Comparing Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian answers...

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't see a foreign policy that furthers its promoter's economic interests as inherently imperialistic. I know the British Empire for a time adopted a "mercantilist" policy which was premised on economic gain for the Empire, but this was 2 centuries ago. With your view, the only acceptable foreign policy would be one that did not benefit its promoter.

Well, while Grandpa and I disagree on a lot of things, this happens to not be one of them.

The only acceptable foreign policy would be one that does not benefit its promoter through coercion.

There's nothing wrong with a foreign policy that benefits the country that implements it. But, when that benefit is enforced at gunpoint, that becomes an issue with people who love peace and freedom.

Or, in other words, harmony and abundance.

Which are you opposed to, harmony or abundance?

Keith

[rmnunez]

The only acceptable foreign policy would be one that does not benefit its promoter through coercion.

Then the sort of imperialism shown in a preference for Coca Cola, Hollywood movies, Levis or Rock & Roll should be discounted. And if this isn't the sort of imperialism complained of, then we can get into some specific cases of this expansionistic united statian foreign policy with examples of that coercive promotion.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez Then the sort of imperialism shown in a preference for Coca Cola, Hollywood movies, Levis or Rock & Roll should be discounted. And if this isn't the sort of imperialism complained of, then we can get into some specific cases of this expansionistic united statian foreign policy with examples of that coercive promotion.

I completely agree that if a private business uses physical coercion to expand their markets, they are wrong. Even if the only physical coercion they are using is the legal system of the country they are operating in. If Coca Cola uses the laws of, I don't know, let's say Uraguay just for kicks, to expand their market in Uraguay, they are doing wrong. If they're only using the legal system of Uraguay to get past restrictions on them entering the market, that's fine. If they're using the legal system to expand their own hold on the market by restricting someone else's access to the market, that's wrong.

It gets really hard to tell the difference in many countries, however. There is a fairly fine line there and, if the markets aren't reasonably free to begin with, it's hard to determine if the company is using the legal system for advantage or just to have access to the market.

When the US government invades Iraq, because Sadam "tried to kill" someone's daddy, or whatever the excuse du jour is, it's fairly clear where physical violence is being used in foreign policy. When the CIA tries to assasinate a foreign leader because he doesn't adequately bow down to the US government, there's no question where coercion is being applied. When the US military has thousands of troops in a foreign country, it's quite obvious there is an implied threat.

I oppose the use of coercion in ANY foreign actions, whether by governments or by business. Often it is much harder to clearly identify physical coercion used by businesses, but, when it is clear I will strongly oppose it. It is usually much easier to identify such coercion used by governments, because coercion is the primary business of governments. I oppose that as well.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Well, while Grandpa and I disagree on a lot of things, this happens to not be one of them. The only acceptable foreign policy would be one that does not benefit its promoter through coercion. There's nothing wrong with a foreign policy that benefits the country that implements it. But, when that benefit is enforced at gunpoint, that becomes an issue with people who love peace and freedom. Or, in other words, harmony and abundance. Which are you opposed to, harmony or abundance? Keith

Harmony seems unachievable, and abundance usually goes to the conqueror anyway, not everyone can have everything.

[rmnunez]

I completely agree that if a private business uses physical coercion to expand their markets, they are wrong. Even if the only physical coercion they are using is the legal system of the country they are operating in. If Coca Cola uses the laws of, I don't know, let's say Uraguay just for kicks, to expand their market in Uraguay, they are doing wrong. If they're only using the legal system of Uraguay to get past restrictions on them entering the market, that's fine. If they're using the legal system to expand their own hold on the market by restricting someone else's access to the market, that's wrong.

I don't think there can be anything wrongful from using the law and believe it is important for multinationals to use the local law for their profit. To disregard, flaunt or ignore local laws is what is wrong.

There are situations where it is apparent corporations operate due to legal advantages which usually relate to tax, import-export, repatriation, private property, foreign residency and law enforcement. Labor and environmental regulations are relevant in specific industries. Specific aspects of incorporation, insurance, and intellectual property law are important in growing sectors.

A multinational investing abroad should take into account local laws, and they often even try to negotiate special exceptions, condition their investment to exemption from certain regulations, demand variances and special treatment. It is not unusual for these corporations to also lobby their hosts to improve legislation that favours the business. Often multinational investment upgrades legislation in whole sectors of a nation's economy. In Mexico, we had no franchising legislation until united statian multinationals brought this, governing regulations now are just applicable US law.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't see a foreign policy that furthers its promoter's economic interests as inherently imperialistic. I know the British Empire for a time adopted a "mercantilist" policy which was premised on economic gain for the Empire, but this was 2 centuries ago.

OK, well how about a foreign policy that advance economic interests and bombing campaigns (in fact, bombing campaigns are conducted for economic reasons)?

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

All countries that have fought wars fight them and kill people for economic reasons. A better defenition of a modern empire is a country that interferes in the government of a foreign nation and controls them indirectly, like the early 20th century empires.

[rmnunez]

Current governments don't practice imperialism, this fell in disuse shortly after WW2 when the UN engaged the process of decolonization. Gradually (mostly in the 60s) the British, French, Portuguese as well as even ostracised and isolated Spain, relinquished their last colonial outposts because the UN recognized self-determination was a universal right. The US never had any empire or colonies to be relinquished, though the critical left at the time tried to get Puerto Rico included in the UN's list of "non self-governing" which annually would be reviewed at the Security Council.

Former empires retained ties with former colonial subjects in some cases, but these relationships were greatly diminished and nowadays there are scarce examples where a foreign government interferes with and actually controls another government indirectly. If the claim is made the US practices a policy to interfere with and control foreign governments. One must distinguish what of this atributed united statian imperialistic policy makes it more reprehensible than similar uncriticised practices by others. Presumably the difference is in the measure of influence and control exercised over the foreign government.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez Current governments don't practice imperialism, this fell in disuse shortly after WW2 when the UN engaged the process of decolonization. Gradually (mostly in the 60s) the British, French, Portuguese as well as even ostracised and isolated Spain, relinquished their last colonial outposts because the UN recognized self-determination was a universal right. The US never had any empire or colonies to be relinquished, though the critical left at the time tried to get Puerto Rico included in the UN's list of "non self-governing" which annually would be reviewed at the Security Council. Former empires retained ties with former colonial subjects in some cases, but these relationships were greatly diminished and nowadays there are scarce examples where a foreign government interferes with and actually controls another government indirectly. If the claim is made the US practices a policy to interfere with and control foreign governments. One must distinguish what of this atributed united statian imperialistic policy makes it more reprehensible than similar uncriticised practices by others. Presumably the difference is in the measure of influence and control exercised over the foreign government.

Tell it to the Polynesians and the Hawaiians.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think he's talking about now. The U.S. did of course have an empire, if a small and unrespectable one, even after we picked on the poor spanish.

[rmnunez]

Those are UN Administrations, the Trust Territories, Samoans and Guamians have special priviledges in the US and viceversa. It costs a lot of money to maintain these Trust Territories. The advantages small islands in vast and remote sections of the Pacific Ocean may have offered in encircling and monitoring the Soviets has diminished, the US responsibilities over these islands ought to be compensated for by the UN.

Hawaii would be much worse off absent vast federal resources, its relationship to the US has been cemented since Pearl Harbour and is an integral element in all sorts of NASA, Science, Communications and related US institutions. I like the notion of restoring the previous monarchy and think it would even be viable as a sovereign state, but it will have to be a dependant on a poweful patron.

But Hawaiians can't voice a claim they lack self-government. Hawaii, like Alaska (purchased) are indistinguishably integrated in the US federation, they have governors, elections, legislators and the same rights and responsibilities. Greater self-government is often a better answer than seccesion.

But that was then, what, 1948?

Now, after over half a century of constant united statian pseudo or quasi imperialism they've got what new territories or dominions to add? None, though the US has conquered plenty of governments and deployed its military all over the place, there has been no territorial increase.

So its expansionism without territorial acquisition, but presumably involves seizing control over foreign territory. I'd figure all those coups, death squads, gunboats, troops, weapons, advisors and agents sent out across the bipolar world; to prop, support, overthrow or attack would have yielded some tally. When you look at your list of united statian seized and controlled governments, do you find there are more now than in 1960, 1970, 1980...? Is this US imperialism still growing? I just don't see much analogy between what we now see in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and the more 'Banana Republic' relationships of the past. The US does not retain control over territory its armed forces conquers and governments seized or controlled are often succeeded by ones that strongly oppose the US and leave its control.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez Those are UN Administrations, ... The US does not retain control over territory its armed forces conquers and governments seized or controlled are often succeeded by ones that strongly oppose the US and leave its control.

That still doesn't address French Polynesia.

Keith

[rmnunez]

That would be some remote enclave not yet relinquished more likely out of concern for the islanders who would starve without outside help. I don't have the details on French Polynesia, but I suppose its as self-sustaining and accesible as any of those Pacific nations. Presumably this place is 'near' wherever the French test their nukes? The famous Muroroa Atoll??

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: rmnunez That would be some remote enclave not yet relinquished more likely out of concern for the islanders who would starve without outside help. I don't have the details on French Polynesia, but I suppose its as self-sustaining and accesible as any of those Pacific nations. Presumably this place is 'near' wherever the French test their nukes? The famous Muroroa Atoll??

"Presumably" it includes that region, but also includes the most prosperous and heavily popluated of the Polynesian Islands (outside of Hawaii). You might know it as Tahiti. Most all of what is known as Polynesia is held as a French colony.

Not really what I would call a "remote enclave".

Also, check out St. Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Barthélemy, French Guiana, Réunion, and numerous other islands in the Indian Ocean.

In addition, Britain still claims numerous colonies in various oceans throughout the world as does the US.

Of course, the most common claim is that these territories continue to be held by larger countries to protect and care for the backwards indigenous inhabitants who otherwise wouldn't be able to survive on their own.

Isn't that always the case?

Isn't that the justification for government actions anywhere and any time?

Keith

[rmnunez]

If they are as prosperous as they are populous, French Polynesia must be poor since its capital has only 127 thousand people. Its total population (less than a quarter million) is scattered over 2,500,000 square kilometres (965,255 sq. mi) of ocean. As is noted in your source, "(s)ince 1962, when France stationed military personnel in the region, French Polynesia has changed from a subsistence economy to one in which a high proportion of the work force is either employed by the military or supports the tourist industry." (we are told a quarter of the GDP is earned in the tourism). Maybe you don't see the location as remote, you can fix this by comparing maps of your country at the same scale, how far are they from their nearest neighbor?

Considering the British colonies I'm struck by the complex gradations which reflect artful adjustments in their relationship with Britain, aimed at affording locals a satisfactory measure of self-government while retaining sufficient control over the place without impairing UN recognized rights to self-determination.