NationStates Jolt Archive

I've run into a lot of posters here that, consciously or not, oppose the philosophical notion of national soveriegnty and/or state semi-soveriegnty. Well tell me, what is so bad about these notions?

Often it is a barrier to US aggression, and this can be troublesome to advocates of that policy.

I am not particularly fond of it myself in a philosophical sense, being opposed to most states, but practically it is a good way to prevent war and imperialism, at least when a certain superpower decides to respect it - which is rarely, and only when it suits its hypocritical tendencies.

Lots of heated arguements over where to place the dotted lines.

losing national soveriegnty is a scary thing as countries lose power over their own nation. Take the EU, the Euro has meant that all countries involved in the Euro lost the control of interest rates therefore not being able to control the economy nearly as efectively

It boils down to power - many people are drunk with the prospects of power - the ability to control other people; be it big business, adult entertainers, schools or other nations. They feel that the consolidation of power is good because they are under the mistaken belief that they will be able to control the monster after it is animated.

It boils down to power - many people are drunk with the prospects of power - the ability to control other people; be it big business, adult entertainers, schools or other nations. They feel that the consolidation of power is good because they are under the mistaken belief that they will be able to control the monster after it is animated.


well, that covers the power-mad statists who want to be able to control entire nations and hide behind the ridiculous concept of national sovereignty. but what about their opponents? once you play the 'evils of power' card, you have nowhere to go but the elimination of nation states in their entirety.

Often it is a barrier to US aggression,

That didn't take long!

and this can be troublesome to advocates of that policy.

How so?

I am not particularly fond of it myself in a philosophical sense, being opposed to most states, but practically it is a good way to prevent war and imperialism, at least when a certain superpower decides to respect it - which is rarely, and only when it suits its hypocritical tendencies.

I love how this poster picks on the US.

Here's a selection of "semi-independent states" and "autonomous regions". Some of these regions or states have various degrees of self-rule or sovereignty. In some cases, this semi-independence was supposed to be a temporary solution, but it became quite permanent.

1) Spain's Catalunia -- autonomous region, language laws & education
Status: Political solution. Stable for the last 25 years.

2) UK' Scotland -- has its own parliment and control over "internal affairs"
Status: Political solution. May or may not lead to greater independence in the future. Depends on the evolution of the EU.

3) Andorra -- until recently, control over this tiny principalty was shared between France (political rule) and Spain (religious rule)
Status: Was stable for 200+ years. Then, in a national referendum in the 1980s, Andorra became fully independent. Currently, its most profitable industries are tourism, duty-free shopping and is a safe haven for banks.

4) Canada's Quebec province -- control over language laws, education, immigration; the only province that refused to sign the canadian constitution of 1982
Status: About half of Quebec's population would like the province to secede. Last referendum in 1995 was lost by the independentists by 1%. The federal government tries to find a solution that would (maybe?) give more autonomy without losing the province.

5) Canada's Nunavut -- territory with a high degree of autonomy; 80% Inuit people, with their official language & alphabet; original justice system; control over their mineral & gaz resources; they rely heavily on federal money though
Status: This northern territory was carved from the NWT territory. It gained its new status in 2000. Diamonds and sapphires were found recently in this region; it may become much richer. Right now, it provides about 4% of the world's diamonds.

6) Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia -- fate of this region is uncertain, it might for a federation with Georgia... or obtain full independence... or control over it may be gained by Georgia's military...
Status: Highly unpredictable.

Please note that I have voluntarily chosen 6 very different examples, in order to show the possibilities & situations.

The main argument against 'state sovereignty' can be extended, more or less, to attack certain points of national sovereignty.

Namely, the rationale is that people are entitled to certain rights regardless of where they live or the will of local majorities. This is a matter of law in the US, as we have a national constitution.

The idea can be extended to say "human beings have certain inviolable rights, regardless of where they live and regardless of the will of majorities."

That basic idea in play is that of the Rule of Law, that there are laws which transcend legislatures and trump the tyranny of the majority.

The main argument against 'state sovereignty' can be extended, more or less, to attack certain points of national sovereignty.

Namely, the rationale is that people are entitled to certain rights regardless of where they live or the will of local majorities. This is a matter of law in the US, as we have a national constitution.

The idea can be extended to say "human beings have certain inviolable rights, regardless of where they live and regardless of the will of majorities."

That basic idea in play is that of the Rule of Law, that there are laws which transcend legislatures and trump the tyranny of the majority.

Indeed. Well said. I would mention that the Rule of Law that CAN transcend national soveriegnty can come from general principles of human rights or more specific arrangements and agreements between states and super-state entities.

i.e. I would suggest that the non-proliferation treaties for Nukes is a surrender of national soveriegnty in the pursuit of better future.

I know the US administration does not or really has never supported full national sovereignity in the Third World. This is obviously apparent by Condoleeza Rice's speech at the OAS where she proposed a bill that would allow invasion of OAS states in support of Democracy. Obviously centred around Venezuela. Luckily, Latin America is beginning to wake up and rejected that and supported all of the ALBA-sponsored bills. In Africa, the only nation taking full steps to remove the inequalities and segregation of the past is Zimbabwe (South Africa will soon follow judging by the land reform council coming up), yet the US and UK both hate Mugabe and Zimbabwe for their empowerment of the native population. In Europe, there is only one nation not following behind the IMF and Neo-Liberalism and that is Belarus, of course the US hates them too. The US supports National Sovereignity just as much as when it proposed that Korea be under post-war occupation for another decade because "Koreans weren't ready to run themselves".

philisophically, for me, its because a person has no saying over their place of birth - its all down to chance. there are 6 billion people in the world, and lets say a billion of those live in 1st world "Western" countries. this means that you have a 1 in 6 chance of being born in an affluent country; or a 5 in 6 chance of being born in a poorer country. countries just divide people - we are all the same in reality; by putting up these arbitary and imaginary boundaries between the people of the world, we create all sorts of problems: war, inequality, social problems such as racism, etc...

national boundaries = bad

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

actually, the Palestineans are supported by about 95% of the middle east and probably about 95% of the world. Israel and the US are the only nations that are against them. Human rights violators? yes and I suppose the US-backed regimes in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Panama, Cambodia, Somalia and Spain (until 1974) in the 1970s were great examples of human rights. Between them only about 5-10 million people died.

edit: also, you mentioned Libya, Zimbabwe, Cuba and China. All 4 are revered and admired in their respective regions and continents.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with national sovereignty or the right to self determination. There is however a group of people comprised of select international bankers, intellectuals and weathy corporate dynasty types (David Rockefeller) that believe and are starting to implement a plan that has been in development for the past 40 years to usurp control over all nations and implement a global socialism to be ruled by a group of 250 to 350 elites.

Until several years ago their existence was denied and those that mentioned them were dismissed as nutcases, however, now that their groundwork is largely finished they make little secret of it any longer. It is these people who wish to destroy the concept of national sovereignty in order to make the transition easy.

How so?

Because US aggression routinely violates national sovereignty. The example of Iraq comes immediately to mind, though there are others.

I love how this poster picks on the US.

It is a sacred duty to criticize governments with large numbers of evil policies, especially when one is a citizen of such a state.

I know the US administration does not or really has never supported full national sovereignity in the Third World. This is obviously apparent by Condoleeza Rice's speech at the OAS where she proposed a bill that would allow invasion of OAS states in support of Democracy. Obviously centred around Venezuela. Luckily, Latin America is beginning to wake up and rejected that and supported all of the ALBA-sponsored bills. In Africa, the only nation taking full steps to remove the inequalities and segregation of the past is Zimbabwe (South Africa will soon follow judging by the land reform council coming up), yet the US and UK both hate Mugabe and Zimbabwe for their empowerment of the native population. In Europe, there is only one nation not following behind the IMF and Neo-Liberalism and that is Belarus, of course the US hates them too. The US supports National Sovereignity just as much as when it proposed that Korea be under post-war occupation for another decade because "Koreans weren't ready to run themselves".

Remove inequalities and segregations? How so, by discriminating against whites? Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. And in Zimbabwe, it will be recalled that land is not given to poor, landless blacks as that fucker Mugabe said it would, but instead to his political supporters.

I've run into a lot of posters here that, consciously or not, oppose the philosophical notion of national soveriegnty and/or state semi-soveriegnty. Well tell me, what is so bad about these notions?

They serve no purpose other than to give people a reason to kill eachother.

Nationalism only takes a backseat to religion as the leading cause of death in the world. :(

Because US aggression routinely violates national sovereignty. The example of Iraq comes immediately to mind, though there are others.

You also know that Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions, a UN Cease-fire, violated Human Rights of millions of people. Executed Hundreds of Thousands because they questioned him. Maimed others. His Sons raped women infront of their husbands. Thank God we went into Iraq and put an end to all of that.

It is a sacred duty to criticize governments with large numbers of evil policies, especially when one is a citizen of such a state.

In large part yes, I agree with you here though what is an evil policy to one, is not an evil policy to another.

Actually, not true. You can't say that after centuries of enslavement and colonization that the whites and blacks in Africa can now "peacefully co-exist". Things have to be corrected and that is by giving the native population the things that were stolen from them. Mugabe did not only give the land to political supporters, the whites even refused to obey the laws and fought to keep "their" land. This led to militias being formed to take that land back. I don't think whites in Africa, who benefited and didn't mind owning everything and watching the apartheid, can complain now that their monsterous estates are in the hands of those that really own it. Mugabe is quite a hero in Africa, he is greatly admired by most outside of the US and UK. Like it or not, he is doing what all of Africa will have to do.

They serve no purpose other than to give people a reason to kill eachother.

Nationalism only takes a backseat to religion as the leading cause of death in the world. :(

I thought it was heart disease?

I thought it was heart disease?


Speaking of death and the causes of death, did you catch a rather interesting bit of news these last couple days, Corneliu?

RE: The late Mrs. Schiavo?

Speaking of death and the causes of death, did you catch a rather interesting bit of news these last couple days, Corneliu?

RE: The late Mrs. Schiavo?

I don't pay attention to the news anymore because its all the same but that bit did get to me.

You ought to take a look-see at this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426011

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/mission.htm

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/innocents.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/redfordan.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/terrorism.html

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos22.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos10.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos21.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos19.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos20.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos8.asp

http://rhodesian.server101.com/wzim02b.jpg

You also know that Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions, a UN Cease-fire, violated Human Rights of millions of people. Executed Hundreds of Thousands because they questioned him. Maimed others. His Sons raped women infront of their husbands. Thank God we went into Iraq and put an end to all of that.

If the US were interested in helping the Iraqi people you might have a point. But it isn't.

It has an interest in its continued domination of the Middle East, regardless of how many Iraqi children must be slaughtered to achieve that aim. The neoliberal policies Bush has imposed on Iraq will certainly kill tens of thousands, as the war and the human rights crisis sparked by the war already have.

If the US were interested in helping the Iraqi people you might have a point. But it isn't.

Prove it Soheran.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/mission.htm

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/innocents.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/redfordan.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/terrorism.html

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos22.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos10.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos21.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos19.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos20.asp

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos8.asp

http://rhodesian.server101.com/wzim02b.jpg

What do you think of your hero Mugabe now, Karuchea?

Prove it Soheran.

The slaughter of the inhabitants of Fallujah helps.

So is Bush's continued support of, say, Uzbekistan, which is blatantly hypocritical for anyone who claims to back democracy, freedom, and human rights.

Or his backing of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for the same reason.

Or the simple fact that the possessors of concentrated power, with only a few minor exceptions, do not tend to operate in a benevolent fashion.

The exact same thing. A white-dominated anything can't tell me what to believe. The simple fact is that the US is working and funding terrorists in Zimbabwe that fought the land reform and continue to fight in the name of white-supremacy and Capitalism. What Zimbabwe is right now is in a near-civil war, there are two paths, one is a neo-liberal path of Capitalism and the other is the path of Socialism. Which one they choose is up to the people. My sources though, are mainly from inside South Africa and Namibia with some coming from Cuba and some coming from independant Rasta sources.

The exact same thing. A white-dominated anything can't tell me what to believe. The simple fact is that the US is working and funding terrorists in Zimbabwe that fought the land reform and continue to fight in the name of white-supremacy and Capitalism. What Zimbabwe is right now is in a near-civil war, there are two paths, one is a neo-liberal path of Capitalism and the other is the path of Socialism. Which one they choose is up to the people. My sources though, are mainly from inside South Africa and Namibia with some coming from Cuba and some coming from independant Rasta sources.

So those pictures of innocent people- mostly blacks- who were slaughtered in cold blood mean nothing to you?

Slaughtered by whom? It is much like how you can twist the images of skulls and say they were slaughtered, if you do not have evidence of who killed them, it is left to imply. That tactic is very popular, especially in the Cold War era, where you could simply show a battlefield and leave it to imply the other side did it. Also very popular with the "famine" in China, show a few dead and claim they starved to death, yet when WEB Du Bois visited and went around China he saw nothing of the sort. It breaks my heart to see people dead, but ultimately we must destroy the system of Neo-Liberalism and recover the Third World from the poverty and enslavement that Capitalism has wrought on them.

Slaughtered by whom? It is much like how you can twist the images of skulls and say they were slaughtered, if you do not have evidence of who killed them, it is left to imply. That tactic is very popular, especially in the Cold War era, where you could simply show a battlefield and leave it to imply the other side did it. Also very popular with the "famine" in China, show a few dead and claim they starved to death, yet when WEB Du Bois visited and went around China he saw nothing of the sort. It breaks my heart to see people dead, but ultimately we must destroy the system of Neo-Liberalism and recover the Third World from the poverty and enslavement that Capitalism has wrought on them.

You're a sick person. You know that? When Leftists slaughter people, it means nothing to you. Moreover, you blame it all on capitalism, and on people who committed no such atrocities, or at least not the atrocities in question.

I thought it was heart disease?

Heart Disease is fourth.

Third is boredom.

losing national soveriegnty is a scary thing as countries lose power over their own nation. Take the EU, the Euro has meant that all countries involved in the Euro lost the control of interest rates therefore not being able to control the economy nearly as efectively
How much do you know about Macroeconomics? In a free market like the EU, in which capital can flow freely, no nation can control its' interest rates anyways, because of a fairly complex process in which the markets move interest rates to the international level again. The idea that you could somehow control an economy previously is wrong.

-snip-
I didn't think the UN had much to do with national sovereignty. It can't make any nation do anything, and that's often one thing UN-crtics bring up against it.
Also I would like to see some links to all the things you said about drug-using perverts, anti-semitism and so on.

--------
National Sovereignty is an outdated concept. These days, which globalisation and more and more free trade, domestic policies are becoming irrelevant anyways.
Apart from my interest rate example above, big business has now a choice to go wherever it wants. If your government (eg the US) is sovereign, and today decides it needs money and raises the tax on business, guess what happens? All Business leaves for places with lower taxes (eg Germany right now...so much for your socialist nanny-states), leaving behind Unemployment and social turmoil.
Any other domestic policy is the same, you always have to make sure it benefits big business, or risk having them leave and being crushed at the next election. Therefore National Sovereignty does no longer exist.

So the only thing left to do for a sovereign nation is declare war on people. Great. Many of you will know my stance on that issue, I personally don't think that is something we need to preserve.

Anyone of the opinion that state majorities ought to have a 'majority ruled' trump over federal rights?

ie, 'state sovereignty'

No, I am saying I need evidance which proves Mugabe did it. If he did slaughter innocent people, then I will stop supporting him, however, propaganda is not enough to prove him a criminal without some evidance from unbiased sources.

I've run into a lot of posters here that, consciously or not, oppose the philosophical notion of national soveriegnty and/or state semi-soveriegnty. Well tell me, what is so bad about these notions?


Ask yourself this.

Is it possible to achieve world peace by following the principle of national soveriegnty?

Yes, then ask yourself if it is possible to achieve world peace.

Yes, then ask yourself if it is possible to achieve world peace.
If you keep having groups of people (ie nations) with different interests, usually born out of nationalism rather than actual need, then not.
If you don't have nations anymore, but one world government, it is much less likely that a meaningfully sized group of people is going to use violence.

Interesting (if slightly disappointing) that nobody wants to answer my previous post, though.

Ask yourself this.

Is it possible to achieve world peace by following the principle of national soveriegnty?

As long as there are two men on earth they will find a reason and a way to fight. But we are slowing progressing and will continue to advance until such time that competition among us stops. The elimination of national sovereignty or a right to self determination will cause the largest blood bath in the history of the world and if successful world wide socialism will cause the continuance of this process to the point that life and death itself will become a managed industry. One world government will amount to global slavery ruled by a group of unelected eliets so far removed from the people you will become an inventoried asset or liability and treated as such. If you subscribe to this foolish theroy then make damn sure you're in the selected group because if not you will have condemed your children and grandchildren to life as a slave.

Liverbreath']...will cause the largest blood bath in the history of the world and if successful world wide socialism will cause the continuance of this process to the point that life and death itself will become a managed industry....
As opposed to an unregulated industry?
Or how did I misunderstand you? What does socialism have to do with slavery?

Liverbreath']As long as there are two men on earth they will find a reason and a way to fight. But we are slowing progressing and will continue to advance until such time that competition among us stops. The elimination of national sovereignty or a right to self determination will cause the largest blood bath in the history of the world and if successful world wide socialism will cause the continuance of this process to the point that life and death itself will become a managed industry. One world government will amount to global slavery ruled by a group of unelected eliets so far removed from the people you will become an inventoried asset or liability and treated as such. If you subscribe to this foolish theroy then make damn sure you're in the selected group because if not you will have condemed your children and grandchildren to life as a slave.
wow you seem pretty convinced of this. care to explain why this is so, rather than just make baseless appraisals of socialism?

Ask yourself this.

Is it possible to achieve world peace by following the principle of national soveriegnty?

Of course. World peace (like many other utopian goals) is dependent on well-behaved people, not political philosophies or economic systems. You can choose whatever political or economic system you like and throw bad people into that system and the whole thing will likely get fucked up. In the same way, you can throw good people into whatever political or economic system you like and it will likely succeed. [Caveat: As long as no outside interfering factors skew the results.]

I've run into a lot of posters here that, consciously or not, oppose the philosophical notion of national soveriegnty and/or state semi-soveriegnty. Well tell me, what is so bad about these notions?
My primary opposition to absolute national sovereignty is because the theory would allow the people and government of a nation to do just about anything. "Sovereignty" could be used as an argument against the removal of a government that committs mass murder and genocide within its own borders. Such vast violations of human rights should not be allowed in the world.

See Cambodia, Iraq, etc.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
-snip-
Stop cutting and pasting this irrelevant rant into every thread. MAss threadjacking is probably against the rules.

Liverbreath']
Until several years ago their existence was denied and those that mentioned them were dismissed as nutcases, however, now that their groundwork is largely finished they make little secret of it any longer.
If they make so little secret of it, surely it should be easy for you to find sources to back up your claims!

You also know that Hussein violated 17 UN Resolutions, a UN Cease-fire, violated Human Rights of millions of people. Executed Hundreds of Thousands because they questioned him. Maimed others. His Sons raped women infront of their husbands. Thank God we went into Iraq and put an end to all of that.

In large part yes, I agree with you here though what is an evil policy to one, is not an evil policy to another.
How does the second part of your post reconcile with the first? Maybe Saddam, Uday and Qusay didn't think that their policies were evil, though they certainly were.

It has an interest in its continued domination of the Middle East, regardless of how many Iraqi children must be slaughtered to achieve that aim. The neoliberal policies Bush has imposed on Iraq will certainly kill tens of thousands, as the war and the human rights crisis sparked by the war already have.
None of which is as bad as what Hussein was putting the country through.

Prove it Soheran.
No country ever has any altruistic motivations in its foreign policy. Self-interest is what it's all about.

So is Bush's continued support of, say, Uzbekistan, which is blatantly hypocritical for anyone who claims to back democracy, freedom, and human rights.

Or his backing of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for the same reason.

I agree.

Ask yourself this.

Is it possible to achieve world peace by following the principle of national soveriegnty?
Words like "possible" and "workable" mean nothing to Super-power. I learned some time ago that he is an ideologue, pure and simple, right or wrong.

The slaughter of the inhabitants of Fallujah helps.

:rolleyes:

Fallujah wasn't a slaughter. Would you prefer that we just carpet bombed the whole city? The majority of the people killed were terrorists and we gave them enough time to vacate the city. Please....

So is Bush's continued support of, say, Uzbekistan, which is blatantly hypocritical for anyone who claims to back democracy, freedom, and human rights.

Actually, I think Bush backs the people in their drive to a better democracy.

Or his backing of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for the same reason.

They are becoming more democratic (in theory anyway) Why? Our invasion in Iraq.

Or the simple fact that the possessors of concentrated power, with only a few minor exceptions, do not tend to operate in a benevolent fashion.

As is the way with most dictatorships

Heart Disease is fourth.

Third is boredom.

Damn! :D

Thanks Lunatic! :)

Sovereignty is the ability for a people to direct the destiny of its own land. This is good, and most people strive to do this.

But sovereignty can be lost, either by military action, or by the dynamics of the world;

Sovereignty lost by military action can be re-taken by military action too, lets say, country A conquers country B, but country B rebels and recovers is sovereignty.

Sovereignty can also be lost by the dynamics of the world; The integration of the global economy is a sign of this: Smaller countries have either two choices: Isolacionism, or opening up to the world, and forces that generally are incontralable to the national goverment. The goverments of most countries in the world are too weak to face corporate interests, and are too dependent (by reasons of economy) to other nations. This curtails their ability to act in defence of their own interests. Lets give an example: Small to medium sized country A wants to put in order enviromental laws, but since if he was to it, all poluting companies would rather go away to other country than to comply, country A cannot put in order enviromental laws, or any other laws (if you take the situation to the extreme).

In order to face this, some countries choose to give away sovereignty in certain aspects, to gain it in others: The EU is the paramount example of this. No EU country alone could have faced Microsoft, so they gave away their sovereignty to the Comission, that then has the power (because it is big enough) to act in behalf of the interests of the EU members.

They are becoming more democratic (in theory anyway) Why? Our invasion in Iraq.

Ooh, goody, the Tarkin Doctrine in action. Y'know, make an example of somewhere you can take with little trouble, and everywhere else will fall in line.

Ooh, goody, the Tarkin Doctrine in action. Y'know, make an example of somewhere you can take with little trouble, and everywhere else will fall in line.

Libya is giving up their WMD
Kuwait is allowing the women the right to vote
Limited Democracy in Saudi Arabia

And its called the Domino Theory. :rolleyes:

Libya is giving up their WMD
Kuwait is allowing the women the right to vote
Limited Democracy in Saudi Arabia

And its called the Domino Theory. :rolleyes:


Libya had no WMD, however, they have managed to extort favor from the US by refraining from making any. Which would obviously never have served their interests as well as this new state of affairs. :rolleyes:


Hooray for kuwaiti women. Pray tell, the connection to the iraq adventure?

The idea that the saudis could ever be compelled to do anything by the US is absurd.

China would be more than happy to buy every drop of their oil.

Libya is giving up their WMD
Kuwait is allowing the women the right to vote
Limited Democracy in Saudi Arabia

And its called the Domino Theory. :rolleyes:

The fact that it works is still irrelevent. The Tarkin Doctrine was what caused the Empire to build the Death Star - so they could blow things up easily and make everyone else give in through fear. I'm aware that it's fiction, but sometimes we can learn from fiction.

And yes, the Domino Effect is the other name for it, thank you for reminding me. Remember that dominos get knocked down and take a long time to set back up.