|
Author
|
Topic: What should be done about bad/failed states?
|
|
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 17 July 2004 03:51 AM
What is a failed state? Who defines it, Colin Powell?Is it one that doesn't have open markets? One that hasn't fully enacted the IMF's Structural Adjustment perscriptions for Success in 30 days guaranteed!? Ones whose leaders, former employees of the US government, refuse to follow orders? Who determines what is a failed state? George Bush? What are the criteria?
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 17 July 2004 06:29 PM
It's not just a question of who decides which states are bad/failed, but who should be doing something about them. Or even, should anything be done at all?
Maybe, if peoples were left alone to decide what works for them, there wouldn't be quite so many bad/failed states... If a country is aggressive toward its neighbours or cruel to its citizens, maybe the UN should put a "Don't Sell Guns Here" label on it, issue a warning to traders and travellers, and then carpet its government in front of a peer-review board (by peer, i mean countries of similar size, with a similar socio-economic structure) and try to help them figure out how best to solve their problems and what help they might need. Of course, every country - like every individual - ought to be free to decide with whom it wants to be friends and whom it wants to avoid. Then stick to that decision, instead of saying, "Well, yeah, their human rights record stinks, but we'll do business with them anyway."
It's quite simple, really: be true to your own stated principles.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 27 July 2004 01:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by shannifromregina:
But didn't the Americans give alot of these countries weapons? Like Hussien, wasn't he friends with the american's at one point in time?
Yes, and a lot of dictators would never have gained power without their US 'friends'. That's what i meant by leaving other countries alone in the first place.
Of course, it's not only the US that interferes; all powerful nations do it, and have always done it, in various ways, from sending humanitarian aid in an emergency, through trade agreements, arms shipments, economic advice, investment, loans with bloody great ropes attached, military intervention, partition, blockade, all the way to conquest and colonization.
The question of how and why a nation 'failed' is historical and interconnected, rather than political and local. Retention of data for more than three days would help to understand the problem.
quote:
So why now does the americans want to bully all these countries that they once were supplying the weapons, and then going in and bombing the people to find the weapons again? What is the point?
The point is (always!) that they want something those countries have. Old 'friends' let them down, maybe don't hand over the goodies as readily as they used to; therefore new 'friends' must be installed in their place. And sometimes a war on the other side of the world is simply a way to accomplish something entirely unrelated at home.
If they wanted to help the people, they wouldn't be hurting the people. That simple.
(Trust your instinct, even if you're not sure of the right words.)[ 27 July 2004: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
