Some geographic areas unite into countries.....others remain fractured attempts

Mango · Nov 30, 2001

Recent events relating to Afghanistan illustrate the differences throughout the world in the creation of stable countries. Some parts of the world have countries that evolved into fairly placid nations, while other parts of the world have constant uneasiness and lack stability in the governmental structure.

Europe has had many changes over the centuries in its territorial boundaries and governmental structures, but seems to have a peaceful outlook in the 21st century. <A HREF="www.euratlas.com/summary.htm">The historical maps of Europe</A> illustrate the changes over time and the different powers/rulers/governments that held sway through the centuries. Some of the countries of the former USSR remain question marks as far as stability, but the prospects are far better for that continent than it was during the last half of the 20th century. The uneasiness in the Balkans, the Basque movement in Spain and the strife in Northern Ireland detract from perfection, but the overall tension level is low compared to several other continents.

North America countries have settled into defined boundaries with fairly cordial relations between countries. The movement for the use of French in Canada is/was quite civilzed. Mexico does have the Zapatistas and a desire by the general population for improvement in their economic status. However, dissolution of Mexico into fractured parts is not likely.

South America has also settled into countries with defined boundaries and stable relationships. Some of the countries have internal unrest (examples: Peru and Colombia), but again have a very low probability of dissolving into smaller territorial pieces. Haiti is an ongoing issue and will continue to be one. Cuban - US relations will probably improve when a change in the Cuban leadership occurs.

Australia/Oceania has a fairly stable situation and the boundaries are relatively fixed.

Asia has several troubling boundary areas:

North Korea - South Korea
China - Taiwan
India - Pakistan
Israel - Palestinians
Iraq - Iran
Iraq - Kuwait
et al

There are several movements ongoing for breaking away from a country and/or overthrowing a government.

Afghanistan
Nepal
India - Kashmir
Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers
Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria - Kurds

Africa has a general feeling of unease and has several
countries with significant internal conflict or just lacking in a government that is moving the country forward:

Nigeria
Sudan
Somalia
Zimbabwe
et al

Overall, the countries in Africa seem to have made little progress into the modern world. Some might argue that progress into the 21st century is not always desirable, but that is an issue for another thread.

Should problems in Africa be blamed on European colonialism? Maps for many countries in Africa were drawn with little regard to the geographic areas that various tribes inhabited. In Europe, there has been a mixing of people and not all boundaries were fixed to match the local ethnic distribution. Swizterland has a mix of languages and is quite peaceful. There are areas in central Europe that have a mix of Slavic and Germanic people and the populations generally accept the government of the country that their areas have been assimilated into. Much of Europe is progressing forward into the European Union which is a further step beyond the concept of a unified country. How were the countries and populations in Europe able to overcome some boundary/ethnic issues while parts of Africa seem stuck in a local tribal phase that Europe overcame many centuries ago?

Should some of the conflicts in Asia be blamed on centuries old religious issues that were caused by the rise and fall of various ruling powers such as the Ottomans, Mongols and the Britsh?

Mango

haven · Nov 30, 2001

Mango:

I think the problem is that economic modernization has been thrust upon cultures that were not culturally developed enough. In Europe, institutions gained credibility across centuries. When you think about it, most of civil society'srules are really pretty arbitrary. Yet we don't even think about them, because they're so damned ingrained in us. Obedience and compliance is almost instinctual with our civil social norms.

Political traditions and social norms that accomodate modern society just aren't as developed in Africa or the Middle East.

Before you point to other parts of the world...

1. Asia, in many ways, was as culturally advanced as Europe entering the colonial era, and many Asian nations were never truly colonized... they simply became vassals to an extent.

2. North, South and Latin America adopted a great deal of European culture and experienced a great deal of European immigration.

I think the problem is perpetuated by economic practices and the lack of arable land in the region. If you can't produce enough foodstuffs, it's hard to develop economic infrastructure.

The WTO has also made many mistakes in Africa. I don't think it's a plot like some people do, but the WTO has made several mistakes. For example, the WTO wants nations to pull themselves up by their boostraps and so urges cash crops. Problem is, many of these cash crops are ill-suited to the region, cause desertification, and the profits can't pay for necessary food anyway, and famine results.

An interesting alternative model is that of Japan. Japan told Western nations that thought it should produce cheap goods for easy exports to go to hell. Instead, it deliberately sought after industries with high value-added levels and simply imported the goods. It dominated the ship-building industry first, before moving on to micro-electronics.

The result? 14% plus economic growth for decades and an economy that doubled every 7 years. Perhaps much of the 3rd world should use this as an example, instead of relying on the WTO.

The problem, of course, is complex and using one explanation in an attempt to find easy answers will fail. Many of the problems, are, unfortunately, interwoven and synergistic.

So many reasons... no renaissance, poor land, poor econimic models, weak social institutions, dependency on Western aid, resource wars...

...does the list every end?

Enough rambling .

haven · Nov 30, 2001

one clarification on economic development:

The WTO urges developing nations to exploit comparative advantage economics. That would normally dictate that nations either exploit natural resources.... or if they have none, their cheap labor to mass produce cheap products, since labor is so much cheaper in developing nations.

Forums

Some geographic areas unite into countries.....others remain fractured attempts

Mango Member

haven Member

haven Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!