3 ms·

>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might

by wz1000 10y ago

>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources. This view is simply ignorant of history. The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo. Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies. This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

MichaelGG 10y ago
That's great, meanwhile what's an actual solution for today? You've got hilariously corrupt governments and incompetence at every level of society. Stuff doesn't work and people are resigned to it. High performers will do their best to insulate themselves or emigrate. Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem. At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again. Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.
- wz1000 10y ago
  Like I said, > Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo. Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74, when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver, when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use. All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical interests rather than any meaningful form of charity. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed can do, given the power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are often as not to the detriment of the host country.
classicsnoot 10y ago
I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on the past mistakes and missteps of intervention and sub-optimal appropriation, but blaming the colonials has not really helped anywhere, especially not Africa. I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.
- wz1000 10y ago
  Former British India and Colonial Indochina¸ along with nations like Egypt have done pretty well economically given their socioeconomic conditions at the end of colonization, and considering the massive drain of wealth and resources to their colonizers undertaken over centuries.
  - classicsnoot 10y ago
    Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...
    - wz1000 10y ago
      No nation can exist in a vacuum. Your "criteria" excludes pretty much every country in the world. Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in. India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.

by wz1000 10y ago

MichaelGG 10y ago

That's great, meanwhile what's an actual solution for today? You've got hilariously corrupt governments and incompetence at every level of society. Stuff doesn't work and people are resigned to it. High performers will do their best to insulate themselves or emigrate. Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem. At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again. Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.

wz1000 10y ago
Like I said, > Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo. Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74, when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver, when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use. All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical interests rather than any meaningful form of charity. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed can do, given the power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are often as not to the detriment of the host country.

classicsnoot 10y ago

I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on the past mistakes and missteps of intervention and sub-optimal appropriation, but blaming the colonials has not really helped anywhere, especially not Africa. I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.

wz1000 10y ago
Former British India and Colonial Indochina¸ along with nations like Egypt have done pretty well economically given their socioeconomic conditions at the end of colonization, and considering the massive drain of wealth and resources to their colonizers undertaken over centuries.
- classicsnoot 10y ago
  Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...
  - wz1000 10y ago
    No nation can exist in a vacuum. Your "criteria" excludes pretty much every country in the world. Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in. India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.