NationStates Jolt Archive

Another thread gave me an idea. Should there be some kind of organization attached to the UN to takeover and build up entire nations? The idea would be that an outside political and advisory force would take over a third world nation and build a vibrant economy and then set up a stable government. Seems to me that some nations out there just can't get their shit together. Could they then ask for a outside organization to come in and help their shattered governments and economies? The funding could come from wealthy nations. The return for them is less of a flood of third world immigrants and a possible new source of exports and imports? Does this sound to crazy to work?

This branch actually already exists. It is called the United States of America.

It goes into oppressive, poor countries, and replaces their governments with friendli...er, more prosperous ones.

This branch actually already exists. It is called the United States of America.

It goes into oppressive, poor countries, and replaces their governments with friendli...er, more prosperous ones.

Yeah well, this is why this type of orginization is needed.

Two words: Self Determination. You don't like it? Fine just declare yourselves openly neocolonialists...

Another thread gave me an idea. Should there be some kind of organization attached to the UN to takeover and build up entire nations? The idea would be that an outside political and advisory force would take over a third world nation and build a vibrant economy and then set up a stable government. Seems to me that some nations out there just can't get their shit together. Could they then ask for a outside organization to come in and help their shattered governments and economies? The funding could come from wealthy nations. The return for them is less of a flood of third world immigrants and a possible new source of exports and imports? Does this sound to crazy to work?

This is a pretty bad idea historically speaking, even if requested. Has there ever been a case where a foreign intervention in a third world country has succeeded? The culture has to develop from within. You simply can't waltz in and change the habits that lead to the corruption, despotism, tribalism and other problems that keep them in such a mess. There are ways to foster them, but this isn't one.

This is a pretty bad idea historically speaking, even if requested. Has there ever been a case where a foreign intervention in a third world country has succeeded? The culture has to develop from within. You simply can't waltz in and change the habits that lead to the corruption, despotism, tribalism and other problems that keep them in such a mess. There are ways to foster them, but this isn't one.

Culture of a particular nation is largely to blame for it's problems or lack thereof. Education is a big part of changing attitudes and would have to be addressed. The culture of corruption is directly caused by the governing body. If you could replace it with a transparent government free of corruption it will set the tone for change. Set a time-line for free elections after the project is complete. Coincide the interim government with basic infrastructure and national monetary overhaul should be able to set the tone for a path to prosperity. Of course all this shouldn't be forced on any nation only ones that request help.

Just toying with the idea really. In the real world the UN is not a model of transparency and corruption free.

And who decides what's the 'best' government for a people to have, the USA presumably...

The basis of the idea sounds simple, even quite altruistic.

Unfortunately as we've seen, the way it actually occurs generally results in exploitation of the weaker country and a complete failure to achieve what was supposed to be achieved.

However...I think that if done by the right organization, we might actually be able to see something like this work. But it couldn't be done by a country directly...not that it can't be government funded, but it shouldn't be government run. It should be privately run, preferably by a group that has no interest in any sort of exploitation...a non-profit organization, if you will. It might be worth a try.

Two words: Self Determination. You don't like it? Fine just declare yourselves openly neocolonialists...

National self determination is not a right when it infringes on other nations negatively. An example would be a nations citizens pouring across a border into another nation due to a bad government.

And who decides what's the 'best' government for a people to have, the USA presumably...

I would suggest nation that asks for help or a pariah nation is chosen based on careful UN debate. I wouldn't go around starting wars to replace governments unless there was genocide taking place.

With the caveat that they can only interfere when the country in question formally requests assistance, I'd say it'd be a great idea. I don't see how that would interfere with self-determination if the country requested their assistance. Assuming that the commission undertakes a certain obligatory amount of time to simply do in depth research and assess the local cultural and political geography as well as bring in consultants from the country itself to figure out the best agenda to set up, it could work wonders. Of course, it couldn't be forced on any country, nor, even after the country asked for assistance, could anyone force the country to follow the plans outlined (though, certain trade agreements contingent upon certain milestones being met, or very obvious effort being made towards them, could be wrapped up in the plan).

National self determination is not a right when it infringes on other nations negatively. An example would be a nations citizens pouring across a border into another nation due to a bad government.
How is (a hyperbolic assessment of) immigration ‘national self-determination’?

I would suggest nation that asks for help or a pariah nation is chosen based on careful UN debate. I wouldn’t go around starting wars to replace governments unless there was genocide taking place.
Problem is, the US has veto power over the UNSC and thus veto power over any UNSC and general UN resolution.

‘Careful’ UN debate doesn’t stand much chance.

How is (a hyperbolic assessment of) immigration ‘national self-determination’?


Problem is, the US has veto power over the UNSC and thus veto power over any UNSC and general UN resolution.

‘Careful’ UN debate doesn’t stand much chance.

Maybe I didn't clarify my point on refugees pouring across a national border because of their home nations shitty government. If everyone has a right nationally to choose their own government which is national self determination. I say that is fine until it starts to negatively impact the neighboring nations. I used an example of population exodus as a very real world problem. Some examples would be Zimbabwe to South Africa. Mexico to the United States. East/North African nations to Europe.

I would suggest nation that asks for help or a pariah nation is chosen based on careful UN debate. I wouldn't go around starting wars to replace governments unless there was genocide taking place.
I feel the need to quote Stalin, 'The Pope? How many divisions has he got?'. I think the sentiment is the same here, to overthrow a state you need boots on the ground, and lots of them if the populace resists, which means such an organization would immediately be beholden to the member-state with the greatest military, the USA, and thus the definition of what the 'best government' is would lay with the USA. Every jingoistic ideology claims a subjective monopoly on truth.

If we leave it up to the people in charge to request it, they would have no reason to. They would be the ones benefiting from corruption, etc. Saddam wasn't about to ask anyone to reform his country for him.

If we let any large group in the country ask, then we have to determine if that group is big enough to stand for the populace and if the request is legitimate. Is this group really trying to get rid of the oppression, or are they just unhappy with the current government? For example, before the last election, could the Democratic party ask the UN to help overthrow Bush and the Republican Congress?

This branch actually already exists. It is called the United States of America.

It goes into oppressive, poor countries, and replaces their governments with friendli...er, more prosperous ones.

Give that man his Internet!

Culture of a particular nation is largely to blame for it's problems or lack thereof. Education is a big part of changing attitudes and would have to be addressed.

Education is indeed a major step. One means I was thinking of above was the sponsorship of long term (several year) student visas with scholarships to stable countries - major note: not solely the US.

The culture of corruption is directly caused by the governing body. If you could replace it with a transparent government free of corruption it will set the tone for change.

History has shown time and again that this is reversed. The culture of corruption causes corrupt governance, not the other way around. You have to change the culture that shapes the governing body. That only happens through education and experience.

Set a time-line for free elections after the project is complete. Coincide the interim government with basic infrastructure and national monetary overhaul should be able to set the tone for a path to prosperity. Of course all this shouldn't be forced on any nation only ones that request help.

Horrible nations are sort of like the cliched alcohol, crack, or smack addict - sometimes they have to hit bottom first, admit they have a problem, and seek help befor they can effectively be helped.

Just toying with the idea really. In the real world the UN is not a model of transparency and corruption free.

The root questions involved are good ones...

Another thread gave me an idea. Should there be some kind of organization attached to the UN to takeover and build up entire nations? The idea would be that an outside political and advisory force would take over a third world nation and build a vibrant economy and then set up a stable government. Seems to me that some nations out there just can't get their shit together. Could they then ask for a outside organization to come in and help their shattered governments and economies? The funding could come from wealthy nations. The return for them is less of a flood of third world immigrants and a possible new source of exports and imports? Does this sound to crazy to work?

No. Wrong. This is a horrible idea. I could probably think of a worse approach to this problem, but it would have to involve war or some other sort of violence.

Culture of a particular nation is largely to blame for it's problems or lack thereof. Education is a big part of changing attitudes and would have to be addressed. The culture of corruption is directly caused by the governing body. If you could replace it with a transparent government free of corruption it will set the tone for change. Set a time-line for free elections after the project is complete. Coincide the interim government with basic infrastructure and national monetary overhaul should be able to set the tone for a path to prosperity. Of course all this shouldn't be forced on any nation only ones that request help.

Just toying with the idea really. In the real world the UN is not a model of transparency and corruption free.

Do you have any sort of evidence or logic to back up the claim that a "culture of corruption is directly caused by the governing body"? It would make more sense that the culture informs the government, or that they both inform each other. If either of those two situations are the case, your idea won't work.

Are your plans for infrastructure modelled on modern western nations? Do you think such a system would work for developing countries? What about the incredible amount of consumption that such developed infrastructure requires? How are these developing nations supposed to provide for that? What about the ecological implications?

And economic overhauls are also questionable. I would assume that free market solutions would be the proposed method of creating a vibrant economy. The IMF and the World Bank make these sorts of reforms obligatory when they hand out aid and loans to developing nations. There is a lot of debate (and little evidence) as to whether or not these reforms are helpful. Do you have any sort of evidence that such a market would help a developing nation?

National self determination is not a right when it infringes on other nations negatively. An example would be a nations citizens pouring across a border into another nation due to a bad government.

Your brand of neo-colonialism would have far more negative impacts than the imagined negative impacts associated with Mexican illegal immigrants in the USA.

I think what many people calling this neo-colonialism are misunderstanding is that this would be done at the behest of the country, not against their will. They would WANT it to happen or it wouldn't happen.

I think what many people calling this neo-colonialism are misunderstanding is that this would be done at the behest of the country, not against their will. They would WANT it to happen or it wouldn't happen.

Let's be realistic, shall we? Assuming that some country does invite these overlords in, do you honestly believe that the overlords won't simply install a government that promotes their own interest before the country's? The overlords may even honestly believe themselves to be helping the developing country, much the same way the USA believes it is helping Iraq.

History is full of examples of colonialism being rationalised in this manner. I believe the phrase is 'white man's burden'.

That's my kind of occupation.

National self determination is not a right when it infringes on other nations negatively. An example would be a nations citizens pouring across a border into another nation due to a bad government.

I must ask, should we invade Mexico and bomb it to hell? Or would that just make more of them come over here?

Oops. This topic was dead.

Another thread gave me an idea. Should there be some kind of organization attached to the UN to takeover and build up entire nations? The idea would be that an outside political and advisory force would take over a third world nation and build a vibrant economy and then set up a stable government. Seems to me that some nations out there just can't get their shit together. Could they then ask for a outside organization to come in and help their shattered governments and economies? The funding could come from wealthy nations. The return for them is less of a flood of third world immigrants and a possible new source of exports and imports? Does this sound to crazy to work?

no. i think every culture has a right to whatever forms of government the people of that culture feel most comfortable with. i just think though, that no government has the moral right to prevent anyone from moving from one they feel less at home in to one where they feel more so.

the problem with nations isn't arbitrary things like idiology, except when idiological fanatacism has brought them tyranny, but rather with cultural values which allow and facilitate this to happen.

i don't believe in one size fits all solutions, and that of course would be the problem with the approach suggested.

nations do need though to concern themselves with what kinds of examples they set for each other. and some sort of mechanism to encourage conscience and responsibility in all possitions of authority is certainly called for.

a carefully thought out code of international law, limiting that authority within strictly defined limits, and the international authority to enforce that, in an honest and unbiased manor would certainly be a useful tool.

this need not mandate stepping in and dectating governmental or idiological form. merely protecting the rights of ALL individuals from certainly universally agreable excessess of any government, reguardless of form or idiology.

=^^=
.../\...

Let's be realistic, shall we? Assuming that some country does invite these overlords in, do you honestly believe that the overlords won't simply install a government that promotes their own interest before the country's? The overlords may even honestly believe themselves to be helping the developing country, much the same way the USA believes it is helping Iraq.

History is full of examples of colonialism being rationalised in this manner. I believe the phrase is 'white man's burden'.

That would be why, as I proposed earlier, it be headed by a non-profit organization that has no self-interest to fulfill, rather than the government of a nation.