How are you defining "puppet regime"? I'm familiar with the use of that expression to refer to situations such as the old East German government in the Soviet period, or Vichy France. But I wouldn't call the West German government of the same time period a "puppet regime"- although the Sovs (and the Western moral-equivalence left) frequently did. Neither would I refer to post-War Japan as a puppet regime - even though it's true that the victorious allied Occupation force obliged them to embrace a liberal constitution. Once they had adopted the new constition, and were self-governing, there was no "puppet regime," although again the Chinese typically described it that way. It's sort of like on old Trek: once Vaal or Landru or whoever is smashed, the people become autonomous, and then have the choice of joining the Federation or not, whereas the evil empire is made up of conquered worlds. (Is it your contention that there is a moral equivalence between the Federation and the Klingons?) In the real world, that means there's a difference between countries that are ruled by nominally liberal constitutions and countries ruled by dictatorships or theocracies. If one of the latter regimes is forcibly overthrown, and replaced with some kind of nominally liberal, autonomous, constitutional regime, how is that a puppet regime?
by Aeon J. Skoble on July 5, 2004 at 12:37 PM