What should Washington's relationship with the developing World be?

[KingJaja]

SWJ has id'd a Bing West article:http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...isil-bing-west

As I posted on SWJ there is something wrong with his advocacy:

I have read Bing's article twice and wondered whether these two passages negate his whole argument. Which Muslim armies are ready for such a campaign today or tomorrow? Not one I would contend, nor in an alliance of the willing. Then he assumes the very same failed leaders will act. There are few leaders in the local, Arabic-speaking Muslim world who answer to their people


Then there are the "two ladies speaking truth unto power", an article by two ex-USG (CIA) analysts in 'What the U.S. can realistically do in Iraq':http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/14/op...n-iraq-crisis/

I think the deeper question should be what should Washington's relationship with the developing World be?

[davidbfpo]

I think the deeper question should be what should Washington's relationship with the developing World be?

I think that might become a new thread very soon!

[KingJaja]

I think that might become a new thread very soon!

I think so to - I also think US needs a bit more of pragmatism when dealing with the Developing World.

But this will require a new set of US diplomats and politicians.

[KingJaja]

I think that might become a new thread very soon!

Two major regions in the developing world - The Middle East and Africa have this fundamental problem - the problem of artificial, poorly conceptualized states.

This is not that much of an issue in Latin America or much of the rest of Asia, but it is fundamental to understanding the challenges in the Middle East and Africa.

For the past 50 -70 years, the US has been content with preserving old British, Portuguese and French spheres of influence in these regions - without closely examining deeper fissures. I think in the wake of Iraq, an excessive focus on an external appearance of stability and preserving colonial era borders is no longer feasible.

Nobody is expecting US policy makers to remake these societies - but the least they can do is explain to the American people what they're all about.

[Dayuhan]

This is not that much of an issue in Latin America or much of the rest of Asia

It's worth noting, though, that both Latin America and SE Asia were for many years absolute basket cases, riddled by extreme violence and horrendous government... with the US up to its eyeballs in both. The terms "banana republic" and "tinpot dictator" were coined to describe Latin American governments. Today, both regions still have problems, but both are relatively peaceful and showing considerable economic progress.

During the dark periods in both regions, US engagement was dominated by the agenda of suppressing Communism by any means, and often neglected the actual needs and circumstances of the countries in favor of an agenda imposed by the US. In both regions, a general scaling back of US engagement coincided with 9not necessarily caused) a general improvement in political conditions. Might be some lessons in that.

Overall, "the developing world" is a very broad place and I'm not sure it's possible to outline a map for US engagement in any sense specific enough to be useful. One thing we have learned is that the US cannot solve other people's problems, but beyond that, things pretty much have to go on a case to case basis.

[jcustis]

It will be in the US interest to be transparent, honest and understanding. That will go a ways to addressing some of the concerns of peoples around the globe that are in turn exploited and co-opted by violent actors.

I know that is a very broad answer.

[KingJaja]

I think a very serious problem US analysts have is the assumption that French, British, Belgian and Portuguese intentions were/and still are pure. I've not seen much evidence of the US seriously probing say, British or French assumptions in the Middle East and Africa - instead, US takes them as gospel truth.

When the French and British ruled most of the globe, they picked favorites - and they still have favorites today; they haven't abandoned them. US policy has simply been to support the French and British - and their favorites - without fully understanding the societies they are dealing with. This we see in Mali, Niger, Chad and most of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The British governed most of Nigeria through Muslim Fulani aristocrats - their favorites. So British foreign policy in Nigeria will always be pro-Muslim Fulani aristocrat - and since US policy in Nigeria follows the lead of British policy, it will also have the same biases.

The policy of simply supporting ex-colonial powers and their favorites or seeing the Developing World through the eyes of ex-colonial powers might have worked during the Cold War; but it isn't going to work for very much longer.

The Chinese, for example are quite pragmatic about the way they see the World; they deal with present realities.

Why does the US insist on carrying the baggage of defunct British, French, Portuguese and Belgian colonial empires in the 21st Century? Are there no new thinkers or no new ways of thinking?

[Bill Moore]

U.S. has biases? Of course we do. Most Africans seem to have perceptions of the U.S. that are tainted with considerable bias also. Unfortunately bias is part of the human condition and it takes considerable conscious effort to mitigate its impact on our decision making.

As for the U.S. continuing to support legacy British and French policy in their colonies, that was true in the past so some extent, but I don't see it now. The U.S. supporting Muslims in Nigeria I suspect is a perception issue on your part because U.S. diplomats are probably pushing for the government of Nigeria to ensure the government takes care of all its citizens and not discriminate against a particular group, because it will undermine their security in the long run.

Our support for British and French colonial efforts after WWII due to our alliance relationships still haunts us today in a lot of way. We even allowed France to drag us into Vietnam with threats from French political leadership not being able to support the U.S. agenda in Europe if the U.S. doesn't support the French in Vietnam. France was very unstable politically after the war, and we weren't sure what camp they would ultimately fall in.

The Chinese, for example are quite pragmatic about the way they see the World; they deal with present realities.

If I correctly understand the Chinese approach in Africa it is one of non-interference, which I would think equates to supporting, even reinforcing, the status quo. Do most Africans enjoy the status quo. I realize their are many countries and cultures in Africa, but the problems of corruption and lack of opportunity seem to run through most of the countries. China is pragmatic about its self-interests, I think the U.S. actually has a longer term vision tied to the human condition throughout Africa.

Are there no new thinkers or no new ways of thinking?

We have plenty of people offering new idea, concepts, etc. To get those funded you have to get them through a stagnant Congress and in some cases an overly idealistic White House (Clinton/Bush).