Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[Velociryx]

Sandman:
You raise some good points. I will do my best to respond.

I contend that the examples you have provided are not "worse than any dictatorship." The nations you mention are democratic-minded, yes, and each of them faces enemies that they are not afraid to confront with force of arms if needs be.

India - faces a hostile, rival nuclear power to its north, whose government is authoritarian (another one of those dictators), and whose people are fundamentalists. Democractic nations need not be pacifistic in European style to be democratic. They can and should defend themselves (that Europeans seem to have largely forgotten this point makes it no less valid).

Israel - faces hostile rivals on all borders, whose governments are anything BUT democractic, and who have stated repeatedly that they wish to destroy the nation. Again, democracies need not be pacifistic states.

USA - Because of the reluctance of a post-cold-war Europe to step up with us, we are left being the "only cop on the beat" when it comes to getting out there in the world and DOING something. You don't agree with that, fine....have your countrymen spend the resources necessary and show us how to do it right. The USA is hardly akin to a dictatorship (though it seems that the current administration would dearly love to change that....nonetheless, they'll be out on their a$$es as of election day).

Education: Yes...India's literacy rates are abyssmal. Bad example, thanks to the presence of the caste system, as you no doubt, are aware. Nonetheless, even WITH this enormous social weight around their necks, they have made remarkable strides.

Business: Not optomistic in the least. All countries go through the VERY SAME cycle when it comes to industrializing, and the newly democratized nations would be no exception. It is certainly true that multinational corporations would set up shop in these nations to take advantage of cheaper labor....but an interesting thing happens then.....one company does it, and gets a good deal, so another does it, and then another, and another....and before you know it, wages start rising. Why? Because as the labor IN those markets becomes more skilled, they can shop around....more than one factory in town, and they know how to run the machines. This basic pattern has happened in every industrialized nation on the planet.

I am not advocating "Americanizing" the UN, and if you do not agree that it is "broken" then you have clearly not been reading the news. Lybia serving on the Human Rights council? If that is not broken, I'm not sure how else to define it.

The UN has structural flaws that prevent it from being the kind of organization we (the world body) NEED it to be.

As to serving peace....oh yes....the UN has been serving up large doses of peace, hasn't it?

Containment doesn't equal peace.

Writing useless resolutions without the means of enforcing them doesn't equal peace.

Does it?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I have to agree with che. Until we have a truly democratic society at home, it's irresponsible to trust the state to act in the interests of liberty and justice, particularly when these ideals are antithetical to its interests. For instance, in Iraq.

[Velociryx]

Again, I am not talking about a US-led, UN movement. I am talking about empowering the UN. Key difference, and IN that difference, it does not matter that we're not where we'd like to be on the homefront.

Is it important? Sure. But it does not prevent us from taking the action outlined above.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I'm not inclined to trust the UN any more than the US. After all, a lot of UN states are lead by the same tin pot dictators you think it should deal with.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm not inclined to trust the UN any more than the US. After all, a lot of UN states are lead by the same tin pot dictators you think it should deal with.

Well then, you've just suggested one of the first reforms, no tin pot dictators allowed, or at least not allowed to vote or hold power. Only nations that adhere to certain human rights principles will be allowed to do anything more than send their ambassadors. Including the economic benefits of membership, like the WTO, World Bank, plus aid and development programs. If they want UN money, they'll have to play by the rules.

[Velociryx]

Agreed, Willem, and in fact, if you read my longish post above, Ramo, you'll find that I already outlined that....

-=Vel=-

[Az]

@Ramo's general wibe.

However, while 'fix up the US' is a nice slogan, one should also think of the way of accomplishing it.

[Ramo]

India - faces a hostile, rival nuclear power to its north, whose government is authoritarian (another one of those dictators), and whose people are fundamentalists. Democractic nations need not be pacifistic in European style to be democratic. They can and should defend themselves (that Europeans seem to have largely forgotten this point makes it no less valid).

1. Pakistanis are overwhelmingly secular. Only its underpopulated provinces on the Afghan border have Islamist majorities.
2. Defending themselves? Look at Gujurat and its anti-Moslem pogroms. There are fundies running India too. Or consider India's support of terror in Kashmir. India's not much better than Pakistan in this regard.

I'll resist responding to your comments on Israel and the US so this thread won't be too jacked.

[Ramo]

Well then, you've just suggested one of the first reforms, no tin pot dictators allowed, or at least not allowed to vote or hold power. Only nations that adhere to certain human rights principles will be allowed to do anything more than send their ambassadors.

Sounds good, but including states that support the authority of human rights abusers. The problem is that there wouldn't be too many states left after you cut off the fat.

Including the economic benefits of membership, like the WTO, World Bank, plus aid and development programs. If they want UN money, they'll have to play by the rules.

Why would tin pot dictators care about their people? Economic warfare is a foolish, counterproductive strategy that only hurts the people its intended to help. Cutting off aid or erecting trade barriers would undermine just about the only thing the UN is good for. This is the kind of thing that undermines these regimes in the end.

As for the World Bank, giving loans to tin pot dictators is a bad policy, often intentionally malevolent on the part of the West, particularly because successor democratic states have to deal with them. Personally, I think we should destroy that institution. Along with the IMF.

As for the WTO in general, we need serious reform in it. As is, it's pretty much an instrument of Western protectionism. We should start going after things like agrisubsidies, IMO one of the principal problems in the world today, and stop enforcing idiotic IP laws in the third world.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just replied to your other thread!

And I must disagree that social mobility is irrelevant.

While it'd be nice to see that everybody has a piece of the pie, that MUST come with the precondition that those who want a piece of the pie must be willing to work for it.

If you are out busting your a$$ every day to make a living, and I don't feel like doing that, should the government just give me my share, even though I'm not willing to do anything? It's not that I'm not capable, I just don't want to.

And, IF there's a mechanism in place to provide for people like that, why would anyone want to? Where would the incentive be for hard work to get ahead? Why bother....you can just sit at home, eat bon bons, and watch the soaps all day and do just fine.

-=Vel=-

Vel, you just seem unwilling to see that hard work really has very little to do with someones place in our society. There are plenty of people in this country who do no work what so ever and live like kings.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Social mobility is very important. People are ambitious creatures, they have aspirations beyond just those of providing for their immediate needs. And some are more ambitious than others. If you try and develop a social system that doesn't allow for people who want more from life, you will have a system where there's no longer any incentive to excell, and/or one that creates some resentment and frustration. Why do you think the Soviet Union failed, and why China is moving towards a capitalist system?

One of the problems that I see occuring in the argument of capitalism vs. socialism is this idea that they are mutually exclusive. They're not! There's no reason why you can't have a capitalist system that has a fair means of income distribution, either through social support like Unemployment Insurance, disability funding etc. or simply through a fair minimum wage. Take a look at a public traded company, it's owned by shareholders, which is in essence a socialist principle. Add to that things like profit sharing, stock options and a few more schemes I'm sure I haven't heard of, there'e no reason why the two ideas can't cooexist.

I think one of the problems with your view of capitalism is that you're basing it solely on the American model, which is the extreme version. The European nations, as well as Canada, are experimenting with a model that tries to incorporate aspects of both philosophies. Now I don't want to open a debate on the merits of welfare states vs laissez faire democracies, but I see no reason why the two should automatically be opposed to each other.

Willem, people are conditioned to be selfish. True selfish people don't make good citizens, but we need to make people more socially conscious. Then they will work harder.

[Ramo]

However, while 'fix up the US' is a nice slogan, one should also think of the way of accomplishing it.

Libertarianism + socialism.

[Sandman]

I contend that the examples you have provided are not "worse than any dictatorship." The nations you mention are democratic-minded, yes, and each of them faces enemies that they are not afraid to confront with force of arms if needs be.

Strawman. You even have the cheek to 'quote' something I did not say. I said that democracies can be as bad as dictatorships with regards to militarism and gunboat diplomacy, NOT WORSE.

Education: Yes...India's literacy rates are abyssmal. Bad example, thanks to the presence of the caste system, as you no doubt, are aware. Nonetheless, even WITH this enormous social weight around their necks, they have made remarkable strides.

An alternative view would be that education increases the power of the caste system.

Business: Not optomistic in the least. All countries go through the VERY SAME cycle when it comes to industrializing, and the newly democratized nations would be no exception. It is certainly true that multinational corporations would set up shop in these nations to take advantage of cheaper labor....but an interesting thing happens then.....one company does it, and gets a good deal, so another does it, and then another, and another....and before you know it, wages start rising. Why? Because as the labor IN those markets becomes more skilled, they can shop around....more than one factory in town, and they know how to run the machines. This basic pattern has happened in every industrialized nation on the planet.

'Newly' democratised? Do you imagine that every poor country is a dictatorship? There have been countries that have been democracies for ages and are scarely any better off.

I don't buy your story of ever-increasing wages. Multi-nationals can just leave when wages get too high, or start employing children, or bribe their way to a monopoly.

As the labour gets more skilled, they can shop around? These people are doing what is generally known as unskilled work. It's just ridiculous to assume that 'shopping around for jobs' can exist in Third World working conditions. Give me a break.

And you haven't commented on indigenous start-ups and nationalised industries. These are every bit as valid as multi-nationals, and are far more important towards improving economic performance.

I am not advocating "Americanizing" the UN, and if you do not agree that it is "broken" then you have clearly not been reading the news. Lybia serving on the Human Rights council? If that is not broken, I'm not sure how else to define it.

I didn't say it wasn't broken, I said that I was unwilling to accept that it was so badly broken as some vocal Americans seem to think. Libya, a country with a poor human rights record, getting voted onto the human rights council is pretty bad. But that does not make everything the UN does tainted. Make specific complaints, not vague generalisations.

The UN has structural flaws that prevent it from being the kind of organization we (the world body) NEED it to be.
As to serving peace....oh yes....the UN has been serving up large doses of peace, hasn't it?
Containment doesn't equal peace.
Writing useless resolutions without the means of enforcing them doesn't equal peace.

Your vision is also happens to serve multinational corporations. You advocate apocalyptic wars against every dictatorship (and probably democracies which don't measure up), so the current UN is clearly better at producing peace. Containment most certainly does equal peace by any reasonable standard, i.e. no wars. And who decides which resolutions are 'useless'?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ramo
Cutting off aid or erecting trade barriers would undermine just about the only thing the UN is good for.

Who's talking about trade barriers, they just don't get any protection from world bodies if a deal goes sour, or a member country slaps a tariif on their exports. And aid could simply take the form shipments of food and medical supplies, no cash.

Personally, I think we should destroy that institution. Along with the IMF.

There's nothing wrong with them in principle, it's just they way they're being run. They just need reforms, along with the rest of it.

We should start going after things like agrisubsidies, IMO one of the principal problems in the world today, and stop enforcing idiotic IP laws in the third world.

I certainly agree with you on the subsidies, though it would be foolish not to expect some regulation of IP laws. I admit the approach is rather draconian at the moment, but we also can't afford go to the other extreme either.

[Az]

Libertarianism + socialism.

I just love it when a plan comes together.