3 ms·
If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war. If a Nigerian politic
by blagie 5y ago
If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war.
If a Nigerian politician signs a treaty while receiving bribes or election support from a Western or Chinese oil company, that doesn't mean "a country" sees a benefit.
If a country signs a treaty at a risk of being ostracized by the world, it's taking the lesser of two evils.
And if you take a child bride from a war zone, it's a free exchange, with both sides seeing benefit. However, that doesn't mean it's fair or non-coercive. Power imbalances can allow for pretty nasty, unfair deals.
I have a comment elsewhere in this thread with examples, both modern and going back 200 years.
- throwaway894345 5y agoOf course, "the western IP regime" didn't become ubiquitous because of these kinds of coercive practices even if some of them have happened historically. They happened because both sides saw a benefit. Of course, even absent malicious coercion, power imbalances can remain, but invoking "fairness" implies some objective (or otherwise agreeable) standard which patently doesn't exist. Just say you wish Russia (or whomever) had more negotiating power if that's what you mean. The closest we can get to an objective standard is: each side can freely (i.e., absent malicious coercion) choose for themselves.