When World War II ended, China's 3.7 million soldiers, under Chiang Kai-shek, were greatly weakened by the clash with Japan and the rise of the communist movement at home. However, it maintained a superiority over the communists, both in terms of available forces and military arsenal.

As Soviet forces were retreating from the northeastern part of the country that had just been liberated from Japanese occupation, Chiang's military forces had the opportunity to occupy the territory. Chinese Communists in that region, supported by the Russians, would have been massacred by Nationalist forces.

In 1946 the Americans managed to prevent a devastating civil war between Chiang's forces and the communist leader Mao Zedong by convincing Chiang to give up fighting. This is the moment that could have changed history: a few weeks later, Mao Zedong with the help of the Soviets managed to take all the territory and win the Civil War. Americans, and especially representatives of the political right in the US, let the situation get completely out of their control in China over the following years.

But what if Mao's victory had been avoided?

China's spectacular growth in the last three decades has made it clear even to the communist leadership that the country would have been better off without Mao. And, history shows that it would be possible for such a China to exist. Chiang's army fled to the island of Taiwan creating an economic success story as China's economy suffered. If China's economic growth had been at the same rate as Taiwan's since 1950, its GDP would be 42 percent larger in 2010. So, put in other terms, it would to have achieved as much growth as France's economy.

Of course, Chiang's rule would also have been a corrupt, autocratic one with a violent secret police. The Nationalist Party would have faced much resistance in the poor rural areas that were Mao's largest support base. However, Chiang's authoritarianism is likely to have been much milder than Mao's. There would have been no killing of millions of landowners purely for ideological reasons, and there would have been no food shortages that claimed the lives of tens of millions of people in the 50s. Unlike Mao, he would not have abolished private property rights and distributed private wealth to peasants and communes - a policy that created mass famines that still haunt China's countryside. Chiang would not have plunged the country into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, in which millions were killed and persecuted.

Under Chiang, China would not have waited 30 years to become part of the global economy. Of course, he would implement protectionist policies to protect domestic markets from international competition, as did Taiwan and other Asian economies during that period. However, even these adjustments would have been removed faster than the communist regime. Taiwan had met the standards to be a member of the World Trade Organization long before China joined the body in 2001.

The strategic map of Asia would have been very different had Chiang emerged victorious in the civil war. He would not have supported the North's invasion of South Korea in the 1950s, and Kim Il Sung probably in the absence of China would not have even received Stalin's support for his military ventures. Chiang wouldn't even have a state problem like Taiwan.

However, Chiang was an archaic nationalist. His relationship with Japan would have been fragile. The millions of Chinese killed during the Japanese occupation had caused more casualties among the Nationalists than among Mao's Communists. Abnormalities in relations between China and Japan that did not emerge under Mao would have threatened the stability of the Asian region long before tensions began in the 1990s. China's dominance of Taiwan as well as the mainland would have given it control over trade waters much needed for the Japanese economy. America's coercive hand in the region might have been needed even if Chiang were to rule China.

The Cold War could also have heated up. Chiang never accepted the Soviet Union's control of Mongolia. Under Mao, small-scale fighting took place on the Sino-Soviet border in the 1960s, but these fighting would have escalated under a republic led by Chiang.

However, by those years, China could have become a more politically liberal country. The move towards democratization may have been slowed by fears of secession of regions from the state, such as Tibet and other ethnic minority regions. However, a middle class would have risen much faster than it did under the communist regime.

Although the regime would be autocratic, China would remain an ally of the US. Asia would not have developed as it does today in a country that strives to achieve supremacy over America.

Much of the tension plaguing Asia concerns the nature of China's Communist Party. Neighboring countries worry about how the party-state operates: secretly and often brutally. Few are those in Asia who believe that the Communist Party will accept democratic variations, and a deterioration in its behavior risks plunging the region into the chaos of the 1940s. /tiranapost.al/

From the WorldTHE WORLD