civil war in iraq...

[fushigi]

Quote by: G. Adams Why isn't Costa Rice a normal country? Because you have no way to back up your thesis in light of it?

For starters, Costa Rica doesn't have a military. The U.S.A.F. has pledged to be big brother instead. The fighting factions in Ireland always had the threat of British intervention. India is a special case. It has been continually fighting a civil war since independence (and democracy) in 1948: Remember, it was once part of a British Raj that included Pakistan.

[G. Adams]

So Costa Rica chooses not to have a military, what has this got to do with being poor and a succesful democracy?

The factions in Ireland have been fighting for a long time, there has been, to the best of my knowledge, over 2000 deaths since the beginning of troubles relating to the fighting. There has been vastly many more casualties along the way. This has never threatened the democracy of Ireland.

How has the perpetual on-off fighting with Pakistan, and the split with bangladesh too, meant that India's democracy has been strengthened in spite of it's poverty?

I know these places have special circumstances, but every country has certain special circumstances. The question is how have these circumstances made their democracy's succesful in spite of poverty?

[allen]

Quote by: G. Adams How has the perpetual on-off fighting with Pakistan, and the split with bangladesh too, meant that India's democracy has been strengthened in spite of it's poverty?

None can ignore India as an example when studying democracy. But it is not easy to conclude that its democracy is a successful story.

It fell into 3 pieces after 1949, and the resulting warfare is a tragedy to both sides. I am not saying this was caused by the democractic system, but none can say it could not have been avoided should a different system had been chosen.

The current problems facing Inda include overpopulation, poverty, and religion issues. The fight against these issues are far from over. From what I can see, the government elected there is not potent enough to cope with these problems. When short term interest needs to give way to long term development, the democratic system dillydallies.

The government has been doing well in capitalizing the global outsourcing in the area of software and service, etc. This draws a lot of spotlight from the outside, but actaully does little inside. It creates 1 million jobs, too small for a country as big as India.

I wish India succeed with a democratic system.

[G. Adams]

India does suffer additional problems, but again, it's democracy has consolidated and remained healthy for many years.

I think we might be getting our wires crossed here, though. I'm a communist, I just don't think that it always has to be coupled with authoritarianism. I would celebrate if India, or anywhere else for that matter, became a communist state as long as it retained democracy.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: allen Economical development is the decisive factor: it drives political development and is served by political development. Without a necessary economical foundation, a premature democratization will be unsuccessful, and sometimes cause disasters. For a poor country, democracy is cancer.

That is correct.
However, in case of Iraq that state has its own natural resources like extremely valuable oil and gas, then creating the fundaments for economy, industry, infrustructure, services, ect. may take time, but these resources will provide a steady financial supplies to develope all the needed bases for Iraq, while the stabilization is a necessity.
(That stabilization) provides the ground for progress to be made in all the fields.

[fushigi]

Quote by: G. Adams India does suffer additional problems, but again, it's democracy has consolidated and remained healthy for many years.

Internally, yes. But if the British Raj was still in place, this pseudo-civil war with Pakistan (and the former one between Pak and Bangledesh, and the future one in Kashmir if it's ever incorporated into either India or Pak) may never have taken place. Had the Brits stayed, the pieces wouldn't have fallen apart, as they will in Iraq should the U.S. withdraw. You might end up with a consolidated Shia democratic Iraq-ette, but you better believe there would be fighting with the new Sunni Iraq-ette up north.

[rmnunez]

So the US must remain in Iraq to reestablish a new colonial order and keep the natives from having a go at each other? What about all the critical lefty crap about self-determination? Don't people with shared socio-historic experience on a common land, with language and all sorts of distinct customs and practices, have the right to find themselves reflected in their government?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez So the US must remain in Iraq to reestablish a new colonial order and keep the natives from having a go at each other? What about all the critical lefty crap about self-determination? Don't people with shared socio-historic experience on a common land, with language and all sorts of distinct customs and practices, have the right to find themselves reflected in their government?

Self determination for the Iraqi's is critical lefty crap? I thought that was what Bush himself had been trumpeting ever since the other excuses for invasion had evaporated. Since that seems to contradict the rrest of your post can I asume to meant something else?

[rmnunez]

Self-determination is lacking where the government is not representative, in Iraq they just had elections, to argue they lack self-government is silly.

[Scribbler1]

They don't have it yet, do they? So far you have an election with no winners names attached. This sounds like another "mission accomplished" and you right-wingers are just jumping the gun again.

But my post was actually a question. If you look at your previous post you'll see where you said: "What about all the critical lefty crap about self-determination? "
My question was why is self determination "lefty" in any way. I'm still asking you to clarify.

[fushigi]

Self-determination is lefty when it doesn't directly benefit American political or economic goals.

[rmnunez]

Not at all, self-determination is a universal human right as characterized by the UN. The principle, prior to its enshrinement in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provided the theoretical basis for the decolonization process. To that end it was argued that a people subjected to foreign rule by a remote metropoli whereby they lacked any imput on their rulers who typically did not share historical, cultural, social, territorial and even linguistic features with their subjects -were entitled to self-government.

The principle was applied successfully throughout the decolonization process which saw dozens of African and Asian former colonies emerge into nationhood almost overnight every year for decades. Then, once the UN had swollen from about 50 to nearly 200 members, the issue was relegated to a secondary plane as there were no more colonies to emancipate.

After the demise of the Soviets, a variety of "satellite states", semi-autonomous "republics" and other subordinate associated territories started to make claims for self-government. The Soviets lost Uzbekistan, Azerbaian, Kurdistan, Tajikstan, Khyrgizia, Georgia, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and probably some others I can't remember. In the former European satellites Czekoslovakia split in to Czechs and Slovaks, Yugoslavia into Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Montengrins, Slovenes, Macedonians, etc...

In this second wave of self-determination claimants the lack of self-government was not as obvious as in the decolonization phase. Now ethnic, cultural, historical, linguistic and territorial differences didn't have to be as great. Additionally, a number of those recognized as entitled to independence had not been as completely denied any representation as the former colonies had been.

So there was a lowering of the standards prerequisite to claim self-determination to the point where a people who may share a number of features with those who govern them, who may have actually even been able to participate in their ruler's government formulating and implementing policies to administer their lands, are still deemed entitled to make the claim for self-determination.

Self-determination is a conditional right. The conditions require the self-governed have credible sovereignty and this involves the capacity to operate independently. A number of minute, poor and landlocked communities which have not been completely deprived of self-government improperly make claims for independence.

At this point what I typically find is that when the people claiming to seek self-determination are within a US ally, their cause is viewed with concern as a denial of fundamental human rights. When those seeking self-government are part of some outspoken US adversary their claims have no merit or any consideration among the lefties.