asia in the XVI-70s of the XIX century "(pp. 74-120) covers the period from the appearance of the first Europeans in the region to the beginning of active European expansion. Three chapters of the section cover the history of Southeast Asia during the initial period of colonial expansion (XVI-mid-XVII c.), during the formation of the colonial system (mid - XVII - late XVIII c.) and during the period of industrial capitalism (late XVIII-70s of the XIX c.). Only Siam (Thailand), by that time (and briefly) the central-northern part of the Burmese Empire, and (with a stretch) the Aceh Sultanate in northern Sumatra escaped direct foreign subjugation (its conquest by the Dutch was completed only at the beginning of the XX century). The advantage of the section is the picture of the colonization of Southeast Asian countries, the resistance of native forces to foreign invaders, and contradictions both among the colonial powers themselves and in the internal life of the victims of their expansion. It is also valuable that more than usual, the content of internal reforms in the countries of the region towards modernization, as well as the dual - destructive-creative role of foreign capital and institutions, are revealed. It is probably appropriate to speak about this now as the rudiments of the globalization process in Southeast Asia.

Chapters of section IV " Southeast Asia in the 70s of the XIX-early XX century "(pp. 121-208) are devoted to the history of the region in the period between the two World Wars and during the Second World War. During this period, the development of capitalism in Southeast Asia increased, although in colonial forms, and ties with the world market (globalization-type processes) continued to strengthen, mainly along the colony-metropolitan line. With reference to the works of V. G. Rastiannikov, D. V. Mosyakov and V. A. Tyurin emphasize the difference between the concepts of "marketability of agriculture" and" commodity production in agriculture " in Southeast Asia (the former is much larger than the latter), and focus on the formation of a "hybrid" natural-commodity system of agricultural production in Southeast Asia, which was far from equilibrium and had a much larger social and explosive potential than the traditional one.

page 187

The period of Southeast Asian history covered in this section is, on the one hand, the apogee of colonialism in the region, on the other hand, the beginning of the national awakening of its peoples and the powerful development of the anti - colonial liberation struggle that led to their national and state independence after the Second World War. The authors ' merit is that they have shown the uniqueness of the conditions in each of the countries against the background of the commonality of the regional and world historical process.

In section V, " Southeast Asia after World War II "(pp. 209-455), the presentation is brought to the beginning of the XXI century. Since the events discussed in this section are closer to us in terms of time and topicality of questions and plots, it is probably more interesting for the reader. In the section of 16 chapters. It contains several chapters on the sub-periods-Southeast Asia in the mid-1940s-early 1950s, the second half of the 1950s, the second half of the 1950s-early 1960s, the late 1980s-mid-1990s-and a sub-chapter on the political development of the leading ASEAN countries in the past decade. 1997-2002 At the same time, the section has a number of thematic and problematic chapters: the first and second Indochina wars, the economic models of development of the Southeast Asian countries in the 1950s-1960s, the beginning of economic reforms in the Indochina countries since the 1980s. Several chapters are devoted to ASEAN: its education, ideology, and a new level of quality of cooperation of its member countries The chapter on Southeast Asia in the late 1980s and mid-1990s has a significant subtitle - "from the rise of liberal Ideas to the financial crisis" (1997).The last chapter is devoted to ASEAN at the turn of the century (1991 - 2003).

This section covers the complex issues of Southeast Asian history in the last 60 years. The authors consider them against the background of the first division of the world into hostile military-political and ideological blocs opposing each other - West-East, then the collapse of the USSR and the international communist movement. Both of these stages had a powerful impact on the political development of the Southeast Asian countries: some of them became clients of capitalism (the West), others of socialism and communism (the East), and still others sought their way in neutrality, away from the "powerful of this world". Without the intervention of the great Powers in the internal affairs of Southeast Asia, the history of the region and its constituent countries after World War II would have been different. The collapse of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe led to the undermining of the Communist leverage of external pressure on Southeast Asia (if we do not talk about Communist China) and at the same time to the strengthening of the leverage of Western influence, especially the American one. The historical process in Southeast Asia after these changes in the world went in the direction of, on the one hand, developing democracy (in whatever forms it may arise - often incomplete and formal), and on the other - authoritarianism and totalitarianism (sometimes with a democratic sign). It is interesting that in both cases the principles of a market economy were proclaimed.

Being the largest in size, the section is the focus of the main aggregate information about the historical process in Southeast Asia in the modern period and studies both country and regional specifics of Southeast Asia. The authors ' analysis and generalization of the region's development paths over the past 60 years is as unique a study in this period as the book as a whole. A coherent sketch of the history of the region during this period has not yet been undertaken by anyone in our country. I would especially like to mention the informative and analytical, but at the same time critical parts of the section devoted to eastern Indochina - Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. Subsections on Vietnam, for example, provide clarity on the country's complex and complex post-war and current problems. In chapters about the two Indochina wars, information about which was incomplete and often distorted at the time, the authors describe the real course of events and the policy of Vietnam's allies-the USSR and China, without whose help the Vietnamese victory would have been impossible.

The chapters dealing with the history of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines are also highly appreciated. Subsections on the financial crisis of the late 20th century are an important contribution to understanding the modern history of Southeast Asia. The chapters dealing with ASEAN are well written, both in terms of the Association's positive unifying tendencies and in terms of internal contradictions. In general, the presentation of the centuries-old history of Myanmar / Burma is quite positive, but there is some uncertainty about the authors ' modernity. This is partly the result of the instability and zigzags of the country's most recent history, and partly because a number of problems of this history as a history, and not just politics, are not developed.

page 188

I would like to mention in the book a method of comparing and generalizing the history of different Southeast Asian countries, which allows us to draw conclusions about the regions as a whole or their individual parts, based on taking into account the similarities and differences of these countries.

The principles, theses and ideas of the approach to the history of Southeast Asia set out in the Conclusion, which relate to the history of the region in general and the post-World War II period in particular, deserve high praise. I would like to point out an excellent point made by the authors, that as a result of the post-war evolution of political structures in the Southeast Asian countries as a whole, outwardly different, but internally similar political systems have developed, which, upon closer examination, are a complex combination of Western and Eastern institutions, in which the form is more Western, and the content, ritual and political culture.

The same appreciation should be given to the literary merits of the book - the clarity of its language and the calm expressiveness of its style, which, being scientific, at the same time does not tire the reader.

Despite the fundamentally positive assessment of the reviewed work, I will still make some comments and suggestions. First of all, I will note the extreme unevenness of the sections. One section V exceeds half of the book. It could be divided into two or three smaller sections, highlighting, for example, the periods before and after the "surge of liberalism", the problems of ASEAN as a whole. It is not entirely logical to single out the Second World War in section IV as a separate chapter. Firstly, 1939-1945 is by no means the beginning of the century, and secondly, the Second World War, especially its Pacific part, played a huge role in the further history of the countries of the Southeast Asian region and, at least for this reason, deserves separate consideration.

A serious comment (or suggestion) is essentially concerned with the approach and assessments of the communist movement in Southeast Asia. It suffered a tragic but well-deserved collapse in most Southeast Asian countries, especially in Burma, Indonesia, and the Philippines, because it was a far-fetched, foreign-inflated anti-national force. It declared war on the newly achieved national independence of the Southeast Asian countries, the first national governments, and the emerging national statehood that they had been deprived of for so long. And communism in these countries has doomed itself. It has survived only where the Communist Parties have united with nationalism (in the broad sense of the term). Therefore, I think it would be more correct to raise and theoretically solve the problem of communist leftism, adventurism, hegemonism, "civil wars" and the so-called class approach in conditions where there were no real classes yet, and to condemn the quasi-revolutionary anti-national position of the communist parties after the countries achieved state independence and their so-called revolutions that brought about the emergence of a new so much death, misery and destruction to nations.

A more precise definition of the geographical location of Southeast Asia should have been made. Is it possible to look at the map and say that it is located between the Indian subcontinent and China? (Only Burma can be said that way.)

It would be desirable to mention at the beginning of the work about the ancient geological history of Southeast Asia, when the Malay-Indonesian archipelago formed part of the Asian continent and, thus, once the first ancient "homo erectus" could probably walk to this future archipelago, starting the history of its settlement.

A few minor comments: not much is said about the Islamization of Southeast Asia (p. 50-60); it is unclear about the two directions of the anti-Japanese movement (Tan Tun, p. 196 and Takin Tan Tun, p. 198); it is not said about the national government of Burma in 1943, which included both Aung San and Tan Tun (p. 196); the Burmese elections were not held in 1959 (p. 275), but in 1960; section V does not contain a thesis about "anti-Chinese" within the framework of anti-communism (there was also a pro-democratic element in "anti-communism"); the translation of "constructive engagement" as " constructive involvement "(p. 386) is unsuccessful, it is better here "constructive communication", discussion, dialogue ; in 1987, the situation in Burma "worsened" not after the abolition of trade control (p. 370) (this is a liberal step that benefits everyone, including the peasants), but after "demonetization" (robbing everyone, including the poor); we should "move" them in the sense of assessing the "aggravation" of the situation; we should write "Razman", not" Rahman " (p.333).

In conclusion, I would like to repeat that the book under review is an undoubted scientific achievement of the authors, and they deserve a good prize at the exhibition of books published at the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and at the Eastern University.

Permanent link to this publication: