Posted on 09/20/2009 5:21:18 PM PDT by Lorianne
Establishing stability—and eventually democracy—in the world's most troubled countries requires letting go of starry-eyed notions about self-government in the near term. ___ Weak states have been a major issue since the end of World War II, when the dismantling of European empires resulted in self-government for many peoples who had little experience of it, and who suddenly had to cope with the rigors of modernity. The adjustment process is one that has taken, and will continue to take, decades to complete. The outside power that best understands this process, without harboring sentimental illusions about “ideal” forms of government, will have a significant advantage over the others. Indeed, the undeclared battle between the United States and China in Africa—over which of the two countries’ approaches to development works best—will speak volumes about the future balance of power in the world. While we’ve tended to emphasize democracy, human rights, and civil society, the Chinese have emphasized massive infrastructure projects and authority by any means possible, civil or uncivil.
Our own idealistic approach may fit nicely with our view of ourselves as a high-minded nation apart. But it may not, in fact, be the best approach – either for our own sake, or for the well-being of the nations upon whom we seek to impose it. Fortunately for us, however, there is an incisive philosophical guidebook we can consult for advice on how to proceed more effectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
We must resist freedom’s siren song. What is good for me is not good for thee. Fortunately for mankind, the Founding Fathers were of a different mind set.
Obama will be happy on both counts.
Proof that there is a God: I dropped out of college right about when I started writing papers that sounded like this -- although to my credit, at least I wasn't quite ambitious enough to tackle "world order." But I did tackle "Exxon."
Anyway, this is an anecdotal way of identifying the premise -- so far as it went in the post -- as sophomoric.
Goldwater argued that the Community's -- and US's and UN's -- mania for decolonization was madness. Some nations were not ready for democracy, and the best they could hope for was a benevolent dictator, preferably one loyal to the US and not the Soviet Union. The Foreign Policy Community and their acolytes in the Mainstream Media were caustic in their analysis of Goldwater's position. They ripped him as being uncultured. But he was right.
Now we have Samuel Huntingdon, the Foreign Policy Community's premier thinker, echoing Goldwater almost 50 years after the fact. Decolonization was a mistake. Democracy will not work everywhere. Perhaps the great empires of yore should not have been dismantled after World War II.
What goes around, comes around.
So the Left is calling for a new global imperialism... under Emperor 0bama, of course.
....elements of power, Huntington suggests—the police force, the tax authority, the motor vehicles bureau, the electricity company...
First of all doc, the electric company is NOT the government. It is a business designed to make money. That's why it works.
Secondly -- you will never convince me that "the tax authority" is needed for civilization. Taxes are, at best, a necessary evil locally and an abomination in gross.
Corruption, he explains, can be a means of stanching violent revolution. It offers an alternative means of government and tax collection...BUT...Young officers who revolt are often better educated or less corrupt than those whom they overthrow.
Darn it Dr. H. Make up your Harvard "educated" mind -- is corruption good or is it bad?
our historical experience is somewhat irrelevant to the countries we are now trying to help.
Sadly that is true -- but the answer is to destroy the folks who are giving us problems and not worry about whether they will ever have the curse of taxation.
But most the other Imperial European powers were not as good at it, as evidenced by the initial success of the former British colonies relative to those of other European Empires.
Ahmmm, you are aware of the Super Grid that the gov't has ready to implement? The vehicle with which they can ACTUALLY control the thermostat in your home!
As pres. Bobble Head said: you can't be driving your SUV's and you can't have your thermostat on 72 and you can't be eating whatever you want...
(this from a man who keeps the thermostat in the oval office, in winter, at 77)
live link next post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc&feature=PlayList&p=2155C00FA73BAE35&index=0&playnext=1
I wouldn't call it a collapse. After World War II, Clement Atlee's government decided to free the colonies, whether they were ready or not. This was due to pressure from the UN in general and Eleanor Roosevelt in particular. The basis of the decision was more ideological than practical.
But you're right. It was a disaster.
He was prescient.
This piece is a luring ‘Siren Song’ of not high quality. Best not to jump further into the milleu of world disorder when we have a wonderful, existing model for order on our own plate, currently pushed aside and getting cold via the current administration. The trend is world disorder, and, “the trend is not our friend”. Breaking from all significant tethers of the past is like cutting a lifeline in space..we know what that kind of ‘change’ results in. All ‘new world solutions’ eventually come under historys’ revelation as Icarus Stories.
Founding Fathers was perfect for Americans, who lived on a continent that is vast, protected by two oceans, Britain who lost the colonies became the protector against other European encroachments. The only nation that could challenge us on our border was Mexico (who was even in strength to US in 1830’s, but declined ever since they lost their northern holdings to Texas and US). With no major powerful external threat, vast amounts of land and resources to serve as a safety valve for our poor in the teeming cities, we had the luxury to develop the American founding principles into a modern advanced powerful nation. Other countries of the world do not have this perfect geographical environment. Nations that lagged behind in development became victims of external agitation and external gunboat diplomacy/mercantilism. Small developed nations were constantly under threat from their larger and more powerful nations. Nations with imperfect social structures could not develop democracy while external aggressors take advantage of the weaknesses to foment disorder. For most nations in the world the issue of security trumps liberty, because they cannot afford one without sacrificing the other. That is why many nations in the world do not have democracies like us. Attempting to make them into one will require the US to do nation building for decades to reverse, cultural and historical conditioning. I must point out that China had an American style republic in 1911, which degenerated into warlordism as the powerful rich families used the freedom of opposition to disrupt reforms and ultimately fomented unrest amongst the uneducated peasants as the young republic could not implement anything useful. The chaos tempted the most powerful Chinese general to overthrow the republic and establish himself as the continuation of the Ming Dynasty. It began the Warlord Period in China which ended with another authoritarian government under the KMT. Look at Cuba and Phillipines, both former US territories that was suppose to be mentored by the US in democracy. They all began as democratic republics but ended up as one man corrupt dictatorships. This is after it was under American control and mentorship!!
Old World DisOrder gave us everything we have ... why would we want to give it back?
BS. The Brits were cunning. They backed the minority tribes in the former colonies and gave them power when the colonies became independent. The government runned by the minority tribe cannot remain in power without the need for British help. This is control by indirect means. Britain is not going to give up access to all that wealth and resources. This was illustrated the way the Brits handed Hong Kong over to China. For over one hundred years, the British appointed the governor, levied taxes, concripted troops, seized lands for infrastructure, all without an elected representative chamber composed of Hong Kong citizens working with the British governor. Just several years before Hong Kong is returned to China, people of Hong Kong who are British subjects can not emigrate to Britain, and all of a suddenly the Brits are worried about having a democratic institution for the city before they hand it back to the Communist Chinese when over a hundred years of British rule no such institutions existed??? Talking about another attempt to indirectly influence the rule of a city after it is returned to the nation that they took it from. Britain has pulled a number of boners on the US without the average Joe ever knowing about it. They use soft power and their connections in our leftist media and colleges to screw with our leaders. If we are smart, just stay away from international entanglements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.