Well it looks like ASEAN has backed a solid nominee to replace Kofi Annan as SG of the UN in Surakiart Sathirathai, the 46-year old foreign minister of Thailand. While I know that quite a few staff within the UN will be sad to see Kofi go, I think Sathirathai's basic ideas for reform, especially reforming the Trusteeship Council which has pretty much sat unused for awhile, are pretty good...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=18&u=/ap/20041002/ap_on_re_as/un_chief

Why don't they just ask Saddam Hussein? I hear his schedule is pretty open as of a few months ago.

Sorry Oveur...remember? He and Roy are on their honeymoon before Saddam gets sent up the river and they have to limit themselves to conjugal visits...

The last 2 sec-gens were from Egypt and Ghana. Now ASEAN is proposing one from Thailand?

How about one from the West? The West pays most of the bills at the UN.

Yyz - last Asian SG was U Thant from '61 to '71. Last Western one was Javier Perez de Cueller from '82 to '91. Prior to that was Kurt Waldheim from '72 to '81. Looks to me like Asia's "due" for one...

What would be nice is if the next U.N. secretary is from none other than the United States. Boy that would piss a few people off.

One day.

Commander_Rabb, since a SG at the UN is not simply decided by a single country, you can bet that a SG from the US would, most certainly, not "piss a few people off" (at least not more people than any given SG that the UN has ever had) - because he wouldn't be of the "the UN sucks and is irrelevant"-mindset that some people seem to be unable to grow out of... if he did, he simply wouldn't be able to make it to the post of SG of the UN.

Regards,
Frank

I've been hearing whispers that current Prime Minister of New Zealand, Hon. Helen Clark MP has a view to pursuing a career in the United Nations after her time as HOG of NZ with a view to eventually becoming Secretary-General.

QFF

Perez de Cuellar was South American. Prior to Waldheim was another European SG, a Norwegian guy who got himself killed during the Kongo krisis, I forgot his name. Normal each continent has 10 years, but last time Asia, who´se turn it was, couldn´t decide on a new one and since most people agreed that Koofi Annan was doing a good job, he got reelected, giving Africa 15 years.

YYZ, I know you would like to introduce a poll tax, in the UN and elsewhere, to make sure that only the "haves" have a vote and not the "have nots".

Jan

The last 2 sec-gens were from Egypt and Ghana. Now ASEAN is proposing one from Thailand?

How about one from the West? The West pays most of the bills at the UN.

Oh yes, the West is sooo underrepresented in the entire international institutional system.   . in the World Bank, the IMF, the SC etc.. and

What would be nice is if the next U.N. secretary is from none other than the United States

the representation of the US is even worse... boy, how could the West be so deprived??

Too bad that that financial and not population aspects play a role here..

Oh yes, the West is sooo underrepresented in the entire international institutional system. . in the World Bank, the IMF, the SC etc.. and

The West pays the UN bills....the head guy should be a Westerner. Also, it's logical that the un SG be from a democratic country to give the UN more credibility.

Also, it's logical that the un SG be from a democratic country to give the UN more credibility.

I don't really see how a person coming from a democratic country carries more credibility than one from a non-democratic country: the person him- or herself is important, the country they're from is, in my view, at best secondary... if at all...

Aside from the fact that the "democratic country" requirement will - in all likelihood - never be accepted by the Chinese...

Regards,
Frank

Well I agree with you on this one Yyz717! I guess there's a first time for everything   lol. I think that since the West foots most of the bills we should have a westerner in the SG spot.
NW747400

The West pays the UN bills....the head guy should be a Westerner.

  Thanks for the laugh...

OK, why can the West pay more money?? Who rules the world, who explores foreign resources, who developed on the cost of the so-called Third World Countries??

Also, it's logical that the un SG be from a democratic country to give the UN more credibility.

  Thanks for the second laugh..!

Following your logic, we could ask Bush - if he loses the next election - to be the next SG.. What is democratic for you? The US et al? Have you ever tried to measure democracy? Then, ever heard that even so-called Third World Countries can be democratic?? Incredible!   The US has shown how much credibility they give the UN and have brought the system to collapse in resisting any reform, together with the other P4... what you claim to be logical is not more than an unelaborated, west-centred statement..


Moreover, in terms of credibility.. if the UN represents the West, as it does already, in the same manner overproportionally, then it will even loose more of the remaining modicum of credibility it has.. thanks to the aforementioned actors..  

[Edited 2004-10-03 22:41:58]

[Edited 2004-10-03 22:44:31]

It's about personalities not countries. BTW, did Kurt Waldheim as Sec. General give the organization more credibility???

Jan,
Dag Hammarksjöld (sp?)was his name, and he was Swedish.
The plane carrying him (and crew and other UN members) was shot down by some who had an agenda in which he did not fit.

U Thant was really on top of things...especially in Egypt in '67.

I vote Bush to take that job in 08 when he has to retire from the White House...gosh how many people would hang themselves over that!

DeltaGuy

gosh how many people would hang themselves over that!

Would you be happy if this happened??

OK, why can the West pay more money?? Who rules the world, who explores foreign resources, who developed on the cost of the so-called Third World Countries??

The West got wealthy becaase of its own ingenuity and focus on commerce and science. Dont blame the West for the backwardness of the 3rd World. They are their own authors.

If the extremist anti-Americans did, then your answer is yes, Alex

Great, then, if things continue, then we would only have Americans left (but not the India-Americans, of course...) oh World, where are thou going??

I vote Bush to take that job in 08 when he has to retire from the White House.

Damage caused by 4-8 years of that retard in an office with such global impact will be more than enough. Just make him a Texas governor again or some hillbilly county sheriff and...."enjoy"  

Dont blame the West for the backwardness of the 3rd World. They are their own authors.

I'd tend to disagree with this. Who were the imperial masters of the 3rd World well into the 20th century?

The West got wealthy becaase of its own ingenuity and focus on commerce and science. Dont blame the West for the backwardness of the 3rd World. They are their own authors.

  Brilliant! Quote of the day!!!   Thanks for the big amusement and showing me a new, alternative and original approach to modern history! Good night!

Edit: Typos due to big laughter  

next Edit: Edit: Even more typos due to big laughter  



[Edited 2004-10-04 01:09:10]

[Edited 2004-10-04 01:09:59]

[Edited 2004-10-04 01:14:57]

"The West got wealthy becaase of its own ingenuity and focus on commerce and science. Dont blame the West for the backwardness of the 3rd World. They are their own authors."

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa! May I suggest you read something like this:



Make sure to pay close attention on "US Independence", "Boston Tea Party", "La Conquista" and similar historic facts.

Perhaps you could give us a review of that book?
Was it a good read or just a little hard to comprehend?


 

"Was it a good read or just a little hard to comprehend?"

Just a little hard to comprehend, at the age of three.

 

Try reading "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". It explains why the West is wealthy. It is not due to colonialism which had a benign effect on Western wealth. As I said, it is due to scientific advancement & capitalism, along with rule of law.

Blaming the West for their poverty is a recipe for the 3rd World to avoid examining their own failures.

"It explains why the West is wealthy. It is not due to colonialism which had a benign effect on Western wealth. As I said, it is due to scientific advancement & capitalism, along with rule of law."

not necessarily in disagreement with you, here are some points:

- The wealth "the West" derived from e.g. the Conquista disappeared because it was spent on wars and not on progress.

- The wealth that was basically robbed from the "Third World" could be benefitting it today - in some cases, "colonies" were a place to live, in too many other cases, they were nothing but revenue-generators. Most of the former are prosperous today, most of the latter aren't at all or less than the former. Compare the US to Colombia, and you'll get what I mean.

- "...colonialism [...] had a benign effect on Western wealth." Can't agree on that one. How can loads of gold arriving from South America have a benign effect on anyone's wealth? The key is that the kings of that time didn't know what to do woth all the money, they spent it on cannonballs instead of "laboratories".

- Looking at another example, England instead of Spain, the scenario is a bit different. England, and especially London, did what but profit from colonialism? Scientific advancement was substantial in that time and place, and very much of it was financed by traders who brought e.g. spices from India to Europe, of curse at a substantial profit margin.

The wealth that was basically robbed from the "Third World" could be benefitting it today - in some cases, "colonies" were a place to live, in too many other cases, they were nothing but revenue-generators.

Much of the wealth flowed back to the colonies or 3rd world. The Europeans often spent alot to build up the infrastructure of the 3rd world and then they handed it over to the newly indepedent nation for free. Most of these countries then squandered their infrastreucture and wealth. Examples include India and much of Africa.

England, and especially London, did what but profit from colonialism?

London was prosperous alone as the capital of the UK. Any gains from trade with the colonies or 3rd world were inevitably reinvested in those colonies.

Scientific advancement was substantial in that time and place, and very much of it was financed by traders who brought e.g. spices from India to Europe, of curse at a substantial profit margin.

Muhc of the profit remained in the colonies. If the locals squandered it, blame them, not the English.

Read the book -- The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

I suggest a compromise:

William Jefferson Clinton

London was prosperous alone as the capital of the UK. Any gains from trade with the colonies or 3rd world were inevitably reinvested in those colonies.

Have you been to the Solomon Islands lately? Belize? Nauru? Certain parts of India? Trinidad? You can't tell me all former UK colonies got a fair deal.

France is a big culprit, it's been sucking New Caledonia dry for years.

QFF

Have you been to the Solomon Islands lately? Belize? Nauru? Certain parts of India? Trinidad? You can't tell me all former UK colonies got a fair deal.

Those places were ALWAYS poor, long before the Brits came along. The Brits left an infrastructure of cities, civil government and railroads in India. If Britain left India with the same level of poverty, then India was still better off since it had the new infrastructure.

Again I agree with Yyz717. We got where we are today through no how nad good work ethic. Take the middle east for example in Afghanistan and Iraq(whether or not you agree with the politics of how we got there that's not my point) in Afghanistan if they'd stop fighting local wars with warlords and unite they'd get a lot more done! You can't do it alone you've got to be united and work together!
NW747400

I hate to correct the spelling of others BUT

"We got where we are today through no how nad good work ethic."

I think what you meant was: "know how and a good work ethic"

I also have to wonder what a 13 year old knows about government and global policy? I guess we should just send the Power Rangers into Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm almost 16, and I know about world policies. I like that kind of stuff. I do research on it, I love to read books about it. I know a lot more than you think I would. Sorry about the spelling, my spell checker seems to be broken.
NW747400

Those places were ALWAYS poor, long before the Brits came along. The Brits left an infrastructure of cities, civil government and railroads in India. If Britain left India with the same level of poverty, then India was still better off since it had the new infrastructure.

Pure unadulterated horsemanure. Both India and China had a standard of living comparable to Europe until well into the 18th century. In fact as late as 1750, China accounted for close to 30% of world GDP, and India, 25%. Yes, we're pretty poor right now. But we're rising again, with a vengeance. All those protests about western manufacturing/service jobs being lost to India/China is music to our ears. And in the meantime our own bilateral trade grows at nearly 80-100% per annum - $7.6 billion last year, and probably $15 billion this year. By the end of the decade Sino-Indian trade would likely exceed $100 billion, constituting a dynamic localized economic engine in which the rest of the world has little part, which is just as well. After all, its our bid to rise back to our past stature.

Economic development or the lack of it post-indepedence does not in any way condone the horrific brutality of British rule, culminating in the Bengal famine of 1942-43 that killed millions, when Churchill diverted food to the war effort against another guy who killed millions himself. And for his 'leadership', he gets the Nobel Prize, while the Scandinavians chicken out of giving Gandhi one. Ah, the logic of it all.

For those who insist the effect of imperialism on Western economic rise is negligible, I have to ask, then why the hell did you bother to build up empires ? And in case the answer happens to be one of just a great 'game' of territorial expansion just for the sake of d1ck-wagging, doesn't that go contrary to the basic ideas of capitalism - why would you squander your allegedly self-made wealth to no economic benefit ?

The British should be relieved that India as a land had enough civilizational strength (we've been around 5000 years) to forgive them, let them leave unharmed, and move on. Surely it would have been less than preferable to see the British population in India being subjected to wholesale massacre, followed by their heads being shrunk to the size of apples and stuck on poles in the city square ? There were quite a few among them who deserved such a fate after all.

BarfBag,

I humbly yet proudly declare my profound respect for you as a result of your post. It was exceptional.

QFF

Commander_Rabb: You like posting a lot of blantant-flamebait don't you?

Whilst generally agreeing with much of the thrust of Barfbag's post, I think some of it is a little excessive. "Horrific brutality of British rule" is a little over the top, though undoubtedly there were horrific elements, and there were brutal people involved. Still, much of the worst of it tended not to be official policy, but the actions of some of those in place (who were of course British).

Equally, it needs to be understood how empire occurred in India (and elsewhere). Much of it was frankly unintentional. The East India Company's desire for trade was all-encompassing, as was their desire to ensure that no other nation could get in. The gradual imposition of British rule was a response to the fear of losing control of the trade links, and the intentions were largely benevolent as far as the people were concerned. Naturally enough, those intentions were far from completed, and as British rule developed the nastier side showed through. Even so, it does need to be made clear that this was no change from a democratic paradise to an autocracy; much of the worst elements were in place beforehand, and were carried out by those Indians whose interests co-incided with those of the British.

Still, the divergence between the principle and the reality of British rule became ever more pronounced. An excellent analysis of this appears in Simon Schama's The History of Britain, whic will certainly make uncomfortable reading for apologists of empire (it is actually the same difference between rhetoric and reality that was a prime mover in the US's War of Independence). The fact remains however that India could never have remained under British governance without the support of vast numbers of Indians. There simply wasn't the manpower. None of this justifies the actions of certain people within it of course, but I do feel that there needs to be care taken when applying 21st century attitudes to 18th and 19th century history. It is all too easy to be appalled (as we should be) and ascribe our own values to the times.

Strangely enough, some enlightened Whitehall mandarins were making plans for the dissolution of the empire at the end of the nineteenth century. By this stage empire had gone a long way from the trading opportunity it was initially seen as, and had become an enormous drain on British resources. It cannot be denied that the likes of Churchill would never have listened to them, but it is interesting to see that some far-sighted individuals were preparing the ground for an ordered retreat.

It is undoubtedly true that the British did leave behind an infrastructure to allow most of the newly independent nations to make their own way. But it would be pushing the envelope a touch to say that this was altruistic. In the same way that there were some who behaved appallingly there were others who genuinely had the people's interests at heart. That, however, does not a government policy make. Still, we need to separate those who tried to do their best (which often had appalling consequences) and those adventurers, racists and general nutcases who went out of their way to create strife and misery. The British empire was no Nazi occupation.

Back to the Secretary General's position. It is quite impossible for a Sec Gen to come from a nation that has a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Banco, I think you've summed things up well.

It does seem to all boil down to legacy - infrastructure and stability (though not for every former colony) versus the abhorrent events of the past purpetrated by (as you call them) "...adventurers, racists and general nutcases..."

It's all too common for modern imperialists to simply glaze over atrocities with lines like "We gave you democracy, we gave you our system of government, we gave you stability - so don't complain and be grateful". Equally, many residents of former colonies place overwealming focus on the said atrocities yet don't give credit where it's due.

A balance is what we need, but I'm not sure if it exists.

QFF

P.S: My Sec Gen vote goes to Major General Frank Bainimarama, a shining beacon of democracy in Fiji and the world.

Agreed, QF. Unfortunately all too often it breaks down into a "The Empire was an unmitigated evil" and "You'd still be in mud huts if it weren't for us" camps. Both are wrong and offensive in equal measure.

to take your own country, both British and Australians are responsible for the disasters that befell the Australian aborigines, but in both cases it was often not deliberate. Looking back we can identify many an appalling outcome, but not necessarily intent.

A good example of the kind of thing I am referring to is the Zulu War. Despite the implied heroism in the Stanley Baker/Michael Caine film, this was a war utterly without need. The Zulus were presented with an ultimatum by the local officials that they couldn't possibly agree to and war was the outcome. Back in Britain, Disraeli and much of the political establishment was horrified and disgusted by it, and did his level best to ensure that Lord Chelmsford received the opprobrium that was his due.

Now, the government had nothing really to do with that, but is it the responsibility of the British? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

QANTASFOREVER Frank Bainimatrama is in the Fijian Navy, rank of Commodore.

I met him once in that capacity, a compelling presence in many ways and great choice.

Now, the government had nothing really to do with that, but is it the responsibility of the British? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

Do you think the British government will/should apologise for what it's been responsible for in the past?

I think they should, as the Australian, Canadian government (etc..) should apologise.

(However, a big thank you on behalf of the commonwealth to Britain isn't something I'd be expecting to see anytime soon).  

QFF

Do you think the British government will/should apologise for what it's been responsible for in the past?

No, I don't, QFF. Where would it all end? The Italians apologising for the Roman Empire? The Germans apologising for the Visigoths? It would be meaningless really, current generations are not responsible for the past. It's the same as the idiotic way some hold present day Germans somehow responsible for Nazi Germany, it just isn't the same people.

Besides, would an apology actually make any material difference? I don't really see how. I would say a proper study of different views of history is the correct way to do it, but sadly, it seems as though history is never the priority of educators these days. Even when it is, so often it's a skewed form of it, seemingly to satisfy each nation's myths about itself.

Pacificjourney,

Thank you for the correction there. I would love to have the opportunity to meet the man, I'm quite an admirer of his conduct especially during the recent coup.

QFF

Do you think the British government will/should apologise for what it's been responsible for in the past?

No, I don't, QFF. Where would it all end?

SOme of us NRI's have relatives who struggled during the colonial time, some of them, like me, have family members who died. Sorry for saying this, but I read this as a great insult. Same, as the queen denied in 1998 or so to give an apology.. and same that many of India's treasures are still in Britain, who denies to return them back.

I myself lived in London, it was fabulous, and I think it is great how British Civil Society has created and taken the new challenges of the post-WW World - I loved to stay there and will always do it again - I am a person who wants to get over all of this .. many of the British are very discontent what happened, which is a kind of implicit apology.. but sorry Banco, explicitely saying that an apology is not necessary can be perceived as an insult by many freedom fighters and relatives, who lost valuable familiy members - especially in view how Britain's policy was one of many causes of partition and the resulting violence and deaths.. I am really shocked by your comments and comparisons.. with colonialism we are having a much more modern phenomenon than the ones you are uttering.. colonialism still persists in a more modern form, so be careful

Mrniji,

I empathise with you. My family has suffered from the actions of the British government for close to 90 years, culminating in us having to leave our ancestral home - that said, I'm not going to blame the people of the United Kingdom. It was the British government that purpetrated crimes against humanity throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, that freely annexed land and cast aside native domestic interests, that destroyed village economies - and I believe it is something which needs to be aknowledged.

QFF

"Horrific brutality of British rule" is a little over the top, though undoubtedly there were horrific elements, and there were brutal people involved.

Banco, yes I apologize for being a little too colourful. But I completely disagree that British rule had any redeeming features whatsoever, other than that it gave us a headstart on English (yes, we badly mangled it, unfortunately, but we gave you chicken tikka, which unfortunately, you ruined by adding a 'masala').

The British weren't the kind of out-and-out killers that, say, the Japanese were in east Asia. That's one of the primary reasons why India could be ruled by so few British, and in fact you even had local support. The primary means by which we suffered was because our economy was controlled and its back broken, which caused us to miss the bus of the industrial revolution.

Tariffs, a ban on industrial development, and generally being constrained to be an exporter of (discounted) raw material is a recipe for the drain of national wealth, which is precisely what happened. That much is undeniable. The recipes of economic development are often counterintuitive, and by the time the effects of a forced regressive economic regimen are realized, its often too late, as we found.

It took us decades after independence to stutter along the path of building the industrial infrastructure we needed to rise again. Pre-independence India was characterized by successive famines that cumulatively killed tens of millions. Post-independence, for all our misguided economic policies, there has not been a single famine, while even China hit a manmade disaster in the Cultural Revolution.

Statements about the British having build infrastructure would be amusing if they weren't so insulting. We're supposed to be thankful for a few strips of rail from the local coalmines to the ports, when we were ourselves banned from using it, or made to travel in 4th class compartments packed like sardines. India's infrastructure is several order of magnitude larger than it was when the British left.

Add to that the additional laughable claims that the British brought democracy or united India. Sure they set up the institutions that define today's definition of a democratic nation state, but the ideas of democracy and nation states are themselves extremely recent phenomenons, and its arguable India would not have developed on the same lines independently. In any case, the British did not set up a democratic framework. We built it out of the skeleton of the framework they set up to rule their empire. Post independence, several nations have stuttered through dictatorship, while we have preserved and sustained the biggest and most diverse experiment in democracy on the planet.

PS: just so my post isn't entirely off topic - the title of UNSG is a joke. Dag Hammaskjold was about the only person who kept it to the stature it was envisioned. Since then, there have been nothing more than a string of competent men who have been forced to become lame ducks to the constraints of the existing UN system.

Post-independence, for all our misguided economic policies, there has not been a single famine, while even China hit a manmade disaster in the Cultural Revolution.

BarfBag, I slightly disagree with this. Of course, they are arguments, like from the free-trade guru J Bagwathi et al, who know everything better and say that if India had opened up in the beginning, they would be an industrialized country. But we should not forget that there were about 300 million +x after independence to be fed. They were hungry. It is normal that when an industry is not developed yet, it has to be protected. How could India have developed without protection? Neo-colonialism would have persisted, meaning that our market would have been captured by the West, without being able to develop industry ourselves. See the Green Revolution for instance. I agree that the problem with the Green Revolution was that there was no land-reform. But at least out food production is big enough, and now our industry is competitive. I agree that we should have probably liberalized a little earlier (Infant Industry Argument). And I agree that planning could have been better. But if India had started to liberalize in the beginning, a, how neo-liberals call it euphemistically, 'market-failure' could have occurred.

We know that India is still poor and underdeveleped. But I represent the minority opinion, by saying that if India had been outward-oriented in the beginning, it would have even been worse, because our own industry and food production would have completely declined. India had and has great challenges... it is normal that a development must first occur in an isolated environment before entering the international market and 'lobbying' with economies of scale etc (all the s--t no one cares because people are hungry - see the recent elections, how the neo-liberal NDA was buffed).. There are so many examples where the market-forces first brought growth and decline.. openness would have maybe been good in the short, but not in the long-term..


BarfBag, I am looking forward to your critique, really! I like these kind of discussions, because they help me to emphasize and rethink my 'dynamic' opinion..  

Pre-independence India was characterized by successive famines that cumulatively killed tens of millions.

India's severe over-population, over-crowding & poverty is arguably the cause of these famines. Not the British.

Post-independence India .....

India has had 57 years to get its economic act together since independence and still the British are being blamed. Meanwhile, much poorer countries such as Taiwan & South Korea quietly surpass India to become wealthy. India's problems are her own. India has had 57 years - more than enough time - to develop a wealthy economy. With the majority of Indians continuiing to live in abject poverty with hgh rates of illiteracy, one can only draw the conclusion that India is a failed nation and one of the world's biggest economic disappointments of the 20th Century.

Concerning famine, just have a look at the Irish famine of the 1840s.
It was triggered by a pest of potato plants, causing several harvests in a row to rot in the ground.
This alone didn´t cause the famine, there was enough grain available in Ireland. The point was that most of the Irish peasant population couldn´t spend a lot of money on grain and the rich landowners decided to export it at a higher profit than to use it for consumption at home. This whole thing was additionally supported by the British government under the rules of pure capitalism, means maximising the profits.

As a result the Irish population dropped down from about 13 million to the 3-4 million today, both from death through starvation and emigration. If you travel through rural western Ireland you can see plenty of abadoned villages.

Jan

[Edited 2004-10-04 20:14:50]

This whole thing was additionally supported by the British government under the rules of pure capitalism, means maximising the profits.

Sort of. But it was more to do with Trevelyan feeling that the absentee landlords in Ireland were responsible for the chaos in the first place and shouldn't expect the Treasury to bail them out. It was his view that the system required modernisation and correction, and that the shortage (not a famine at this stage) would be a blessing in disguise. In this, he can clearly be correctly accused of mind-blowing stupidity. Robert Peel was an ardent free trade advocate but he knew a crisis when he saw one and acted accordingly. Unfortunately, by then it was much too late to avert a tragedy.

India's severe over-population, over-crowding & poverty is arguably the cause of these famines. Not the British.

Have you ever heard about multi-causalty? That not only one but many factors explain issues like this?? Or are you talking in the same didactical and dialectical way as GWB??  

India has had 57 years to get its economic act together since independence and still the British are being blamed. Meanwhile, much poorer countries such as Taiwan & South Korea quietly surpass India to become wealthy.

Have you ever heard about the problems of cross-country-comparisons? There are many geographical variables (proximity to trading partners, resources, climate....), cultural variables, political variables, historical (continuity...) etc etc etc.. your statements are in my eyes unelaborated and not very analytical ...  

can only draw the conclusion that India is a failed nation

If India is a failed nation, then your mindset is at least as failed..  

Do not forget that there are many ways besides the GDP/capita to merasure poverty. Although I agree that illiteracy is a considerable variable, many alternative economists challenge that, keeping in view tribal and indigenous people... think a little more before drawing your conclusions  


[Edited 2004-10-04 17:41:28]

Have you ever heard about multi-causalty? That not only one but many factors explain issues like this?? Or are you talking in the same didactical and dialectical way as GWB??

No, he is talking in the same didactical and dialectical way as HMQE2 during her tyrannical commonwealth dictator phase. He is a true believer in the Majesty of the Bri.. oh, I'm sorry - the Canadian throne which can not do (and has never done) any evil in the world, yet has blessed upon it's dear subjects a radiant glow of authority.

Yyz717, you are coming across as an Imperial apologist, something which even Banco - a Briton, has no time nor sympathy for.

The UK screwed India many times over, sucking it dry for years then cutting it loose. The UK had a responsibility to assist the Indian government to (as Barfbag said) see India catch "..the bus of the industrial revolution."
The British government absolved themselves of that responsibility, opting (as usual) to scurry home to fix the savaged economy, and ignoring the responsibilities it had taken centuries to accrue. This happens time and time again.

QFF

By the way - exactly 150 days to go until Empire Day, Yyz717.  

"Hello Mr Arrogant and Mr I already know everything?? How can you know about world politics? Did you read all the 10000000000000000+x Books?? Don't you think that learning and knowledge is a didactic and never-ending process? Showing flexibility, interest in new information impresses more than a statement like this one above" Did I say everything? A quick glance over my post will show I did not. I said that I KNOW ABOUT world policies. I was responding to Captouver saying "I also have to wonder what a 13 year old knows about government and global policy?" I was simply pointing out that I do know some things about the subject. I absolutely did not mean to come off as arrogant or that I think I know it all.
NW747400

Have you ever heard about multi-causalty? That not only one but many factors explain issues like this??

Yes, of course. It was you however who laid all the blame for India's woes at the hands of the British though.

The UK screwed India many times over, sucking it dry for years then cutting it loose. The UK had a responsibility to assist the Indian government to (as Barfbag said) see India catch "..the bus of the industrial revolution."
The British government absolved themselves of that responsibility, opting (as usual) to scurry home to fix the savaged economy, and ignoring the responsibilities it had taken centuries to accrue. This happens time and time again.

Tell me something -- why was (in your view) India's prosperity based ENTIRELY on British tutelege? Why could India not have developed itself? India remains a poverty stricken over-crowded nation 57 years after independence (despite recent economic growth) and that can only be the fault of Indians themselves.

"India remains a poverty stricken over-crowded nation 57 years after independence (despite recent economic growth) and that can only be the fault of Indians themselves."

Undoubtedly so.

But to younger generations of Indians, British rule is just a few pages in history text books, so the "blame the British" culture is almost gone except in the minds of a few dowdy old politicos.

But remember that India as a political entity was a creation of British rule. Prior to British rule, there existed in the subcontinent some incredibly rich nations, and some poverty stricken ones. Unfortunately what the Brits did leave behind was a legacy of centralist and socialist economics in even those relatively rich nations after having devastated India' primary pan-geographic industry - the textile industry. Under statutory dictates, Indians were either forced to buy textiles made in England, or taxes were established on Indian textiles that made them prohibitively expensive. The British essentially wiped out one of India's primary industries and created a system of total dependence on British imports.

However, what India's first Indian rulers after independence failed to realize was that British socialism had no place in what was essentially one of the oldest capitalist economies in the world. Nehru et al just stupidly copied the socialist model which when combined with casteist Indian attitudes created a monster for over 40 years.

"India's severe over-population, over-crowding & poverty is arguably the cause of these famines. Not the British."

Sorry, but I must disagree. While Indian famines of the late 60s are the fault of failed Indian post-independence policies, the pre-independence famines were caused by British policie. The Bengal famine of 1943 in which British policies favoring the garrisons in Calcutta led to a cut-off of grain supplies to the Bengali interior; the famines under Warren Hastings hideous policies where Bengali farmers were forced (under the butt of a gun) to produce cash crops instead of rice led to a devastation of the rice crop; and the post-Hastings policies in which Bengali farmers had to tithe what was left of their crops to the Empire created the man-made famines in Bengal. Bengal where most of the famines occured was a) never grossly over-populated ; b) never over crowded; and c) never poor prior to about 1825. As a matter of fact, Bengal was the most prosperous part of the Indian Mughal empire and a center of its booming textile industry. The famines of the 19th C and 1943 were "man-made" famines caused by administrative greed, callousness and a total disregard for the native population.

So lets lay the blame where it belongs, irrespective of color and creed. The Brits deserve the blame for the rapaciousness with which they ran slip shod over India. India's post-independence rulers deserve the blame for out-doing the Brits in socialist buffoonery and rampant greed. They've certainly shown themselves to be just as, or arguably far more, corrupt than any of Hastings' goons.

Should India have followed the Korean and/or Taiwanese model post-independence? Probably. But comparisons are odious here. Korea and Taiwan are primarily nations composed of a single ethnicity and race; India is divided by race, religion, ethnicity, language and geography. Korea and Taiwan adopted authoritarian models of governance; India adopted a bumbling democracy. However, the concept of India as one nation-state is catching on, and I am rather surprised at how fast attitudes are changing within India.

Jaysit, that is probably one of the most balanced and true analyses of India's development I've ever read. There were faults with the British rulers (and yes, I have learned something in this thread) but they were not the total ogres as portrayed by some, nor were Indians completely innocent of thei mishandling of India's economy. The bureaucracy of India's govt (while borrowed from the British) now has a very real stifling life of its own.

As time goes on, the British mark on India will decline and India will have only itself to blame or credit for all her successes and failures.

India has had 57 years to get its economic act together since independence and still the British are being blamed. Meanwhile, much poorer countries such as Taiwan & South Korea quietly surpass India to become wealthy. India's problems are her own. India has had 57 years - more than enough time - to develop a wealthy economy. With the majority of Indians continuiing to live in abject poverty with hgh rates of illiteracy, one can only draw the conclusion that India is a failed nation and one of the world's biggest economic disappointments of the 20th Century.

Wow Yyz! I actually agree with you on something for once! Well, it's the second time, but the first was on a common hatred of Celine Dion, and that hardly counts!  

Seriously, other than your conclusion that India is a failed nation, which she is not, I'm with you on this one.

Whatever views one might have on the British and their dominion over the Subcontinent, they have absolutely nothing to apologise for today. India's problems are largely of our own doing.

Like I've said before, Le Pen said it best when he said that "Colonialism had a positive influence on the development of the populations that were subject to its authority. Of course, one could argue at length about whether these populations are really happier in jeans and tennis shoes than running barefoot in the wild. I have no answer to that." Le Pen might be French, but what that statement he certainly describes British colonialism more than that of any of the other European powers.


The Brits left an infrastructure of cities, civil government and railroads in India. If Britain left India with the same level of poverty, then India was still better off since it had the new infrastructure.

Again, right on the head! Firstly, the British left India. A place that simply did not exist before they came along. India's an entirely British creation - good or bad, depending on your point of view. If it weren't for them, there's a strong likelihood India wouldn't exist today.

Also, in addition, they left behind a lot more we take for granted today (and are at least secretly thankful for). That includes parliamentary democracy, secularism, the railway system, the highway network, the civil service, and, almost most importantly, their language. Thank Heavens we weren't colonised by the Koreans, to pick a random country!

"Le Pen said it best when he said that "Colonialism had a positive influence on the development of the populations that were subject to its authority. Of course, one could argue at length about whether these populations are really happier in jeans and tennis shoes than running barefoot in the wild. I have no answer to that."

But look at Thailand and Japan, two Asian countries that were never colonized by foreign Western powers. No one can argue that they are far more advanced in all indices than India, Nigeria or with due respect to Le Pen and his right wing rants, The Ivory Coast or Chad are. Both Thailand and Japan adopted Western attitudes and technology in due course without the aid of colonialism. Needless to say, they've done rather well.

Had India never been colonized by the West, other centers of power would have emerged in the subcontinent. Hyderabad and the Sikh kingdoms were all relatively modern for their time. Parts of India that was under Mughal rule was also modern for its time. A Bengali nation could have emerged. Like their other Asian counterparts, these nations would have had to adopt modern technology to succeed. Given their smaller populations and localized governments, they may have succeeded in ways that "India" never had a chance to. Of course, this is all a case of "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

I didn't mean to imply by posting that quote that the Raj was the only salvation for the wretched masses of the Subcontinent, or of anywhere else. For all you know, many of these countries might have done brilliantly without European intervention. However, in all likelihood, colonialism was more of a positive influence than a negative one. Just because Le Pen is rightist, doesn't mean he can't accidentally stumble upon the truth.

And of course it's all about coulda, shoulda, woulda. I'm not suggesting that the British be given any credit for the emergence of India as a single nation, because that wasn't really their intention for India. Just as George Bush can't possibly claim or be given credit for freeing the Iraqis from the utterly evil Saddam Husein. Freedom for the Iraqis was never Bush's real intention for invading Iraq. It's simply another by-product.

Had India never been colonised, however, it's just as possible that the region would today be home to a couple of dozen little countries, some flourishing, some no better than any bankrupt tinpot dictatorship in the world.

But please, never mention again that "a Bengali nation could have emerged" - not even by mistake! It's a terrifying thought.

That said, the real miracle of India is that, 57 years later, we're still plodding along. India is India in spite of itself. And that's something to cheer.

I see absolutely no reason to acknowledge our failure at economic development post independence every time the topic of the brutal British rule over India comes up. The latter preceded the former, and the excesses of British rule are in no way excused by our past socialist economic policies. But of course, the loss of an empire still hurts some, as we see on this thread. Hey, if I were the citizen of an island that once ruled a quarter of the world, I'd be pretty upset looking at the map today myself.

India's an entirely British creation - good or bad, depending on your point of view. If it weren't for them, there's a strong likelihood India wouldn't exist today.

I disagree completely. The idea of India as a nation-state developed around the same time as several others around the world - in the latter half of the 19th century. Why on earth would Britain encourage any idea of India as anything other than a vassal of Britain ? As I've said before, the Indian nation-state is a creation in response, and not of British rule.

Whether or not India would have been united in the absence of British rule is conjecture. All I'll say is we've been recognized as a single entity, despite all the local kingdoms, for a long time. The Greeks and Romans never referred to Awadh and Bengal; they always referred to some general word that defined the rough extent of the Indian subcontinent.

That includes parliamentary democracy, secularism, the railway system, the highway network, the civil service, and, almost most importantly, their language.

Parliamentary democracy ? Secularism ? When on earth did the British conduct an election in India that wasn't done in the face of the threat of mass civil unrest by Gandhi and the INC otherwise ? And that too at the fag end of their rule, when the writing was on the wall ? Our own constitution, and with it, our parliamentary democracy and secularism, was inspired by the French and American constitutions (the British don't have a written one), and we did base our political system on the British one. But that's no reason to give them credit Britain for; they weren't responsible for it - Ambedkar and the rest of the committee that wrote the constitution, was.

Any Indian would tell you the civil service system left behind by the British is woefully incapable of handling its task today. It was made to rule a country by remote control, not to serve as a native administrative backbone. The ICS is a monster - a vast labyrinthine bureaucracy that stifles rather than promotes development.

The same goes for the alleged road/rail network they left behind - it was barely a fraction of what it is today. And remember, while the British nominally ruled India, most of the rule was by proxy through the princely states. The territory under their direct rule was small, and the infrastructure on it, just as small.

And finally, onto the matter of English. As has been argued, had India followed the path of several south-east Asian nations, we'd have prospered far more than we have. None of these nations have the proficiency in English that we do. I therefore fail to understand how English in any way makes us more competitive, when its merely a faciliator of communication, and not a direct contributor to economic growth.

Our having leveraged it today is hardly an argument that it presents us an advantage, when we're far behind countries like Korea and Japan. To use the humourous example of India being ruled by Korea -it would have given us familiarity with Korean, Chinese and Japanese - which share a largely common script. So we'd just as well have been answering phone calls from a billion and a half East Asians instead of Anglophones. Hell, there are more of them than Anglophones anyway, and we wouldnt have to stay up all night answering their calls. It might just as well have been better to be ruled by Korea  

In sum, I disagree that British rule had any benefit whatsoever to India.

I tend to agree with most of what you said, Barfbag, but given the inevitability of colonial rule in India, many argue that the Brits were the best of the lot. India could have been ruled by the Portueguese, the Dutch or the French all of whom ruled their colonies with a far fiercer hand than the Brits did (although, an India that resembled Goa more would be preferable to one that resembles a hot and dusty Leeds).

Also as far as the English language goes, I'm with Jasepl on this one. It was definitely an advantage, but in the post-colonial anti-British throes of independence, India played it down. A natural reaction, no doubt, to colonial rule, but I often wonder why an Air India plane has "A-yer In-deee-ya" phonetically scripted on its side in Hindi, and if that totally pisses off Tamils or Malayalees or Bengalis. The sheer stupidity of India's ruling class in enshrining the worst of what the Brits left India - the stifling bureacracy, a centrally controlled and planned economy, and ignoring the best, namely the English language and a modern education system is an unfortunate legacy of the first 40 years of independence.

I tend to agree with most of what you said, Barfbag, but given the inevitability of colonial rule in India, many argue that the Brits were the best of the lot. India could have been ruled by the Portueguese, the Dutch or the French all of whom ruled their colonies with a far fiercer hand than the Brits did (although, an India that resembled Goa more would be preferable to one that resembles a hot and dusty Leeds).

Jaysit, it is true that the British were nowhere as directly brutal in their rule as, say the Japanese in China, or the Belgians in Congo. Certainly, a Chinese Gandhi would have probably been hanging by his crown jewels from a lamp post in the immediate aftermath of his very first civil disobedience act.

However, the British were, in my opinion, far more adept at bringing economic ruin to their colonies than the others you gave as examples. So the choices are, on one hand an explicitly brutal imperial power that hits your economic foundations less, but kills more people. On the other hand, you have a more apparently benign power that eroded an inherently capitalist and mercantilist medieval economy to a far greater extent.

I'm not suggesting a more intact economy at the cost of more loss of life is better than the other option. Just think about it a bit. I'm just attempting to balance the picture you paint that the British were a better option. Which option would have been better is really a personal choice.

I'm myself more inclined to wish that if colonial rule was as inevitable as you claim, we'd been ruled by someone else but the British; our demographic depth and sheer physical distance from Europe/Japan would have made it hard to sustain such a genocide before they were overwhelmed by a local uprising. And our economy would have been in better shape. That's just conjecture on my part. Your mileage may vary.

"I'm just attempting to balance the picture you paint that the British were a better option."

I'm not stating that they were as a fact. Its just a conjecture, one that historical revisionists in Britain have trotted out in recent times based on the relative colonial experiences of different countries. However, comparing colonial experiences in different countries with different cultures and different motivations by colonial powers is like comparing apples and oranges - the Belgian experience in the Congo was shaped by the greed of King Leopold and the geography of the Congo, the Dutch experience in Indonesia was also a curious one that has no bearing on the Indian experience. But, its really the only basis for comparison (at least on A.net). Now, its also interesting that the British left behind a nation in which parliamentary democracy and secularism were enshrined and have survived over 57 years - more or less - intact. But then lets look at British colonial legacies Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq. Not exactly bastions of democracy or secularism ! Perhaps its just that the Hindu tradition of consensus that took to western parliamentary democracy particularly well.

To summarize, I'm not advocating a belief that the British legacy in India of democracy, secularism, etc., was one of deliberate largesse by the British. It came to be because of curious historical twists of fate and the culture of both the colonizers and the colonized had a lot to do with it.