Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Great question Don!

Would work great to divide some blue and red regions in the United States ... certainly to satisfaction of its citizens and return a feeling of being represented. The forming of a coalition government with more than two grand parties may be a first step ... overhaul the elitist Electoral College. Giving women a vote plus the African Americans was a great step backward for the AngloSaxon imperialist empire. See suffragettes events at Carnegie's Peace Palace in The Hague. See my diary - Women's Suffrage Archive Film Clip 1915 .

    Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "The White Man's Burden"  was published in 1899, during a high tide of British and American rhetoric about bringing the blessings of "civilization and progress" to barbaric non-Western, non-Christian, non-white peoples. In Kipling's often-quoted phrase, this noble mission required willingness to engage in "savage wars of peace."

    Three savage turn-of-the-century conflicts defined the milieu in which such rhetoric flourished: the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 in South Africa; the U.S. conquest and occupation of the Philippines initiated in 1899; and the anti-foreign Boxer Uprising in China that provoked intervention by eight foreign nations in 1900.

    The imperialist rhetoric of "civilization" versus "barbarism" that took root during these years was reinforced in both the United States and England by a small flood of political cartoons--commonly executed in full color and with meticulous attention to detail.

    H/T Dutch version here

Apartheid: made in Britain: Richard Dowden explains how Churchill, Rhodes and Smuts caused black South Africans to lose their rights
High tide of British and American rhetoric about bringing the blessings of "civilization and progress"

It's my understanding both South Ossetia and Abkhazia seek independence from Georgia, not Russia.

John McCain's remarks on Georgia were derived from Wikipedia by Frank Schnittger @BooMan on Aug. 14, 2008
McCain's Ties with Lobbyist Scheunemann and Georgia
Hegemon Hold 'Em by Jeff Huber @BooMan on Aug. 25, 2008
Abkhazia and S Ossetia Claim Independence

As far as Spain's Catalan separatist movement ... Europe is enforcing unity. Some may prefer an United States of Europe ... wishful thinking.  :-)

If Catalonia goes independent, these places could be next | CNBC |

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Mon Jan 8th, 2018 at 07:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice deflection. Regardless of whether one necessarily approves of the governments in, say, Ukraine or Georgia, the question still remains if these nations have a right to sort out their own internal affairs without Russian invasion or interference. Seems like a straightforward enough question.

Think of it this way. The US undoubtedly possesses the military strength to annex portions of Mexico - let's pretend there was some discovery of significant oil reserves off the shores of Baja California, and since our current regime is in the mood to drill like madness, such reserves would be tempting to exploit. With a good propaganda effort, the current US regime could even make this annexation appear to be a plausible "popular" move that reflects the "will" of the residents of Baja California. Would that be acceptable? We could game out similar scenarios regarding Canadian territory. Would a US annexation of those territories be acceptable? Would you be willing to write those off as "independence movements" on the part of those annexed?

Where do we draw the line - especially when it comes to the rights of the neighbors of a major regional power or world power with regard to managing their own internal affairs without fear of interference? I don't know if I have much of an answer, but I do think it is a fair question to be asked.

"There are no innocents. There are, however, different degrees of responsibility." -- Lisbeth Salander

by Don Durito on Mon Jan 8th, 2018 at 08:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do these nations (Ukraine, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Honduras, Angola, Haitia, India, &tc.) have a right to sort out their own internal affairs without Russian invasion or interference?

The answer to specific and general causes of such action (intervention, interference, invasion) by foreign states, eg. Russia, UNSC, USA, &tc, is, no. World history is littered with justifications (alliance, "just war", R2P). This should explain why political dissents in one nation-state frequently request and receive material and financial aid from another nation-state in order to prosecute civil wars.

As a practical matter, you need not trust that Russia did not start civil wars in Ukraine and Georgia. Or that constituents in both nations had rejected their governments' bureaucracies and especially torrid corruption of their heads of state before requesting foreign "aid" -- be that billions-EUR-USD IMF debt, peace-keeping patrols, munitions or "technical" training.

The more interesting question is, which states do not expect invasion? It's a short list of OEMs.

Finally, the applicability of the "rights" of a sovereign government is intended by unscrupulous politicians to be a problematic test of their personal legitimacy and constituents' appetites for profiteering adventures elsewhere.  Ideally and regardless of government form, a nation-state constitutes itself in sui generis origin of "rights" granted to or withdrawn from its constituents, citizens. For a nation-state acquires, or incorporates, supreme authorities from no other source but manifest obedience of the people to that authority. When that obedience evaporates, who generated the most advertising to promote civil war or generate donor funding for civil war counts for nothing but future sales.

Isn't it strange that by all accounts, Russia has posted poor returns on its "meddling & interference" by comparison to its peers.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Jan 12th, 2018 at 01:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series