Anas – I see what you are trying to say about an intial investment being needed before the ‘return’ is acheived. This is possibly a reason why ‘western’ colonization was successful. At the start – As a king – you offer your toughest, badest people the right to go and get rich – with only a 10% -50% franchise fee of any proceeds brough back. If they fail – nothing lost really. If they succeed – you get rich. If they commit alot of atrocities along the way – you can always blame the church and then if it just gets too bad you might have to impose proper law , and hang a few of your appointed ‘conquistadors’.

Now how did other colonizers work – they had to go with their armies. No staying at home for Babur etc – It was soon apparent that any generals sent out ‘unaccompanied’, just set up rival kingdoms. So these conquests tend to be ‘forgiven’ in our reading of history. Funny how our whole view of colonization is very selective. We modern 21c humans forgive the Moghuls, the Afghans, the Turks, the Arabs, the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians etc because they stayed on the land they conquered and colonized. The British and French of course went home so no forgiveness.

Sorry to ramble off – however in the 16 to 19 centuries I doubt there was really any horde of administrators dispatched to colonies (excluding de- populated colonies like NZ , Oz and SA). The local administration was done by locals. Even in 1947 the number of British in India was miniscule. 0.5% ? – NO it was 0.06% – less that the percentage of Racial Equality Administrators in this country ? ( perhaps not, but it would be enlightening to know the number of Government administrators in the UK now looking after ‘native’ afairs. It would be ironic if it is more than looked after the ‘natives’ back in India, pre 47.

(http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/India_1750_and_1947.pdf.)

However you would be correct to say that by the end of the Victorian period, Britain was loathed to get involved in creating new colonies. The cost of the administration was now way beyond any expected return. The British had got coy about public opinion and it knew it could not do colonies on the cheap. It had to maintain certain standards, ( A bit like GAP – it could not be seen to be using slave labour – indentured labour is OK however) – that was left to the new colonizers who were not too worried about public opinion. So it left the last land grabs to the Germans ( Africa), Belgiums (Congo), Americans (Philippines) and French (Indo China and N.Africa) and Italy (Libya and Ethiopia). The last hoorah was Younghusbands conquest of Tibet ( or perhaps the Falklands war). The Annexation of Tibet, as a venture, was opposed by the British Government because it deemed to be too expensive to maintain a British presence that could not be paid for from the proceeds of conquest. Younghusband however used the pretence of Russian involvement in Lhasa to force the issue so it became a security calculation not an economic calculation. However the Russian involvement was a fabrication. Things don’t change .

Justforfun

“The first two of those are bullshit, others are meaningless unless there is some other deeper motive, i.e., oil.”

How did yopu come up with that conclusion? How can you be sure that it was about oil, and not because of half a dozen other reasons?

“He doesn’t deal with it that well in fact i think he misunderstood me. By civilian hordes I was referring to the army of administrators, bureacrats etc, that follow the initial invasion and are necessary to establish a presence in the colony in order to secure a good return. In other words in order to start successfully exploiting the colony you’ve secured you need to make put forward a certain amount of expenditure, i.e., to make money you need money. Sure, the Brits were no where near as wealthy (according to certain measures of wealth) as the Indians but that didn’t make them poor by any means.”

An initial invasion of where? Some places, like sub-Saharan Africa, saw European powers establish themselves quickly (thus it was a scramble). In other places, like India, it was hardly an invasion, as the earliest English were only there because of the goodwill of the Mughals, and it would be more than a century and a half before the British began to expand beyond Madras, Bombay and a chunk of Bengal.

“Sure, the Brits were no where near as wealthy (according to certain measures of wealth) as the Indians but that didn’t make them poor by any means.”

At the time most Europeans and most Indians were what we would describe as poor (i.e. often going hungry, no savings, no access to proper healtcare, education or sanitation).

The first two of those are bullshit, others are meaningless unless there is some other deeper motive, i.e., oil.

Justforfun deals with this well, but the best comparison is between the Mughal Empire and the English/British when the East India Company was set up. At that point Elizabeth and James I would have been lucky to enjoy a regular revenue of over £500,000 p/a, while Akbar/Jahangir had a regular revenue of between £9 and 10 million p/a.

He doesn’t deal with it that well in fact i think he misunderstood me. By civilian hordes I was referring to the army of administrators, bureacrats etc, that follow the initial invasion and are necessary to establish a presence in the colony in order to secure a good return. In other words in order to start successfully exploiting the colony you’ve secured you need to make put forward a certain amount of expenditure, i.e., to make money you need money. Sure, the Brits were no where near as wealthy (according to certain measures of wealth) as the Indians but that didn’t make them poor by any means.

“Why else was Iraq invaded, Rumbold? What’s your thinking here, I’m sure it’ll provide a well-needed chuckle.”

A belief in WMD, a need for revenge post-9/11, an excuse to get rid of Saddam, a desire to reshape the Middle East. Take your pick.

“Again, no. Those countries I mentioned, were all prosperous, to varying degrees during most of the last 500 years of European-led colonisation of the planet. How else could they afford to finance the armies and the civilian hordes that they set sail to different parts of the world?”

Justforfun deals with this well, but the best comparison is between the Mughal Empire and the English/British when the East India Company was set up. At that point Elizabeth and James I would have been lucky to enjoy a regular revenue of over £500,000 p/a, while Akbar/Jahangir had a regular revenue of between £9 and 10 million p/a.

Justforfun:

“There is no rule that can be used to say this. While wealth might in some circumstances pacify the larger nation – that will be because the circumstances that prevail are stable, the there is no need to invade to get the reasources – the reasources will come to where the money is.”

It was not meant as an iron-clad rule, (good example by the way), but the wealthier a country, the less willing its citizens and leaders are willing to go to war to secure more resources. If you don’t have enough land or food, then war for resources makes sense. If you have two TVs, three cars, a big house and a computer then securing oil supplies doesn’t have the same meaning.

What I think you might conceed is that South America – see definition above – was largely suceeded to the US at Yalta.

Absoloutely – there was that nice little doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine peddled about in 1880s which was formally conceded around Yalta – one of Roosevelt’s popular campaigns at the time. And now we see why the idea of a unified Latin continent along Simon Bolivar’s ideas sends chills down US political circles – it would mean revisiing over a hundred years of US sphere of influence in Latin America – long before US was involved in European continent or in the Pacific.

Justforfun

Good points – was thinkig about Japan as a classic example.

Rumbold I think you fall into the same trap as you accuse the Bishop when it comes to the above. You have in your mind a few examples of poor countries going to war for reasources and a few examples of wealthy countries not engaging in occupational warfare – so you assume that ‘wealth’ or ‘lack of wealth’ and the desire to wage wars of occupation are connected.

There is no rule that can be used to say this. While wealth might in some circumstances pacify the larger nation – that will be because the circumstances that prevail are stable, the there is no need to invade to get the reasources – the reasources will come to where the money is.

In other circumstances, the money is not enough to draw in the reasources – so war is used to achieve the goal. A classic is the Opium War. Hardly a war, but it illustrates the point. Britain only had silver to pay for goods from China, and did not want to trade all its money for these goods (this was in the days before governments could just print money). It wanted to trade something other than silver; something it could manufacture. It had nothing the Chinese wanted. Then it happened apon the flegling desire in China for the use of opium. Bingo – The rest is history … a wealthy unified country , with only the use of 3 Gurkha regiments soon makes the Chinese state capitulate and allow Opium to be traded for Chinese goods. No need now to ship all that silver to China, just opium which one can print (so to speak).

Japan in the early 20th century was the richest country in the Far East. It waged a war specifically for raw materials to feed it growing wealth. Opium was by now no longer an acceptable commodity to trade, even if opium could be grown in Japan, which it can’t.

Now of course America has not learnt this lesson. It has paid for Chinese goods with dollars that it found it could easily print without too much inflation. Like Japan it could not use opium for trade and direct military action is not possible, so it has printed dollars , dollars, dollars and more dollars. Now it has woken up to the fact that China has keep these dollars and is soon to go on a spending spree. The British selected better; or were just lucky that they were in the Empire business when there were fewer moral scrupals. Anyway – fortunately for us the Opium was smoked, not stored away to be sent back to Britain 20 years later, to be traded for Maxim guns.

Anas – How else could they afford to finance the armies and the civilian hordes that they set sail to different parts of the world?

Hordes? – hardly . India was taken by a few. Africa by a dozen. Latin America by 1 or 2.

The countries were relatively rich in the sense they had function governments who could mobilise effective and adequate military assets, but they were often poorer in wealth than the countries they overran. The Gold and Silver of Latin America was the Spanish wealth. The wealth of India was the wealth of Britain.

It might make one feel better to think our ancestors were overrun by a horde, but the numbers don’t support that.

justforfun

Not really, we’re talking about the second largest proven oil reserves in the world here. It’s simple: any country which has control of those reserves wields an enormous amount of power internationally. Why else was Iraq invaded, Rumbold? What’s your thinking here, I’m sure it’ll provide a well-needed chuckle.

The initial wave of colonisation takes place in the 16th and 17th centuries, and that is how many European countries increase their wealth, especially Spain, Portugal, Englad and Holland. Even 19th century Europe could hardly be descrivbed as rich. I don’t mean to suggest that there is some magical cut-off point which causes countries to lose interest in securing resources in other countires, but the richer (in real terms) that a population becomes, the less willing it is to go to war to gain more resources.

Again, no. Those countries I mentioned, were all prosperous, to varying degrees during most of the last 500 years of European-led colonisation of the planet. How else could they afford to finance the armies and the civilian hordes that they set sail to different parts of the world?

Sorry, your comment was caught in the spam net.

“Still, and all, if you see DK as the way forward, that is up to you and your concience.”

I agree with him on some issues, and disagree on others.

“My point is that standing up locally, requires you to stand up supranationally. I’d have thought this was obvious.”

I don’t understand that.

“Anyway. you misunderstand the European ambition, it was to stop war, and in that is succeded.”

We are back to the logical fallacy arguement again. Canada, America and Mexico have fought one another in the past, yet since 1945 they haven’t. Yet they are not in a union.

Why does the EU need to make 80% of our laws to avoid WWIII? What would happen if national parliaments made the law instead? Why the need for closer political integration?

idiot. One that can call me on Pascal’s bet. And pretend that that is an answer. He is a manipulitive piece of shite, that’d for sure. Still, and all, if you see DK as the way forward, that is up to you and your concience. Personally, I think he is a moron.

————————————————-

Back to the point.

But the greater freedom these countries now enjoy derives not from a proposed union, but because the Soviets and Americans aren’t meddling as much in their affairs anymore

No. There are still folk that want to meddle, in this instance the Chinese. My point is that standing up locally, requires you to stand up supranationally. I’d have thought this was obvious.

Anyway. you misunderstand the European ambition, it was to stop war, and in that is succeded.

“I think you are being tag teamed by Anas and I.”

Heh. “Oh my god he’s got the chair!!”

“Any self determination, by those pesky South Americans, that was contrary to Beltway beliefs, was stamped on. And Beltway beliefs were about unrestricted exploitation. Now that is the richest country on the planet playing games of economic empire, largely through proxies rather than directly.”

I agree that the US tried to rule through proxies, but this was far more to do with Cold War politics then economics. The US often spent millions of dollars in each country trying to keep out communist regimes, because they wanted South America to remain free of Soviet influence. It was a logical progressio of the 19th century Monroe doctrine, which stated that the US would counter European attempts to gain undue infulence in the Americas.

“Hopefully some of these countries are getting nearer to some sort of self determination now, but that is not through a benevolent US foreign policy, it is partly through building their own version of the EU. It’s called Mercoseur if you want to Google it.”

But the greater freedom these countries now enjoy derives not from a proposed union, but because the Soviets and Americans aren’t meddling as much in their affairs anymore.

“What I am arguing here, for it isn’t as plain as I’d like it to be, is that folk will band together, if they see an external threat to their sovereignty, by pooling their assets where they can.”

An external threat can almost always be dealt with by a temporary network of alliances. There is no need for political integration.

“Rumbold, I thought you were my pal. How could you have possibly said this.”

I was just trying to wind you up. You say nice things about the EU to enrage me, I compare you and DK for the same effect.

I think you are being tag teamed by Anas and I

I love it when PP threads go off in a direction that has nothing, much, to do with the original post. Though I do think this particular byeway is almost the point of PP, or as Stephen Fry might say, quite interesting. You, Rumbold are forcing me to stand up for some cherished beliefs, and that is a good thing, as I’m forced to re-evaluate them and see whether they are still valid.

Guess what? I think they are. And here’s why:

The US has been guilty, certainly since the Second World War, of attempting to ensure that the governments of South America – by which I really mean the Carribean, Central America and South America – were clients rather than equal partners. What I think you might conceed is that South America – see definition above – was largely suceeded to the US at Yalta.

Without a by your leave from the aforesaid folk. I’d have thought that that was basically undeniable. [For pities sake, don't make me prove it, it would take days and would be an huge pile of links to all the obvious suspects, which you probably know already!]

Any self determination, by those pesky South Americans, that was contrary to Beltway beliefs, was stamped on. And Beltway beliefs were about unrestricted exploitation. Now that is the richest country on the planet playing games of economic empire, largely through proxies rather than directly.

Is that any better than an Empire built on direct intervention? If only the facade of freedom is retained? It reminds me a bit of the Vichy France model.

Hopefully some of these countries are getting nearer to some sort of self determination now, but that is not through a benevolent US foreign policy, it is partly through building their own version of the EU. It’s called Mercoseur if you want to Google it.
See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5195834.stm

And, whilst it is currently relatively weak, it is a genuine attempt to establish a supra national framework, modelled it must be said, on the EU.

What I am arguing here, for it isn’t as plain as I’d like it to be, is that folk will band together, if they see an external threat to their sovereignty, by pooling their assets where they can. This was true of the original partners in the ECSC, who feared their partners as much as any external agency, and Mercoseur who fear a US divide and conquer strategy.

——————————————————

Rumbold, I thought you were my pal. How could you have possibly said this:

Its like you and DK are of one mind.

No. DK is a shitty wee climate change denialist, and I’m not.

DK is motivated, I think, by the sort of daft arguements that said, “hey, I’ve got a great idea here. Lets carve faces into rocks and fuck up our whole ecology. That’d be fun. Oh, and see those trees over there, let’s chop them down too”. Easter Island libertarianism. Or insanity.

And who’s to say they were wrong? They are all dead. Which is your, apparently good friends, idea. Follow me, ’cause I’m the Pied Piper. Die for my stupid, evidentially empty belief system.

Rumbold, I have always been against the madness of crowds, I am vehemently opposed to the madness of DK, who is a crowd stirrer, exraordinairre. And he knows it.

Still, you thought about it long and hard and that was your answer to the Universe and everything…

Wrong, my friend, totally, and utterly wrong…

“You’re only thinking short term here R. The long term strategy is to maintain control over the source of oil in Iraq (which comes only second after SA in terms of amount of oil) after installing a friendly puppet government there; thereby ensuring a steady supply of the black stuff from such an important source until of course it all runs out.”

I can’t prove that you are wrong, but surely it would have been a lot easier to simply spend the money used to pay for the war on just buying up oilfields in a friendly nation.

“And re: ‘the historical sense’, even there your point doesn’t stand up. Are you telling me Spain, Portugal, Britain, etc, were all poor countries when they began colonising the Americas, India, Australia, and Africa?”

For the most part, yes. The initial wave of colonisation takes place in the 16th and 17th centuries, and that is how many European countries increase their wealth, especially Spain, Portugal, Englad and Holland. Even 19th century Europe could hardly be descrivbed as rich. I don’t mean to suggest that there is some magical cut-off point which causes countries to lose interest in securing resources in other countires, but the richer (in real terms) that a population becomes, the less willing it is to go to war to gain more resources.

douglas makes very good points in 49

You’re only thinking short term here R. The long term strategy is to maintain control over the source of oil in Iraq (which comes only second after SA in terms of amount of oil) after installing a friendly puppet government there; thereby ensuring a steady supply of the black stuff from such an important source until of course it all runs out.

And re: ‘the historical sense’, even there your point doesn’t stand up. Are you telling me Spain, Portugal, Britain, etc, were all poor countries when they began colonising the Americas, India, Australia, and Africa?

“The Reichstag fire was a put up job. 7/7 wasn’t. But the outcomes are different only by degree, I think. I don’t want to make too much of that lest you think I too am a conspiraloon, but governments take rather than give, generally. And the ability to strike fear into us is a weapon of state.”

But the Reichstag fire was only one in a series of incidences which helped Hitler’s rise to power. 7/7 was an isolated incident, and while admirable restraint was shown by everyone, it was never likely to lead to the rise of a populist dictator.

“Where I do think you Libertarians are right is in taking everything that our Government, of whatever flavour, says with a pinch of salt. As a society, we need that brand of scepticism.”

Its like you and DK are of one mind.

“Anyway. It is a requirement for EU membership that you have a functioning democracy.”

But the EU central command is in no way a functioning democracy. It is a corrupt oligarchy, with no democratic controls or mandate. It is comparable to 18th century Britain, in that most people join the EU superstructure not because of a public service ethos but because they want top get rich. D you think that the EU would really throw one of its old members out?

“My arguement, and remember I’ve only attempted to answer one half of one of your comments so far, is that integration is better than war.”

I don’t accept that Britain has to choose between one or the other. As far as I can remember, since 1945 we have not been close to going to war with New Zealand or Mexico, yet they are not in the EU.

“As a ‘what if’, had the EU existed circa 1900, would either World War have happened? I don’t know, but I’d doubt it.”

Impossible to say.

You are, of course, quite right about the intimidation. Despite which, he still failed to gain a majority. And was also losing support. At least between the elections of July and November 1932.

Y’know, maybe you are right. Perhaps we shouldn’t look to historical precedents, but the Reichstag fire seems to me to be a good example of what you can do to a democracy when fear overtakes sense. Especially when the nation state is seen as supreme.

The Reichstag fire was a put up job. 7/7 wasn’t. But the outcomes are different only by degree, I think. I don’t want to make too much of that lest you think I too am a conspiraloon, but governments take rather than give, generally. And the ability to strike fear into us is a weapon of state.

The Germans back then were sold a crock of shit and they believed it. We, too, are now being sold a similar story. Where I do think you Libertarians are right is in taking everything that our Government, of whatever flavour, says with a pinch of salt. As a society, we need that brand of scepticism.

Anyway. It is a requirement for EU membership that you have a functioning democracy. It doesn’t preclude right wing demagogues, and neither should it. But if, oh I don’t know, Italy or someone went to a dictatorship, they’d be shown the exit door.

Which would have serious consequences for Italy. My arguement, and remember I’ve only attempted to answer one half of one of your comments so far, is that integration is better than war. And that is what we have these days. It is also largely true that EU member states don’t go looking for a fight. That is a sea change compared to how Europe conducted itself ninety odd years ago.

As a ‘what if’, had the EU existed circa 1900, would either World War have happened? I don’t know, but I’d doubt it.

“It is arguably true that by 1939 Germany was no longer a democracy, but the rise and rise of the little shit was in fact through a flawed democratic process.”

I agree that Hitler had some support. However, the elections in which his secured his power were not free and fair, as there was massive intimidation by Nazis and thugs allied to Nazis. As you point out, Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and this was because the grandees thought that they could control him. Furthermore, instances like the Reichstag fire hardly fall inot the model of a normal democracy.

It is not clear how the EU would have presented the Nazis from gaining power. What we have seen over the past few years in some European countires is the rise of populist politicians, and the EU has (rightly) done nothing to stop them. 1930s Germany was ripe for extremism because of the Depression and the concessions of the Treaty of Versailles. No EU country is in that position today, so it si not a fair comparison.

Bloody hell, 1932 was a busy year for German election agents.

On November 6th 1932, a further Reichstag election was held. This resulted in the National Socialists losing 34 seats. Despite this the new chancellor Kurt von Scleisser was unable to form a coalition and on the 10th of Jan 1933, Hindenberg appointed Adolf Hitler the Chancellor of Germany.

So, the National Socialists were given the running of the country on the basis of less that 38% of the votes cast.

After the Reichstag Fire, Hitler, with that moral certainty and naturally duplicitous nature that makes me wary of politicians to this very day, asked the Reichstag (parliament) to suspend the German constitution, something that required a two thirds majority. Remembering that the National Socialists at this time accounted for just over one third of the Reichstag. The vote was 441 for, 84 against.

23rd March 1933 – the Reichstag passes the Enabling Act, making Hitler dictator.

Every four years after that young Adolf returned to the Reichstag to seek a continuation of his ‘Enabling Act’. Maintaining a facade, or fiction depending how you want to read it, of this being exceptional business and we’ll all get back to normal eventually.

So you are right, Germany was a dictatorship in 1939. One in which the legislature had actually voted to let it happen. And one in which they had, nominally at least, the right to stop it.

That is the point of the sentence I wrote:

There has always been a democratic deficit in the nation state model of democracy, especially when it could be subverted by attacking your neighbour for no particularily good reason whatsoever.

Which, I hope, helps to explain why EU standards of democracy are a good thing for all of us.