What I Would Do Now: Foreign Policy Three

Central Asia, Indian Ocean

In an effort to eradicate a plague we helped release for short term gain and at our own long term cost, the northern third of the so called arc of instability needs to be addressed. We have to eschew the juvenile and parochial notions that we are the super power and must get our way and that dislike of a given government requires action on our part. We can work with any government as long as the other nation works from self interest and not spite.

India is a democracy, respects trade and property and has assets that combined with the U.S. are formidable. I do not care about the non-aligned movement and all the rest of the claptrap that has kept the U.S. and India from working together. Unlike most of its neighbors, India progresses, its neighbors are largely poorly governed, poor, and undesirable. However the arc of instability passes to the northwest of India and thru what was until 1947 considered Indian territory.

By way of background Bangladesh is an interesting example or model of how Indian intervention succeeded and a model we could have followed at various times. Bangladesh used to be East Pakistan, oppressed by co-religionists of different nationality from West Pakistan they were desirous of independence. In 1971 Pakistan and India came to blows. In a brilliant campaign the Indian Forces out-thought and out-maneuvered the Pakistani Forces, with aid from Bangladeshi insurgents. East Pakistan fell and the new country of Bangladesh arose.

Well there are other peoples oppressed in the same fashion, who could benefit form a similar resolution. The key was in the rapid military phase, conquest and withdrawal. The Indians turned over the country to its own people quickly. The two governments have normal relations with both success and tension. Yet, there is no hostility, no fruitless occupation and no lasting enmity. The same could be done for other nations.

There are many, many nationalities throughout the so called arc, and most are under the thumb of some other nationality. Policies to bring “stability” to any region that depend on the peaceful subordination of one nationality to another are pipe dreams. We have to break things down further where necessary. The various ethnic groups of Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan need to be allowed independence. Truly people of these counties don’t see themselves as Pakistanis or Afghani’s but as Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Turkmen, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun (Pathan), Baloch and more! They should have their own countries, until they do there will no peace without extermination.

India and the U.S. have the power to wreck the oppressive states and free these ethnicities. We don’t have the power to administer, occupy or dictate to these nationalities. Occupying a country until it is ready for independence is a phony pretext to dominate it, and it never works anyway because of human nature. We can cut their shackles but then it is entirely up to them to succeed or fail. But with this exercise of power we eliminate intractable oppressive problematic states. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, can be considered based upon actual prior success. We must reassert the Tom Doctrine that we will recognize any government that is indigenously generated.

But to enact policies like these that look to a goal, and are informed by evidence instead of ideology, we will surely need a new government.


6 Responses to What I Would Do Now: Foreign Policy Three

  1. […] Well there are other peoples oppressed in the same fashion, who could benefit form a similar resolution. The key was in the rapid military phase, conquest and withdrawal. The Indians turned over the country to its own people quickly. The two governments have normal relations with both success and tension. Yet, there is no hostility, no fruitless … Posted by broadsunlituplandsThanks for intresting article.Link to original article […]

  2. J Thomas says:

    Tom, what you say makes some sense.

    There are a fair number of american blacks who believe they need their own nation, composed of portions of some US southern states that are majority black. Does your reasoning apply to the USA? What about the ethnic-cubans who are likely to want their own nation? And mexicans in west texas, south new mexico, south california, etc?

    If each ethnicity deserves its own nation, how many nations will the USA split into?

  3. Thank you for your comment.

    I have tried to address the issue of Western intervention/meddling abroad, and a way to withdraw from that position, while removing the obstacles that that same meddling has imposed on indigenous progress. I have come to recognize indigenous peoples with a long history in their region, at this juncture, may be best served by independence, and have been ill served by subjugation to Westerners or their neighbors. But I have not sanctioned conquest through immigration, in spite of one famous case where we are caught up in that kind of thing. I have to ask you how that obtains against domestic issues that though real in terms of racial inequality, are resolvable through civil and democratic means: and not currently causing civil strife or conflict, and not a product of foreign intervention.


  4. J Thomas says:

    Dan, If it’s a moral question, I don’t know where to stand. We can try to settle each question on the basis of who lived there first, but that wouldn’t put us on a firm moral standing ourselves, would it? We’re a nation of immigrants.

    If it’s a practical question, our ability to beat third-world armies in quick wars doesn’t give us much toward setting up new governments. We can perhaps deliver military defeats to all the nations in the area and then hope that they’ll set up governments as we tell them to, but I don’t have great hopes.

    So my thought is, if we ever again are in the position of beating a foreign army and disbanding their government, let’s do the reconstruction bottom-up. Start with elections for each city and town. Let only local people run, people who mostly won’t have much connection to us. Arrange for transparently fair elections, with oversight from whoever locally gets a lot of respect, whether that’s religious authorities or whoever. Then work with whoever gets elected. Give them reconstruction money for city projects, let them work at getting their local structures working. Then start out regional elections based with a referendum, ask voters which other towns and cities they want to be affiliated with. Once regional associations build up then look at bigger combinations. We don’t have to sort them out into ethnic groups, they can do that themselves. They build up into whatever nations they choose to.

    We can just attack the armies and then pull out and recognise whatever nations get built. But by that reasoning we might almost as well recognise the nations that are already there. Or did you mean, we recognise whatever nations get indigenously built, and then if we don’t like them we invade and smash their armies and pull out and see how the dice roll this time?

    It’s way too soon to tell whether our own ethnic problems can be resolved democraticly. I hope so. But partition isn’t much of a solution either. When people can’t get along well enough to have the same government, it isn’t unlikely that they won’t get along well enough with multiple governments to stay out of wars with each other. Sometimes there’s no solution but kill and die. Dying solves all our worldly problems.

  5. J,

    Well I’d say we need standards, but I am not sure that means morality: which is notoriously hard to pin down and agree upon. We are certainly a nation of immigrants, voluntary and involuntary. I don’t propose an answer to the existential question of do we deserve this, I simply accept that it is. I’d say we once and for all decide whether the involuntary immigrants and First Americans deserve something special. But that is for a public debate and in America we don’t debate actionable issues usually, just esoteric ones. I’d say to the voluntary immigrants, “welcome, leave your customs, prejudices, and nationalism back in the old country.”

    We do have the ability to beat nearly any military, and little or no ability to administer occupied peoples. I do not propose to fix or police the world. I propose to protect ourselves, and countries with which we have a federated alliance. I do propose that on our way out of some areas we undue some of what we did. The world is far from perfectible or easily changeable, yet we must do the best we can, rationally I hope. I think we need to understand that our interventions up till now have been made largely for the wrong reasons, unnecessary, and to our own detriment.

    I have some hope domestically because though we haven’t honestly addressed our own issues, we are a peaceful nation when compared with the world at large. And that gives us a shot. I have in mind some posts on domestic issues for the near future.

%d bloggers like this: