Book Reviews : Alternative in Southeast Asia. By EUGENE R. BLACK. (New York: Frederick R. Praeger, 1969. Pp. xv, 180. $5.95.)
| Author | Ronald C. Nairn |
| Date | 01 March 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591297002300115 |
| Published date | 01 March 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
212
Alternative
in
Southeast
Asia.
By
EUGENE
R.
BLACK.
(New
York:
Frederick
R.
Praeger,
1969.
Pp.
xv,
180.
$5.95.)
This
is
an
enormously
wise
book.
At
the
outset,
it is
clear
that
Black
is
not
writing
for
the
stridents
who
volubly
declaim
on
Southeast
Asia
daily.
He
is
not
interested
in
those
who
on
the
one
hand
want
immediate
withdrawal
of
the
entire
American
military
complex
from
the
region.
Neither
is
he
sympathetic
to
those
who
see
a
favorable
future
only
in
terms
of
a
&dquo;military
solution.&dquo;
With
U.S.
opinion
becoming
more
polarized
each
day,
one
hopes
that
the
balance
and
wisdom
of
Black’s
commentary,
not
just
on
Vietnam,
but
on
Southeast
Asia
generally,
will
have
a
wide
acceptance.
Black
modestly
apologizes
for
not
being
a
scholar.
His
apologies
are
unneces-
sary.
His
scholarship,
which
is
more
than
adequate
for
the
job,
is
allied
with
a
life-
time
of
varied
experience
relative
to
that
of
which
he
writes.
It
would
be
in
our
national
interest
if
more
authors
on
Southeast
Asia
could
bring
forward
credentials
which
blend
wisdom
with
practical
experience.
Black
enunciates
three
main
points.
The
first
is
that
we
are
over-involved
in
Southeast
Asia.
Indeed,
he
foresees
an
American
presence
in
Vietnam
for
a
long
time
to
come.
The
over-involvement
on
which
Black
focuses
is
that
mishmash
of
aid
programs,
technical
and
otherwise,
and
the
sheer
bureaucracy
of
it
all,
which
now
epitomizes
the
American
presence
in
the
region.
Black
has
alternatives.
First
he
asks
for
return
to
true
diplomacy
which,
as
he
rightly
says,
has
fallen
on
evil
days.
Diplomacy
as
Mr.
Black
sees
it
in
Southeast
Asia,
is
an
American
awareness
of
its
own
interests
and
interests
of
all
parties
that
the
U.S.
has
relationships
with
in
the
region.
He
points
out
we
must
be
cognizant
of
their
fear
of
domination
by
Communist
China,
of
their
problems
relative
to
internal
order,
and
of
the
oppor-
tunities
for
regional
cooperation,
both
for
defense
and
economic
development,
which
undoubtedly
exist.
It
is
around
these
areas
of
critical
concern
that
Mr.
Black
seems
to
advocate
the
return
of
a
true
diplomatic
modus
operandi
on
the
part
of
the
United
States.
The
second
point
raised
regarding
over-involvement
is
that
if
a
return
to
true
diplomacy
were
to
occur,
a
dramatic
change
could
come
over
the
whole
United
States
presence
in
Southeast
Asia.
It
is
the
reviewer’s
opin-
ion
that
possibly
as
much
as
80
percent
of
non-military
Americans
could
be
with-
drawn
from
the
area
with
an
enhanced
effectiveness
accruing
to
those
who
remain.
This
possibility
of
massive
depersonalization
is,
however,
conditional.
The
first
con-
dition
is
a
return
to
diplomatic
skills
calling
for
better
men
than
we
have
had
in
the
region,
or
who
are
there
now.
Second,
the
mechanics
of
aid
must
also
be
sig-
nificantly
reformed
and
this
is
Black’s
next
major
thesis.
He
makes
significant
recommendations
relative
to
the
mechanics
of
aid.
Basically
he
is
saying:
de-Americanize
the
aid
process.
He
advocates
the
channeling
of
funds
through
international
agencies
such
as
the
World
Bank
and
the
Asian
Development
Bank.
Here
the
author
is
dealing
with
a
crucial
issue.
First
is
his
rejection
of
American-type
paternalism
in
the
field
which
so
often
resembles
the
worst
form
of
colonialism.
Instead
he
advocates
the
channeling
of
funds
under
sound
banking
criteria.
Such
a
posture
at
once
creates
a
new
relationship. As
borrowers
and
negotiators
with
a
multi-national
agency,
nations
in
Southeast
Asia
To continue reading
Request your trial