In the current process of globalization, North Korea and Cuba, as countries adhering to the socialist path, have their economic development models and reform steps closely watched by the international community.
Despite facing economic difficulties at times, there is often curiosity from the outside world about why they haven't fully implemented reform and opening-up like China.
Is it because they fear losing their power?
While this view is intuitive, it overlooks the complex historical background, geopolitical challenges, and adherence to their socialist ideals that these two countries face.
Firstly, North Korea and Cuba have highly centralized political systems, and maintaining regime stability is seen as crucial for their survival.
In this context, any deep economic reform needs to cautiously balance economic growth and social transformation with the maintenance of the existing political order.
North Korea emphasizes the "Juche" ideology, pursuing an independent development path aimed at ensuring the security and unity of the regime.
Cuba, after experiencing long-term U.S. blockade and economic difficulties following the Soviet Union's collapse, has remained steadfast in its socialist principles while seeking economic adjustments suitable to its national conditions.
Secondly, the two countries have different understandings and practices of reform and opening-up.
Although Cuba has not used the specific term "reform and opening-up" to describe its economic transition, it actually began a series of reforms aimed at addressing economic crises in the early 1990s.
Cuban leaders recognized that the old economic model was unsustainable in the new international environment and initiated a process of "updating" the economic model.
They gradually relaxed restrictions on the private economy, encouraged foreign investment, and continued to maintain the advantages of its socialist welfare system in areas such as healthcare and education.
These measures reflect Cuba's efforts to find a development path that aligns with the demands of the times while upholding basic socialist principles.
North Korea has also not completely stalled in economic reform.
At various stages, it has implemented partial market-oriented reforms in the agricultural sector and adopted a "parallel economic" strategy, allowing a certain degree of market activity.
However, due to concerns about social instability from rapid marketization and the risk of external influence, North Korea's reform pace is more cautious, preferring a gradual and controlled approach.
Regarding the power issue, deep systemic reforms can indeed affect the power structure, but this is not the only determining factor.
The decision-makers in North Korea and Cuba are more focused on national sovereignty, ideological continuity, and social justice and equity, carefully choosing reform paths from these perspectives.
Additionally, both countries strive to cope with Western sanctions, the challenges of global economic integration, and the issue of how to introduce market economy mechanisms while maintaining national autonomy and socialist characteristics.
In conclusion, the cautious attitude towards economic reform in North Korea and Cuba cannot be simply attributed to a fear of losing power.
Instead, it is based on complex political, economic, and cultural considerations, aiming to find a sustainable development path that resolves livelihood issues and safeguards national interests while adhering to the basic socialist system.
Amidst the tide of globalization, these countries continue to explore and adjust their development models, demonstrating a commitment to traditional socialist ideals and a proactive search for future development.
Comments