From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 02:33:15 MST
Michael opines
> > A very significant stumbling block on the way to the kind of
> > amity which ought to be possible emerges when one looks at
> > the driving dynamic of [poorer and more backward] places
> >
> > Roughly, it reads as
> >
> > "_Finally_ we can get those <x> bastards back."
Yes. Resentment against achievement seems to be wired-in in
most of us to some degree or other, and we have to fight its
control.
Mez adds
> Oh, I agree. This has sabotaged peace again and again the world over.
>
> Still, while we can't prevent this, we can reduce its likelihood.
> Rich people are less into this kind of revenge than poor people.
Are you implying that poor people, who indeed are more prone
to this jealousy or irrational urge for revenge, become less
envious or irrational if you give them money? Quite the
contrary---unconsciously, at least, it's a slap in the face.
All people's self-image is crucial. Relevantly here, the
most important thing is to remove obvious oppressors, but
beyond that?
> People in democracies with a police force and a strong
> respect for law are less likely to engage in revenge
> than people in functional anarchies or dictatorships.
We are agreed. And let us not forget Rafal's list, which
I thought slightly better than yours:
### I fully agree with you that dumping money on the corrupt rulers of the
poor people is highly counterproductive. In this context, American
occupation of Afghanistan (and later Iraq) offers the opportunity to give
real help, not to be diverted to nefarious schemes and Swiss bank accounts
(well, at least not all of it). Instead, basic education, sound fiscal
policy, support for the legal systems, protection of the free markets,
building of protected free trade zones in areas under US control, giving the
locals an economic stake in the benefits of the zones, expansion of the
orderly way of business across the land, access to information, and even, in
some special cases, limited humanitarian help, could eventually make a
difference.
A fine list, worthy of dissection. On each item, one must ask "Why
didn't the World Bank or the IMF try this? Or... did they?"
Mez again:
> The desire for retribution is one of the reasons that, if the US goes
> into Iraq, it needs to be prepared to stay there for a long time to
> come to put that country back on its feet.
It may be a paradox. The democratic tendencies there will be
so unstable that it could take a generation. Yet for psychological
reasons, perhaps just as in Afghanistan, it may be necessary to
"let go" right away. Right now, it may be the wisest course for
the U.S. to *appear* to be doing little for the Karzai government.
That way, the Afghanis could begin to develop the skills necessary
to manage by themselves---and weave towards progress.
On the other hand, if the U.S. were secretly providing assistance,
then (as others have pointed out) it would be in the eyes of
both Arab extremists and leftists in America and Europe just
more imperialism.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 02:29:36 MST