Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

Sander, how would you know they would rather live under thier dictator? Have you lived under such a regime? Ok, so you're saying we should just stay at home, let things resolve theirselves? Ok, but if Hitler wakes up from his cryogenic cell, and comes knockin', don't come to us for help. Why is the U.S. so active you say? Well for one, we don't want to fight a war in which Europe was in blame for. No offense, but remember a little thing called the Treaty of Versailles?
 
The reason why such debates exist is because it constrains governments from acting arbitrarily. THe reason people get to debate taxes is because they have a right to demand the government be accountable to the citizenry so that taxes are not squandered.

THe idea of a moral dictator went out with the first sovereign emperor of China. The danger of uncertainty in the next leader or a succession crisis by people less savory than the current next-in-line, makes regular replacement important for the security of the society as a whole.

For a further analysis read Mancur Olson's "Dictatorship, Democracy and Development," in APSR. If you like I can probably send you the document.

Don't be silly. Democracy might not be the best form of government, but it is better than anything else out there, as Churchill once said.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, and will say it again: THEORY.
Practicality is a lot different. *sigh*

Based on your argument, Sander, neither Germany nor Japan would be democratic? It was a grave mistake to enforce democratic institutions on the Germans and the Japanese?
Click to expand...
Nope, it wasn't. What should be done is hold democratic elections as to what the government form should be(Yes, this is a bit crooked).
Simply telling people that they are a democracy if they do not want it doesn't work. And goes AGAINST the principles of democracy.

And King...seriously, why am I even talking to you? Where did I even say that? *sigh*
 
Sander said:
Nope, it wasn't. What should be done is hold democratic elections as to what the government form should be(Yes, this is a bit crooked).
Simply telling people that they are a democracy if they do not want it doesn't work. And goes AGAINST the principles of democracy.
Click to expand...

That's not a bit crooked, it's twisted beyond perception.

Democratic elections generally don't pop up. We can sit around and wait for all countries to get as comfortably rich as Europe and the US were when democracy popped up or we can do something.

Your stance is also wrong in another way. Iraq is currently not a democracy, nor is Afghanistan. They will become so after their first elections. Now they're just occupied states.

You can't just "hold democratic elections". Take the fact that if a Dutch government "falls", it takes months before an election can be held, and this is in a country that has practised democracy in one form or the other for centuries, which has a firm basis and a working mechanic for voting. How exactly would you "just hold democratic elections" in countries that're in total chaos?
 
In the democratization literature, which I have often touched on, there is a difference between countries that have a first election, "new democracies" or unconsolidated democracies, and between governments which have changed elected leaders but maintained democratic systems.

The test of whether a country has established itself as "truely" democratic is rather wishy-washy, but basically it is that the state has changed governments (who is currently in office) but not the system in place. Until then the regime type is still uncertain because of the danger of "democratic roleback" in which a democratic system is subverted or changed towards a more autocratic system.

The question is really how the different factions within a society view the regime type. Przeworski basically argues that democracy becomes consolidated when its accepted as "the only game in town." In essence parties are willing to lose an election and not overturn the system because they think their chances of reelection next time and sustaining the system is worth more than the costs of overthrowing the system.

This happens more frequently than one might wish and many government, even consolidated democracies, have tended to role back. I used to have the numbers but it seems that generally speaking, if the people of a state make about $6,000 per capita there is little chance that the regime will changed for another system. This is true of both democratic and autocratic. However, because autocratic regimes generally only last while the leader is in office. After that, you have a succession crisis. If enough folks can't individually seize power and hold it, or see that the costs of fighting for domination outweigh the costs of cooperating, than you have a better chance of an oligarchy or democratic system.

End result, over time, autocratic states in which people make about 6K per capita are likely to drop out and become democratic. Once democratic they stay democratic.

The dicey part comes down to getting the people to a position where they are making 6K. Again the numbers are off- this was argued by Przeworski and Limongi I think (Briosafreak- do you have these numbers?). If they are making between $1-2K than there is a good chance that the regime will not change, but if they are making between $2K- 4K than there is a good chance that a democracy will be usurped by an autocratic or junta.

Why? Well apparently this has to do with the level of social demands. The nice thing about a dictator is he doesn't have to listen. If he's ruthless enough, he calls out the army and police and represses social resistance or co opts civil society. If it's a democratic system, that's not so easy, the democracy begins to be pulled apart by different social interests, and considering the weakeness of the economy, the state is probably easily penetrated by that society. This leads to a weakness in policy implementation and then you have risks from either the far left (radicals and revolutionaries) or the far right (usually the military and part of the economic elite). WHat normally happens is that the right wing seizes power in an effort to reform and ends up staying there for an extended period of time.

What about revolutions against dominant tyrants? Well regretfully most of the autocratic systems can changed from within. For some reason a faction of the ruling class or elite decide that their best option is to democratize to stay in power. So many democracy's begin from the state. Sometimes the state is pressured to democratize from outside- Rawlings of Ghana had this experience thanks to the IMF/World Bank that insisted on "good governance" (=democracy).

For those events when a tyrant is overthrown by a revolution (and it does happen) the tyrant is usually replaced with another tyrant. For example Mobutu was replaced with Kabile in Zaire, Doe was replaced with Taylor in Liberia. SOmetimes the revolution looks like it might lead to something better.

There have been four cases in Africa- Afwerki in Eritrea, Zenawi in Ethiopia, Museveni in Uganda and Kagame in Rwanda. While these leaders have sought to create better states and better state-society relationships, rule of law, low corruption, and a disciplined military. But none of these have emphasized the creation of multiparty democracy, which is usually seen as aluxury that must follow political-military stability and socio-economic development (similar arguments made by the military juntas that seized power in Latin America in the 1960s-70s).

I have argued elsewhere- if the US wants to promote democratization in Iraq it will have to begin doing so by the creation of political parties. It was often the role of political parties that led to the stability of democracy in many of Britain's former colonies.
 
Kharn: Ehh.....hello? Did I say it should be done within days? I said it should be done, I didn't give a bloody time or money or whatever limit.
 
Actually Sander your idea isn't bad. There is one major problem with it though, an evil man like let's say, Hitler (someone like him) could secretly take over the elections. Otherwise, it is a good idea, let the people decide what they want to live under, as long as they actually know what they are voting for.
 
this is why many first elections get turned over, someone is elected, comes to power, and uses the power of th state to stay in power.

See discussion above for when democracy actually works.
 
Here is a book review about the New Great Game- might be interesting to some of you, especially if you are interested in Iraq and the politics of oil-


Central Asia and the Caucasus

The devil's tears

Nov 20th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The New Great Game: Blood and Oil in Central Asia
By Lutz Kleveman

ACROSS Central Asia and the Caucasus, people understand why oil is the “devil's tears”. Lutz Kleveman, a journalist who has criss-crossed the region and met numerous oil barons, politicians and warlords, as well as ordinary people, concludes that the great powers are once again playing a cynical “great game”, leaving blood and tears in their tracks. The prize and the players, however, have changed since the 19th century. What is at stake is not India, but access to the region's abundant oil and gas resources—possibly the world's largest untapped reserves of energy. And tsarist Russia and colonial Britain have been replaced by the United States, post-Soviet Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan.

The United States, eager to satisfy its growing energy hunger and ease its dependence on Middle East oil, has been eyeing the region with growing interest since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia is witnessing America's creeping influence with unease and is struggling to maintain the upper hand in its traditional backyard. China has been pulled in by energy prospects as well, but also by its desire to quash support for Uighur separatists in its western province of Xinjiang.

The world's new petrol pump

The oil has to be moved from its source to its market, a problem of pipeline politics that has yet to be solved and which affects not only producing countries, but also their neighbours. The Americans are pushing for a westward route from Azerbaijan via Georgia and Turkey, bypassing Russia; Moscow wants to keep control over pipelines delivering Caucasian oil; China has been negotiating an eastward route with Kazakhstan; Iran, whose oil is in the south of the country but whose energy needs are in the north, is dreaming of oil swaps with Central Asian countries, a nightmare for any American administration. And Pakistan argues for a pipeline to go, improbably, through Afghanistan.

Mr Kleveman links the instability of the region to oil greed. Russia, he says, has been fuelling ethnic conflicts in the newly independent countries of the Caucasus to keep them on a tight leash and undermine American plans. The United States, he says, has been using the war against terrorism as an excuse to establish a military presence in Central Asia. Everyone has been meddling in Afghanistan.

But the newly independent republics also know how to play the game. “We need the big oil pipeline so that we will continue to have the United States on our side against Russia,” explains a Georgian diplomat. “You see, Georgia has got nothing else to offer to the world. We have to sell our geographical position.” But many people he spoke to also criticise the United States, which is seen as a democratic country that now supports Central Asia's despots in the name of oil.

Mr Kleveman feeds his argument with enlightening historical background and colourful anecdotes from his extensive travels and interviews. But by looking at the region exclusively through the oil lens, he reduces foreign policy to simplistic energy imperialism, concluding with exaggerated visions of endless energy wars, floods of refugees, oil price shocks and ever-growing foreign military commitments.
 
This shouldn't really be news to anyone. I remember this being discussed back in 2001, just after the terror attacks, when I was in D.C. with a bunch of other high school students attending some sort of "student leadership conference" (which was total application-padding bullshit). We had a seminar at the DOD where some UnderSecretary of Something lectured for 4 hours about how Afghanistan is a region of "strategic" and "economic" importance (though, of course, he didn't mention whose strategy or economy would benefit, because we all knew he was talking about the United States) and it had to be cleared of "terrorists" before any pipe lines could be built. I remember thinking at the time that this new war wouldn't solve anything, it would only lead to more violence, and looking back 2 years later I'm starting to get this attitude of, you know, "I knew this wasn't gonna work"...

I didn't mean to preach or anything, but that article reminded me of that ridiculous conference. There weren't even any girls there, it was a total sausage-fest.

--Boner
 
More news from the middle east-
Iran might have the bomb. Do we let them build one or do we invade them?


For the web page-

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2242273

Sander's morality argument forthcoming.

Choices! Choices!

One last chance

Nov 28th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda


European governments have persuaded America not to have Iran dragged before the UN Security Council over its suspicious nuclear experiments. But Iran has been told it had better keep its promise to mend its ways

AFTER struggling for several weeks to reach a compromise on how to deal with the illicit nuclear experiments that Iran has been concealing for the past 18 years, the 35 countries on the board of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have finally reached agreement. On Wednesday November 26th they passed a resolution, which stops short of reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council, as America had wanted. But the resolution’s wording was tougher than that of earlier drafts—proposed jointly by Britain, France and Germany—which both America and the IAEA’s head, Mohamed ElBaradei, thought too lenient.

The IAEA monitors Iran's nuclear programme. IRNA, Iran's official news agency, presents the official line on news events. See also the Iranian presidency and the Foreign Ministry. The European Union outlines foreign relations with Iran. The US State Department issues statements on Iran's nuclear programme and gives information on non-proliferation. The Federation of American Scientists posts background information on the NPT. Australia's Uranium Information Centre gives details of the various types of nuclear reactor and how they work.

The resolution “strongly deplores” Iran’s breaches of its Safeguards Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It welcomes Iran’s recent confession of its past transgressions and its promise to allow UN inspectors to make more intrusive checks on the country’s nuclear facilities. But it says that if any further violations are uncovered, the IAEA board will immediately meet to consider “all options at its disposal”—meaning bringing Iran before the Security Council, which may impose economic sanctions.

On Thursday, it emerged that the IAEA is investigating suspected links between Iran and Pakistan (which already has nuclear weapons). Both countries deny co-operating on nuclear technology but, according to Western diplomats, Iran has admitted to using blueprints for uranium-enrichment centrifuges that seem identical to ones built by Pakistani scientists, based on European designs. Iran claims it bought the blueprints from an un-named “middleman”. Such machines are used for either civil or military purposes, but although Iran has only admitted to the former, IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium, as used in atom bombs, on centrifuge parts at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant.

Iran has repeatedly denied America’s accusation that it is using its civil nuclear-power programme as a cover for bomb-making. But it has been forced to change its story several times, thanks to leaks from Iranian opposition groups and findings by IAEA inspectors. It has now owned up to having secret nuclear facilities. Some of the experiments Iran has carried out—such as producing small amounts of plutonium and metallic uranium—are useful steps towards making a nuclear bomb but not much use for the sort of civil energy programme that Iran is developing. The nuclear-power station that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr on the Gulf coast is perfectly legal but questionable: why would a country with some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves bother with the expense of nuclear power unless it had other motives?

In July, Mr ElBaradei went to Tehran, with the backing of many of the world’s main powers, to press the country’s government to sign an “additional protocol” to the NPT. This would give the IAEA’s inspectors the right to visit both declared and suspected nuclear facilities at short notice. The agency then gave Iran until the end of October to come clean about all its nuclear dabblings. Shortly before this deadline, Iran sent the IAEA what it said were full details of its activities. The country promised that it would sign up for the tougher inspections regime and suspend its enrichment of uranium (a technique useful for making either bombs or fuel for power plants), though not necessarily permanently.

The IAEA’s board convened last week to discuss a report from Mr ElBaradei which criticised Iran’s treaty infringements but said—to America’s annoyance—that no clear evidence of bomb-building had been found. The board’s deliberations were extended into this week after its members were unable to close the gap between America’s demands for an immediate referral to the Security Council (backed by Israel, a likely target for any Iranian nuclear bomb) and European countries’ desire to encourage Iran to co-operate.

Though Iran is playing down the significance of its nuclear experiments, arguing that they only produced tiny quantities of fissile materials, they show that the country has mastered some of the most important stages in nuclear bomb-making. Thus if it ever pulled out of the NPT, Iran could quickly have such weapons ready. In July, it brought into service a new missile capable, in theory, of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Israel, or indeed reaching American bases in the Middle East.

Western diplomats said the resolution means Iran will be faced with a stark choice—total transparency or the risk of painful sanctions. But America is still worried, as its secretary of state, Colin Powell, has put it, that the world powers will declare premature victory; indeed, Russia has already stopped threatening to halt the construction of the Bushehr power station and is talking of building a second one. There are, in fact, several more vital steps before the world can be sure that Iran really has given up its nuclear option, as opposed to just pursuing it more cannily: its parliament must ratify the tough new inspections regime; and Iran must then allow the inspectors free rein to do their jobs, without obstruction or obfuscation.
 
Oh and some comments on democratization-These in response to the Economist Articles about bringing democracy to the middle east.


Governing Arabs
SIR – It may be good for middle-class western consciences to fulminate about democracy in the Arab world but a strong dose of realism might be more useful (“They say we're getting a democracy”, November 15th). Most Arab states have boundaries that are purely the creation of western imperial powers. They contain tribes with ancient antipathies and irreconcilable religious differences.

Also, Islam does not contain any teaching which recognises a higher authority, secular or otherwise, than the Koran. In these circumstances a less exalted form of government, but one which recognises these differences in the community, would have a better expectation of delivering the things that matter most to people wherever they are: housing, jobs, security, and food and clean water.

Paul Harris
Sydney, Australia
SIR – Your appraisal of the French attitude in 1992, when the democratic process was halted in Algeria, is difficult to understand. Democratic elections are designed for parties who share democratic values and not for those who only use them to take power not to give it back later. The Islamic Salvation Front was no democratic party.

Do you think that Algerians would have benefited from this painful experience (and maybe a civil war of the kind they got afterwards)? Do you think that establishing another Islamic republic by democratic methods would have fostered democracy in other Arab countries? Do you really think that a secular regime would have followed?

Christophe Mallet
Paris
 
I would support an invasion of Iran or Pakistan if they expressed intentions to use their nuclear devices. If Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons, and it appears from what I'm reading that they are not supposed to do that, then I would support invasion in that instance as well. However, I'm not sure on the specifics of that probability. Also, if there were evidence that their governments harbored anti-U.S. terrorists then I would be for a pre-emptive strike (like Iraq).

The three of those that I feel we should respond to the most is the terrorist link. The first two are more U.N./world issues, while the third directly affects the U.S. Show me concrete evidence of a government supporting anti-U.S. terrorists and I can be wheels-up in 18 hours.
 
Do you really think "preventive" wars against "dangerous terrorist harbouring countries" would help in containing terrorists?
I think that such actions could only give more reasons for religious/ideological fanatics to unite in a "sacred war against the infidel invader", providing your local terrorist leader with more arguments to enrol more people into it.

Anyways, as mentioned in another thread, the whole Iraqui threat thing is bullshit. There is money and power to obtain as a prize for those who control that place.

And who exactly are the people who decide wether a country has the right to build nuclear weapons or not? If nuclear weapons are to be abolished, let they be abolished from each and every country, not those that could possibly threaten the well-being of the American "Kings of Dah World" position.
Iran may be a fundamentalist state, but I believe that in many ways the US is behaving like a totalitarian country, not only towards its own nation (just look what happened in the last protests in San Fran and in Atlanta) but also against the whole world.

Name a country that's a little too uncomfortable for your business, label it a terrorist harbouring haven, sell some shit to the media your buddies control and voila! you're the new king of the hill.

All this war on terrorism violence makes me want to puke. But again, not all posters on this forum are the Black Bloc on a protest.
 
I'm not suggesting that the U.S. be the governing authority on who gets to have nuclear weapons. But nuclear weapons are not on the same scale as conventional weaponry. It would be a nice idea if the U.N. could regulate the proliferation of nukes, but I don't know how well they would be able to enforce their decisions if they decided that certain countries weren't allowed to have them.

Yes, I do think that if done correctly preventive wars against terrorist countries would be effective. There are certain conditions that would need to be met before such an invasion.

- the evidence of terrorist groups in the region
- whether they are supported by the government or not
- the groups goals and past history

An evaluation could be conducted by a third party, such as the U.N. And if the evaluations are correct, and the preventive strikes eliminate the terrorist element, then you are reducing the number of places that other terrorists with similar goals can be harbored.

Also, any military or economic action against such groups or countries that support terrorists is most likely going to generate the kind of support for the terrorists that you mentioned. If we do nothing to prevent the groups from attacking, then they will grow bolder and their numbers increase that way. So either way you have the terrorist groups possibly gaining influence and resources. However, by taking preventive measures based on accurate information you are doing something to reduce the overall threat and population.

In any conflict, you are fighting two things. You are physically fighting the enemy, but you are also fighting the ideals of the enemy. It's hard to kill the ideals, because that involves changing the minds of the enemy. It's a lot easier to kill the enemy, thereby removing the ideals that he held.

I would expect other countries to give the terrorists support and sympathy after we invaded Iraq. They are buying into the terrorists philosphy, their ideals. That's fine. We can get them too.

edit: Wooz, what's that under the flag in your pic? I can't make it out.
 
Right. You can get them too, but in my opinion preventive wars won't make anything beside reinforce the "terrorists" in their cause. Besides, you'd have to get every country/party/organization that doesn't agree with your government actions to truly claim the purge worked. By killing the enemy, you don't kill the ideal, you elevate the killed to the level of martyrs, unless you kill each and every person that is a potential or actual problem to a government. And unless the whole world works under an Orwellesque-style government, it's impossible.

I think the problem lies deeper, not in the ideals/goals themselves but in the cause of the given people to accept an ideal, wether it's "the right to beat the concept into people's heads" or "the duty towards one's nation and towards God to fight and annihilate the enemy no matter what the cost".

In any case, you're thinking as if the given government/third party couldn't be wrong in the evaluation of the "terrorist element" existence, or in the case of the invasion on Iraq, ignoring the conclusion of the evaluation, going the easy way. "proofs? I got a Big F**** Gun, is that proof enough?"

As for the reduction of nuke numbers, why should it be OK for one nation to have such a weapon and forbidden to another? If somebody's bragging on about how nukes are bad and dangerous, there should be a progressive and general reduction aiming to eliminate from any country's "legal" and "acceptable" arsenal those weapons, not only measures outlawing other nations' nuclear program.
 
In anything we do there is the possibility for error, so to say that the evaluation idea isn't an viable option because they could be wrong is a cop out. As for the martyrs, that just means it would take longer to put the terrorists in their place. Besides, we all need some war to fight.

I said that it would be a nice idea for the U.N. nuke thing. I didn't say that it would actually work. And if it did, so what if a governing authority decides some countries can't have nukes? After both world wars there were restrictions on Germany's military. I'm sure that if there were a regulatory commission on new nukes, then they would have something to say about the number of nukes each country presently has. I'm not against reducing the amount of nuclear weapons - we don't use them anyway.
 
The problem is that nukes *could* be used. If you believe it's ok to have nuclear weapons "cause we don't use them anyways", what's the problem with countries like Iran or North Korea having a nuclear program? Germany had weapon restrictions because they broke the treaty of Versailles after ww1, and the nation was led by a militaristic, expansionist leader, who started WW2. In order to avoid further full scale mega wars in Europe, the continent's most powerful country was occupied by the Allies and had its army eliminated.

And what comes to wars, I disagree. Wars are not something inevitable and needed by anyone except the rich old guys who'll make lots of money on them, and will safely sit on their fat asses while 'regular' soldiers go and slaughter themselves and other people in the battlefield. You have nothing to gain by fighting for them, let the rich fight their wars themselves.

Under the flag? You mean the fire?
 
The problem with "axis of evil" countries having nuclear weapons is based on an imperialistic view of the U.S. I'm saying we can influence the U.N. on who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If we decide that they shouldn't have them because they are a danger to others and themselves, then we can take away their toys. The idea of the U.S. policing the world isn't new; I say we use what power we have to try and make the "bad guys" life a little harder. Call it arrogance, or ignorance. Doesn't matter to me. Look at the other empires in history; they used their power to shape the world around them into their own image.

If wars weren't inevitable then why do we have them all the time? If peace and diplomacy were real viable options then why all the fighting? If you can tell me how to realistically change all that, I'd be happy to listen. There are different reasons for the wars, not all of them are noble. Yes, there are those who will use the nations military to further their own greedy goals. Hopefully there is a special section of Hell reserved for them.

Yeah, the fire under the flag.
 
Any country with nuclear devices should be left with those nuclear devices. There are several reasons, so I'll just name them:

1) No sane person will ever use those nuclear weapons, because if they do, they'll be bombed to tiny unrecognizable bits by the rest of the world, and noone wants that.

2) The more countries have nuclear weapons, the larger the deterrent is for every country not to use them(Because there are so many countries who can use them).

Those are the main reasons, for me. And yes, I know that there is the posibility of an insane person gaining power.

Now, for those who think that invading a country with a dictator at the head of the state and nuclear capability at his disposal is a good idea, think about what the dictator will do if you drive him into a corner. Where he will probably not use his weapons if he isn't attacked(simply because it'll do him little good, he'll just get blasted to bits), he is much more likely to use them if that is his only option to stay in power.

Oh, and one thing to geekpocket:
If wars weren't inevitable then why do we have them all the time? If peace and diplomacy were real viable options then why all the fighting?
Click to expand...
Because countries, every single one of them, are egoistic. The USA didn't invade Iraq out of self-defense, nor out of love for the Iraqi people, but for it's own (economical) reasons(If you don't buy it, please talk to welsh, I'm not too good at explaining it, but he's explained it(with loads of sources) a lot of times already). THAT is why wars are inevitable. When there are only countries that are willing to have peace, and sit down and talk instead of attacking, THEN you can have peace, but as long as people like Bush decide that attacking is preferable over more talking(Even when there were improvements), then we cannot have peace.
 
I don't recall ever refuting the reasons why most people think we invaded Iraq. I think economics definately had a reason in the decision to attack. I don't think that's the only reason though. To say that the other reasons you mentioned are not valid at all as reasons is a simplistic view. It's easy to say we invaded Iraq only for the oil. I'm not denying that is one of the reasons, but there are other goals that I think are worthwhile. Freeing the Iraqi people and working to safeguard our home from terrorists are two reasons I agree with.

And no, I'm not saying that the terrorists are allied with Iraq, but it sends a message that we won't fuck around when it comes to terrorists. Think about it. If we are willing to invade a country where the links to terrorists haven't been successfully established, then how willing would we be to invade a country where those links are real?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top