Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
welsh
Junkmaster
Actually here's a link on the NIEO that you might find interesting.
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/routledge_15b.htm
That the current squabbles at the WTO meeting have empahasized the problem of commodities reflects that problem-
(1) that the northern countries can outproduce commodities (where possible) better than the countries of the South.
(2) that countries of the South have been losing in the economic scheme of things to the countries of the North because of lower commodity costs relative to manufactured goods.
There is a good reason for (1). Historically agriculture was considered to be labor intensive. Your basic farmer pushing a plow behind an OX, or the peasant who tends his rice paddy behind a water buffalo, is true only in the South. In the North, farming is capital intensive. Consider the way that livestock is harvested (in large factory like buildings in which the animal never goes outside but is just fattened and then slaughtered. But also consider the cost of a harvester or the chemicals and enhanced seeds that go into crops. YOu can find that in the developed North, but in the South where its painfully difficult to get fertilizer and seeds- forget harvesters- its still a labor business.
This has had some painful effects in the US as well. As capital-intensive agriculture replaces labor intensive, small and medium farmers are being pushed out because they can't compete. In the film "The River" with Sissy Spacek and Mel Gibson, one sees some of that issue back in the 1980s. McDonalds, from what I have been told, gets much of its beef from a few big cattle corporations.
(2) Is partly because of the power of the North but also because of the problems of the South.
When you look at a lot of your weaker countries, your developing countries, in many cases it is commodities that becomes the dominant source of direct or indirect taxation. We see this in the move to nationalize mining companies in the 1970s and 80s, but also in the high prices commodities are charged to export. Simply, these countries rely on those commodities to eat. Because they are so poor, and often inherited administrative structures from colonial authorities, they have no other means of revenue. They can't charge personal income taxes, as much of the developed world does, because they don't have the infrastructure for it. Otherwise they have to borrow or get aid. Since aid has been in decrease, that means borrowing, but most are already in debt from the oil shocks of the 1970s up.
To give you an illustration of how bad the infrastructure is compared to the US. In the US, you get a bill, you write a check, put in in an envelope, slap a stamp on it, and mail. In Brazil you usually have to go to the bank to pay all your bills, and the banks are usually full. The reason why is that in the US we can trust our mail- a public service from the government. In Brazil, you can't. And Brazil is one of the better countries.
Now compare prices. If you were to go to most developing countries with your own dietary needs you would find that you would have to spend more, perhaps twice as much. Despite being agricultural countries- much of the agriculture is cash crops for export, and much of the best food is shipped out. Indeed, most of the people couldn't afford it. Thus malnutrition and lower productivity.
Lower commodity prices leads to lower public revenue for education, law enforcement, or support for capital investment.
Back to Brazil, a cop makes about $300 per month. Cost of living in food would probably be at least that for a family of 4. Plus housing, plus bills, and you can see why most of the cops corrupt and no one trusts them. If you have cops you can't trust or who are crooked, how much faith can you have in a system to protect your property rights? If you can't have secure property rights, you can't have investment. And so it goes.
http://web.nps.navy.mil/~relooney/routledge_15b.htm
That the current squabbles at the WTO meeting have empahasized the problem of commodities reflects that problem-
(1) that the northern countries can outproduce commodities (where possible) better than the countries of the South.
(2) that countries of the South have been losing in the economic scheme of things to the countries of the North because of lower commodity costs relative to manufactured goods.
There is a good reason for (1). Historically agriculture was considered to be labor intensive. Your basic farmer pushing a plow behind an OX, or the peasant who tends his rice paddy behind a water buffalo, is true only in the South. In the North, farming is capital intensive. Consider the way that livestock is harvested (in large factory like buildings in which the animal never goes outside but is just fattened and then slaughtered. But also consider the cost of a harvester or the chemicals and enhanced seeds that go into crops. YOu can find that in the developed North, but in the South where its painfully difficult to get fertilizer and seeds- forget harvesters- its still a labor business.
This has had some painful effects in the US as well. As capital-intensive agriculture replaces labor intensive, small and medium farmers are being pushed out because they can't compete. In the film "The River" with Sissy Spacek and Mel Gibson, one sees some of that issue back in the 1980s. McDonalds, from what I have been told, gets much of its beef from a few big cattle corporations.
(2) Is partly because of the power of the North but also because of the problems of the South.
When you look at a lot of your weaker countries, your developing countries, in many cases it is commodities that becomes the dominant source of direct or indirect taxation. We see this in the move to nationalize mining companies in the 1970s and 80s, but also in the high prices commodities are charged to export. Simply, these countries rely on those commodities to eat. Because they are so poor, and often inherited administrative structures from colonial authorities, they have no other means of revenue. They can't charge personal income taxes, as much of the developed world does, because they don't have the infrastructure for it. Otherwise they have to borrow or get aid. Since aid has been in decrease, that means borrowing, but most are already in debt from the oil shocks of the 1970s up.
To give you an illustration of how bad the infrastructure is compared to the US. In the US, you get a bill, you write a check, put in in an envelope, slap a stamp on it, and mail. In Brazil you usually have to go to the bank to pay all your bills, and the banks are usually full. The reason why is that in the US we can trust our mail- a public service from the government. In Brazil, you can't. And Brazil is one of the better countries.
Now compare prices. If you were to go to most developing countries with your own dietary needs you would find that you would have to spend more, perhaps twice as much. Despite being agricultural countries- much of the agriculture is cash crops for export, and much of the best food is shipped out. Indeed, most of the people couldn't afford it. Thus malnutrition and lower productivity.
Lower commodity prices leads to lower public revenue for education, law enforcement, or support for capital investment.
Back to Brazil, a cop makes about $300 per month. Cost of living in food would probably be at least that for a family of 4. Plus housing, plus bills, and you can see why most of the cops corrupt and no one trusts them. If you have cops you can't trust or who are crooked, how much faith can you have in a system to protect your property rights? If you can't have secure property rights, you can't have investment. And so it goes.
welsh
Junkmaster
YOu know, a lot of folks have been bashing the UN because of its problems in peacekeeping. And while I think that we can all agree that the record is kind of spotty, we should also realize that the UN does more than just war and peace issues.
There's a lot of non-violent political stuff that the UN plays an important role in. Just consider that the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization are part of the UN system. As is the United Nations Environmental Program, agencies for the regulation of international standards, air travel, ocean travel.
For example. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees office takes care of about 6 million refugees. Could you imagine another country or organization being able to deal with that?
There's a lot of non-violent political stuff that the UN plays an important role in. Just consider that the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization are part of the UN system. As is the United Nations Environmental Program, agencies for the regulation of international standards, air travel, ocean travel.
For example. The UN High Commissioner on Refugees office takes care of about 6 million refugees. Could you imagine another country or organization being able to deal with that?
welsh
Junkmaster
And back to Afghanistan?
This I picked up from the Economist-
More troops, please
Oct 10th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
Two years after America’s attack on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Afghanistan’s provinces are still a mess. NATO aims to send peacekeepers outside Kabul, but it will have to send large numbers to make any difference
ARE events in Afghanistan going well, or badly? Two years after America began its post-September 11th bombing raids, optimists have plenty to point to. Countless al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have been killed or captured—though not, so far as is known, al-Qaeda’s head, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar. Afghanistan has a functioning interim government headed by an internationally respected president, Hamid Karzai. In Kabul, the booming capital of around 3m people, many women have shed their once-required burqas and go around without fear.
In the provinces, however, the story is rather different. Attacks on humanitarian workers have increased to one a day on average, according to an official at CARE, an aid agency. The central government has little control and, outside the capital, factional fighting has worsened. An especially violent clash occurred this week. At least 60 Afghan fighters were killed in the north when forces led by an ethnic Uzbek clashed with rival forces commanded by an ethnic Tajik; a ceasefire was agreed on Thursday. Moreover, the ravaged Taliban and al-Qaeda forces appear to be regrouping, especially near or across the border with Pakistan. On Tuesday, Zalmay Khalilzad, America’s special envoy to Afghanistan, warned of possible “spectacular attacks” against the reconstruction efforts.
Stabilising remote parts of Afghanistan was never going to be easy. But it has not helped that the international peacekeeping force has essentially ceded the territory to local warlords. The 5,500-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) patrols only Kabul. America has thousands more troops throughout Afghanistan. They have tried to stabilise the south, but spend much of their time hunting down al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants and neglecting locals’ day-to-day security needs. Afghanistan, the United Nations and Japan recently signed an agreement to demobilise 100,000 of the warlords’ fighters in the provinces—a classic case of wishful thinking.
America is well aware of the problem. As in Iraq, it has leaned on the locals to do their bit. Much of the recently-proposed $1.2 billion in extra spending on Afghanistan would go towards helping Mr Karzai’s government boost security outside Kabul, according to the New York Times. A new, multi-ethnic Afghan army is being trained—though at a noticeably slower pace than its counterpart in Iraq.
Ideally, ISAF would step in to the breach. This week the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which leads ISAF, approved in principle the extension of its peacekeeping forces outside the capital. Germany, which is eager to mend its fractured relations with America, has eagerly backed the proposal (which Mr Karzai has long begged for). It wants to send 450 German peacekeepers to Kunduz, a region in the north, to help with reconstruction efforts. Expanding NATO’s reach outside Kabul would require the UN Security Council’s approval; Germany has already drafted a resolution, which may be passed this month.
All well and good. However, a few hundred peacekeepers in a single province will have little effect. NATO leaders say Germany’s move may pave the way for other small military units (New Zealand, America and Britain already have similar forces operating, though not under NATO). But lots more troops are needed.
The political will seems to be there. At a NATO meeting in Colorado this week, America’s defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said: “We’ve always favoured an expansion outside of Kabul.” His words were echoed by NATO’s secretary-general, George Robertson. The trouble is a lack of manpower and money. America has around 140,000 overstretched troops in Iraq and cannot spare many more for Afghanistan. This week it eagerly snapped up an offer from Serbia and Montenegro to contribute up to 1,000 troops to “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a Taliban-hunting operation that is separate from ISAF. Rounding up more troops from other NATO countries is made harder by their commitments in the Balkans and Africa.
Of course, security is not the only worry for Afghanistan. The coming year will be a crucial one politically: a draft constitution will be considered by an assembly in December (two months late), and presidential elections are planned for next year. Mr Karzai has said he intends to run. He may well win, but the politicking will re-expose the country’s ethnic divisions. And America must again become closely involved. Preoccupied with Iraq, it has put Afghanistan on a back burner in the past year. But, if for no other, more selfless reason, President George Bush will want to point to Afghanistan as a success story as America’s presidential elections approach.
This I picked up from the Economist-
More troops, please
Oct 10th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
Two years after America’s attack on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Afghanistan’s provinces are still a mess. NATO aims to send peacekeepers outside Kabul, but it will have to send large numbers to make any difference
ARE events in Afghanistan going well, or badly? Two years after America began its post-September 11th bombing raids, optimists have plenty to point to. Countless al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have been killed or captured—though not, so far as is known, al-Qaeda’s head, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar. Afghanistan has a functioning interim government headed by an internationally respected president, Hamid Karzai. In Kabul, the booming capital of around 3m people, many women have shed their once-required burqas and go around without fear.
In the provinces, however, the story is rather different. Attacks on humanitarian workers have increased to one a day on average, according to an official at CARE, an aid agency. The central government has little control and, outside the capital, factional fighting has worsened. An especially violent clash occurred this week. At least 60 Afghan fighters were killed in the north when forces led by an ethnic Uzbek clashed with rival forces commanded by an ethnic Tajik; a ceasefire was agreed on Thursday. Moreover, the ravaged Taliban and al-Qaeda forces appear to be regrouping, especially near or across the border with Pakistan. On Tuesday, Zalmay Khalilzad, America’s special envoy to Afghanistan, warned of possible “spectacular attacks” against the reconstruction efforts.
Stabilising remote parts of Afghanistan was never going to be easy. But it has not helped that the international peacekeeping force has essentially ceded the territory to local warlords. The 5,500-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) patrols only Kabul. America has thousands more troops throughout Afghanistan. They have tried to stabilise the south, but spend much of their time hunting down al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants and neglecting locals’ day-to-day security needs. Afghanistan, the United Nations and Japan recently signed an agreement to demobilise 100,000 of the warlords’ fighters in the provinces—a classic case of wishful thinking.
America is well aware of the problem. As in Iraq, it has leaned on the locals to do their bit. Much of the recently-proposed $1.2 billion in extra spending on Afghanistan would go towards helping Mr Karzai’s government boost security outside Kabul, according to the New York Times. A new, multi-ethnic Afghan army is being trained—though at a noticeably slower pace than its counterpart in Iraq.
Ideally, ISAF would step in to the breach. This week the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which leads ISAF, approved in principle the extension of its peacekeeping forces outside the capital. Germany, which is eager to mend its fractured relations with America, has eagerly backed the proposal (which Mr Karzai has long begged for). It wants to send 450 German peacekeepers to Kunduz, a region in the north, to help with reconstruction efforts. Expanding NATO’s reach outside Kabul would require the UN Security Council’s approval; Germany has already drafted a resolution, which may be passed this month.
All well and good. However, a few hundred peacekeepers in a single province will have little effect. NATO leaders say Germany’s move may pave the way for other small military units (New Zealand, America and Britain already have similar forces operating, though not under NATO). But lots more troops are needed.
The political will seems to be there. At a NATO meeting in Colorado this week, America’s defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said: “We’ve always favoured an expansion outside of Kabul.” His words were echoed by NATO’s secretary-general, George Robertson. The trouble is a lack of manpower and money. America has around 140,000 overstretched troops in Iraq and cannot spare many more for Afghanistan. This week it eagerly snapped up an offer from Serbia and Montenegro to contribute up to 1,000 troops to “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a Taliban-hunting operation that is separate from ISAF. Rounding up more troops from other NATO countries is made harder by their commitments in the Balkans and Africa.
Of course, security is not the only worry for Afghanistan. The coming year will be a crucial one politically: a draft constitution will be considered by an assembly in December (two months late), and presidential elections are planned for next year. Mr Karzai has said he intends to run. He may well win, but the politicking will re-expose the country’s ethnic divisions. And America must again become closely involved. Preoccupied with Iraq, it has put Afghanistan on a back burner in the past year. But, if for no other, more selfless reason, President George Bush will want to point to Afghanistan as a success story as America’s presidential elections approach.
welsh
Junkmaster
Here's a bit from the Economist on Democracy and the Arabs
They say we're getting a democracy
Nov 13th 2003
From The Economist print edition
How America should promote its values in the Arab world, and how it shouldn't
IN WASHINGTON on November 6th George Bush made an excellent speech in which he said that Arabs were no less capable than other people of enjoying democracy and that helping them to do so should and would be part of American policy for decades to come. Following the excellent speech, events on the ground continued in their dismal pattern. Suicide bombers presumed to be from al-Qaeda struck in the heart of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital. In Iraq guerrillas killed more American soldiers and blew up an Italian police headquarters. How worrying is this apparent disconnection between the lofty speechifying from Washington and what is actually happening in the Middle East?
The first point to make is that although a speech is just a speech, some things need to be said out loud, even if you might think they go without saying. Usually, they don't. Indeed, the Arabs' British and French colonisers seldom took the view that Arabs were fit for democracy. It is after all less than a dozen years since France quietly encouraged Algeria's army to cancel an election the Islamist opposition was poised to win in the former French colony. That calamitous mistake led to a civil war costing perhaps 100,000 lives. And there are still many people—both Arabs (usually the ones in power) and observers of Arabs—who invoke religion, culture and a medley of other excuses in order to argue that the Arab world is uniquely unsuited to democracy. So now that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the occupation of Iraq have made America the dominating outside power in the region, it is no bad thing for an American president to declare that he believes none of the excuses. Having the power to hire and fire your government is a simple idea that most Arabs both understand and, according to opinion surveys, want for themselves.
Now that he has stated his belief in democracy, however, Mr Bush cannot simply confer its blessings on the Arabs with the wave of a wand. Nor should he heed those voices at home that urge him to do so by using instruments more substantial than a wand, such as political or economic sanctions, or—heaven forbid—pro-democracy “regime change” enforced, as in Iraq, by American military power.
To be sure, those who advocate this course of action have an interesting case to make. Since the September 11th attacks, they argue, it should be clear that the absence of democracy is one of the things that turn Arabs towards Islamic extremism and against an America widely seen as the propper-up of repressive regimes. This argument is probably right. So is its corollary that the creation of a liberal, democratic order in the Arab world is in America's own long-term interest. But there is a fine distinction—and a world of difference—between a policy of advocating democracy and a policy of imposing it. Apart from being questionable in principle (what gives America the right to force its choices on others?) any crude attempt to impose democracy on the Arabs is liable to backfire in practice.
One way such a policy could backfire is by knocking over bad regimes only to see even worse ones take their place. The existence of a general Arab appetite for democracy does not mean that the alternative to a repressive, authoritarian regime is bound in every case to be a liberal democracy. Far from it: in Saudi Arabia, to judge by al-Qaeda's extensive underground network there (see article), the fall of the conservative Islamists of the House of Saud could very well clear the way for the rise of a reactionary Islamist regime of the very sort favoured by Osama bin Laden. And even in Arab countries that have a more sophisticated, secular style of (non-democratic) politics—Egypt and Syria, say—any kind of regime change that is construed locally as an American initiative is in danger of stoking up so much nationalist or Islamist resentment that it alienates more people than it wins over. In promoting democracy in the Arab world, Mr Bush should never forget the physicians' maxim: first do no harm.
To would-be Arab democrats, of course, an America that claims to champion democracy while remaining the protector and paymaster of authoritarian regimes runs the risk of looking hypocritical. The superpower's credibility among Arabs is anyway already close to bottom by virtue of its alliance to Israel and the non-discovery in Iraq of the banned weapons on which it based most of its case against Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, in between the two extremes of doing nothing and pulling the plug on unlovely regimes there exists a range of middle options. Advocacy (“lip service”, to its detractors) has a certain value in itself. And there are umpteen other ways in which America could use its money and influence to prod regional allies towards political reform without tipping them into collapse. For example, the American taxpayers who fork out $4 billion-plus every year in aid for Israel and Egypt are entitled to expect a more receptive attitude to Palestinian statehood from the former, and to democracy from the latter.
Beyond this Mr Bush faces, in Iraq, a far more urgent test of his belief in the possibility of Arab democracy. This is not a place Mr Bush invaded for democracy's sake (though some American “neoconservatives” argued that this should have been a central aim). The main reason he gave, and what made the invasion right, was the threat of a Saddam armed with weapons of mass destruction. But now that it is in Iraq, interest and obligation alike require America to make sure that it transfers power to some form of Arab democracy.
This is a tall order. The price of failure could be high. Without a transition to democracy, the likelihood is that Iraq will remain permanently occupied, or degenerate into another terror-breeding failed state, or fall under the control of a new dictatorship no better than the old one. Any of these outcomes would be disastrous for America's interests and reputation. Success, on the other hand, could bring immense rewards: not just a stable Iraq but a worked example of an Arab democracy which millions of other Arabs might then come to admire and emulate of their own accord. That is why Mr Bush is right to accelerate the transfer of power, but also why he must not bodge it. More is at stake than Iraq alone.
They say we're getting a democracy
Nov 13th 2003
From The Economist print edition
How America should promote its values in the Arab world, and how it shouldn't
IN WASHINGTON on November 6th George Bush made an excellent speech in which he said that Arabs were no less capable than other people of enjoying democracy and that helping them to do so should and would be part of American policy for decades to come. Following the excellent speech, events on the ground continued in their dismal pattern. Suicide bombers presumed to be from al-Qaeda struck in the heart of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital. In Iraq guerrillas killed more American soldiers and blew up an Italian police headquarters. How worrying is this apparent disconnection between the lofty speechifying from Washington and what is actually happening in the Middle East?
The first point to make is that although a speech is just a speech, some things need to be said out loud, even if you might think they go without saying. Usually, they don't. Indeed, the Arabs' British and French colonisers seldom took the view that Arabs were fit for democracy. It is after all less than a dozen years since France quietly encouraged Algeria's army to cancel an election the Islamist opposition was poised to win in the former French colony. That calamitous mistake led to a civil war costing perhaps 100,000 lives. And there are still many people—both Arabs (usually the ones in power) and observers of Arabs—who invoke religion, culture and a medley of other excuses in order to argue that the Arab world is uniquely unsuited to democracy. So now that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the occupation of Iraq have made America the dominating outside power in the region, it is no bad thing for an American president to declare that he believes none of the excuses. Having the power to hire and fire your government is a simple idea that most Arabs both understand and, according to opinion surveys, want for themselves.
Now that he has stated his belief in democracy, however, Mr Bush cannot simply confer its blessings on the Arabs with the wave of a wand. Nor should he heed those voices at home that urge him to do so by using instruments more substantial than a wand, such as political or economic sanctions, or—heaven forbid—pro-democracy “regime change” enforced, as in Iraq, by American military power.
To be sure, those who advocate this course of action have an interesting case to make. Since the September 11th attacks, they argue, it should be clear that the absence of democracy is one of the things that turn Arabs towards Islamic extremism and against an America widely seen as the propper-up of repressive regimes. This argument is probably right. So is its corollary that the creation of a liberal, democratic order in the Arab world is in America's own long-term interest. But there is a fine distinction—and a world of difference—between a policy of advocating democracy and a policy of imposing it. Apart from being questionable in principle (what gives America the right to force its choices on others?) any crude attempt to impose democracy on the Arabs is liable to backfire in practice.
One way such a policy could backfire is by knocking over bad regimes only to see even worse ones take their place. The existence of a general Arab appetite for democracy does not mean that the alternative to a repressive, authoritarian regime is bound in every case to be a liberal democracy. Far from it: in Saudi Arabia, to judge by al-Qaeda's extensive underground network there (see article), the fall of the conservative Islamists of the House of Saud could very well clear the way for the rise of a reactionary Islamist regime of the very sort favoured by Osama bin Laden. And even in Arab countries that have a more sophisticated, secular style of (non-democratic) politics—Egypt and Syria, say—any kind of regime change that is construed locally as an American initiative is in danger of stoking up so much nationalist or Islamist resentment that it alienates more people than it wins over. In promoting democracy in the Arab world, Mr Bush should never forget the physicians' maxim: first do no harm.
To would-be Arab democrats, of course, an America that claims to champion democracy while remaining the protector and paymaster of authoritarian regimes runs the risk of looking hypocritical. The superpower's credibility among Arabs is anyway already close to bottom by virtue of its alliance to Israel and the non-discovery in Iraq of the banned weapons on which it based most of its case against Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, in between the two extremes of doing nothing and pulling the plug on unlovely regimes there exists a range of middle options. Advocacy (“lip service”, to its detractors) has a certain value in itself. And there are umpteen other ways in which America could use its money and influence to prod regional allies towards political reform without tipping them into collapse. For example, the American taxpayers who fork out $4 billion-plus every year in aid for Israel and Egypt are entitled to expect a more receptive attitude to Palestinian statehood from the former, and to democracy from the latter.
Beyond this Mr Bush faces, in Iraq, a far more urgent test of his belief in the possibility of Arab democracy. This is not a place Mr Bush invaded for democracy's sake (though some American “neoconservatives” argued that this should have been a central aim). The main reason he gave, and what made the invasion right, was the threat of a Saddam armed with weapons of mass destruction. But now that it is in Iraq, interest and obligation alike require America to make sure that it transfers power to some form of Arab democracy.
This is a tall order. The price of failure could be high. Without a transition to democracy, the likelihood is that Iraq will remain permanently occupied, or degenerate into another terror-breeding failed state, or fall under the control of a new dictatorship no better than the old one. Any of these outcomes would be disastrous for America's interests and reputation. Success, on the other hand, could bring immense rewards: not just a stable Iraq but a worked example of an Arab democracy which millions of other Arabs might then come to admire and emulate of their own accord. That is why Mr Bush is right to accelerate the transfer of power, but also why he must not bodge it. More is at stake than Iraq alone.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
That's quite a thread bump there, Welsh.
welsh
Junkmaster
Well it's been a long time since we talked about this stuff and I figured it was good to bring it back.
Is the spread of democratization another example of geo-political naughtiness?
Worth thinking about.
Is the spread of democratization another example of geo-political naughtiness?
Worth thinking about.
welsh said:
Aye, I am, sadly, still not in the mood for debating (and I only debate when in the mood), but it always seems the forceful spread of democratization is not really that far removed, in reality, to colonalisation and spread of your own personal power. Essentially, the US and Europe are forcing their etha on other people. We think it's right, there's no reason they should.
This is something that future generations might very well sneer at it. It shows both a lack of respect for other cultures and opinions and a lack of criticism on your own ethos.
On the other hand, we are doing the right thing, as we are generally helping the living conditions of those countries improve.
Reality vs. possible ethical errors. Gee, a toughy
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So are they saying they are against the spread of democracy? Well, I guess they would rather have the spread of tyranny and opression then. It seems that no matter how good things get, some seem to always find something to complain about. If I had lived under Sadam's regime, I would have rejoiced like crazy when the Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc... would have come. No longer would I have to fear what I say and do, having to watch my back constantly, or worship and live for a fat man who thinks he is a prophet/God/messiah.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Kharn, you live in the freest society in the world, in the second freest area in the world. Sorry, but I am not inclined to belive that democracy is just a form of government, and that totalitarianism is just as valid. It isnt, and such governments have one right; to be eradicated.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So you're saying you would rather live under a despotic government than under a democratic one? If it were up to me, there would be no government, no country, no borders, no military. People would live on thier own land, make thier own food, play with thier own homemade toys, and live truly free. But there are people out there that would take advantage. They would make weapons for evil. They would rally those who would like the same. That's why there is governments and nations. They are here to protect their people. And over time, has evolved to give liberties to the people. It is necessary, in the world and times we live in, to have governments.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Well I was a bit confused by his eradicating of whatever government he meant. Sorry CCR, I am easily confused. Cheers.
Ehehehe, man, CC, King, it's like you didn't even read my post.
I'm amused. Really, I am.
I'm amused. Really, I am.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I am here to please. But I read what you posted and didn't, or wasn't trying to direct my comments at you. So, sorry for the confusion.
Ehh...this doesn't really help, King.
Now, CC, I heartily disagree, and I have gone through a debate about this before, it should be around somewhere(Hmm, maybe it was in this thread, meh.)
In any case, the fact that we bellieve that democracy is the best form of government, does NOT mean that other countries should and do as well.
Now, when you force a democracy upon a civilization, you are basically killing democracy. You cannot force a democracy upon something, a democracy can only be chosen democratically, or it is no true democracy.
When you believe that by invading a country, and then making it a democracy, you are doing the right thing, you can be gravely mistaken. Sure, sometimes it IS the right thing, but there are times when a majority of people in a country actually WANTS that totalitarian regime, and that they agree with the way the country is being run. WHen you then force such a country to take on democracy, and start abiding by the ethics of the Western world, you are making a grave mistake.
Furthermore, a totalitarian regime is not inherently bad. Usually, it will lead to bad things, because people tend to be power-hungry, and if they are not, somewhere along th line heirs to the throne will be. Which is bad.
But, as a government in itself, a totalitarian regime is, in fact, better than a democracy. If the person in charge is moral, has the trust of the people(preventing bloody rebellion), and is not a power-hungry, raving lunatic.A regime like that is better than a democracy because the leader can make decisions without having to go through endless debates, without having to think about the fact that rich people don't like higher taxes, and without having to think about the fact that everyone wants money. Up to a point, of course, he does have to think about it, if he doesn't want rebellion, but in a lot less serious way than in a democracy.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Not to mention that Democracy isn't the best form of government, in fact, its far from it.
Putting the will of the majority above all others is increadibly short-sighted, because, by and large, people are generally stupid and ignorant. The people don't always know what's best for them, nor is the majority always right.
Was the majority of the South right to persecute Blacks? No. The majority isn't always right. That's why governments should have more emphasis on protection of everyone's freedoms rather than giving total control to a majority.
Putting the will of the majority above all others is increadibly short-sighted, because, by and large, people are generally stupid and ignorant. The people don't always know what's best for them, nor is the majority always right.
Was the majority of the South right to persecute Blacks? No. The majority isn't always right. That's why governments should have more emphasis on protection of everyone's freedoms rather than giving total control to a majority.
welsh
Junkmaster
Interesting thoughts Bradylama. I hadn't heard such logic since the last bunch of fascists came through.
Indeed, both Hitler and Mussolini had great support from their constituents. Arguably, so did Franco, but then with his repressive state you can't really tell. The various totalitarians in N.Korea seemed to be very popular as well, or is that the result of over 50 years of Cult of Personality plus re-education camps, plus repression in many of its more colorful guises.
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?
Sander, empirics don't mix well with the moralisms you are dishing out.
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.
Sander said:
Indeed, both Hitler and Mussolini had great support from their constituents. Arguably, so did Franco, but then with his repressive state you can't really tell. The various totalitarians in N.Korea seemed to be very popular as well, or is that the result of over 50 years of Cult of Personality plus re-education camps, plus repression in many of its more colorful guises.
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?
Sander, empirics don't mix well with the moralisms you are dishing out.
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.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston Churchill
Sander kinda illustrates my point, though a bit badly. It's not about which ethos is better, of course we will say "democracy is the best lollerpants!" because we are democratic. I've yet to see a country that feels absolutely no need to enforce its beliefs upon others ('cept maybe Switzerland). It's like religion, you can't feel secure in it unless you convince everyone around you that your religion/philosophy is true.
Like I said, it shows a blatant lack of respect for the ethos of other countries, as well as an arrogant lack of criticism of your own. I can promise you later generations will sneer at this. They always do.
But once again, it's a matter of practicality against ethics. In the practical sense, we're doing the right thing by pushing democracy on other countries, in the ethical sense it's wrong, but I think most people can agree on the fact that the practical bit is more important in this case.
Sander kinda illustrates my point, though a bit badly. It's not about which ethos is better, of course we will say "democracy is the best lollerpants!" because we are democratic. I've yet to see a country that feels absolutely no need to enforce its beliefs upon others ('cept maybe Switzerland). It's like religion, you can't feel secure in it unless you convince everyone around you that your religion/philosophy is true.
Like I said, it shows a blatant lack of respect for the ethos of other countries, as well as an arrogant lack of criticism of your own. I can promise you later generations will sneer at this. They always do.
But once again, it's a matter of practicality against ethics. In the practical sense, we're doing the right thing by pushing democracy on other countries, in the ethical sense it's wrong, but I think most people can agree on the fact that the practical bit is more important in this case.