anyone else following Egypt on Aljazeera?

[Scarpia]

Ask Monsieur Sarkozy. It is he who received Gaddafi in Paris with the highest honors and allowed him to mount his tent at the Louvre --- aiming precisely at selling him weapons.

Hypocrisy, thy name is politics. 

Obama also had to suspend an impending sale of military hardware at the beginning of the crisis.   

[Florestan]

Obama also had to suspend an impending sale of military hardware at the beginning of the crisis.

Voila! Humanitarianism in action. 

[Todd]

Obama also had to suspend an impending sale of military hardware at the beginning of the crisis.

Yes, but that's because we thought Qaddafi had changed.  He gave up his WMD and helped us hunt down terrorists.  He no doubt needed those weapons to kill members of al-Qaeda.

[Florestan]

Yes, but that's because we thought Qaddafi had changed.  He gave up his WMD and helped us hunt down terrorists.  He no doubt needed those weapons to kill members of al-Qaeda.

One can say whatever one wants about this guy, and I dislike him a lot (not least for his repugnant physical appearance) --- but that he was just as shrewed and clever as to be able to manipulate the West for years (after Lockerbie, mind you) nobody can deny. 

[Scarpia]

Yes, but that's because we thought Qaddafi had changed.  He gave up his WMD and helped us hunt down terrorists.  He no doubt needed those weapons to kill members of al-Qaeda.

You left off the smiley.   

This policy that all sins are forgiven if you say something bad about bin Laden doesn't seem to work well.

[Todd]

This policy that all sins are forgiven if you say something bad about bin Laden doesn't seem to work well.

I am shocked to read this.

[Florestan]

This policy that all sins are forgiven if you say something bad about bin Laden doesn't seem to work well.

Lip-servicers of the world, unite! 

[MishaK]

There can be no Marshall Plan in the current world because the necessary conditions do not exist.  The US did not undertake the policy out of the kindness of its collective heart, it did it for strategic reasons.  There is nothing in the current world anything like what existed in the late 40s.  The whole world does not need a Marshall Plan, either; that is grandiose imperial thinking to make even someone like Cecil Rhodes shudder.

The US did it then out of strategic reasons, but also for its own profit. The Marshall Plan was the ideal means of keeping full employment when a large military of conscripts was about to be demobilized when the war ended, potentially throwing a huge number of workers into an economy that couldn't absorb it. The Marshall Plan and the GI Bill alleviated that problem massively. We tend to forget these days that when Truman promulgated the Truman Doctrine, arguing that Communists must be deterred in greece, where an open civil war was going on, there was scant interest and little support for containment of Communism, despite its strategic appeal, because the country had no interest in the expense of it when a long war had just ended. It wasn't until Marshall added the Marshall plan and explicitly sold it to the public and policy makers as a policy that combines strategic interest with explicit economic self-interest that public and political opinion turned in favor of supporting Europe.

Correct, but the assumptions behind these systems are the same. Could you say that the assumptions behind the US legal system and that of Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Lybia are the same?

Broadly speaking the assumptions behind most legal systems are the same. The assumptions matter less than the organizational structure, the distribution of responsibilities and burden of proof, etc. The US-Anglo civil law systems are really a different universe compared to the continental European civil law systems. You overestimate the differences with "non-Western" cultures and underestimate the differences among "Western" systems. E.g. France's constitution explicitly focuses on equality, Germany's on "human dignity", two concepts completely foreign to US law.

That's particularly interesting, because India's legal system is nothing else than a colonial inheritance --- do I need to remind you how horrified were the English colonial authorities by the Indian practices prior to the English common law being literally forced upon the Indians?

As are continental European systems a colonial inheritance from Roman imperial rule. So? I'm sure the old Germans and Gauls didn't much appreciate that at the time either.

Oh sure: the Liberian constitution is basically a copy of the US one. Yet the two countries are galaxies apart.

I was speaking about in practice, not on paper. On paper most countries are "democracies" with "elected" leaders.

Are you being serious? 

White Americans in charge of Western Europe? Then what were Adenauer and de Gaulle? Some bushmen puppets of their WASP masters?

Maybe I was unclear. What I mean to say is that while the US is an ethnically diverse country, it was a country ruled by whites in the 40s/50s, and it was whites with a European background who worked on the reconstruction effort in Europe, and who hence felt a kinship to the Europeans they were helping, which was not the case in Japan or Korea, where those same white Americans felt no connection to Asians, whom many of them regarded as rather barbaric, as evidenced also by the much greater brutality displayed by US troops in the Korean War and later Vietnam vs. their behavior in Europe. I don't really think that is very controversial.

[Todd]

The US did it then out of strategic reasons, but also for its own profit. The Marshall Plan was the ideal means of keeping full employment when a large military of conscripts was about to be demobilized when the war ended, potentially throwing a huge number of workers into an economy that couldn't absorb it. The Marshall Plan and the GI Bill alleviated that problem massively. We tend to forget these days that when Truman promulgated the Truman Doctrine, arguing that Communists must be deterred in greece, where an open civil war was going on, there was scant interest and little support for containment of Communism, despite its strategic appeal, because the country had no interest in the expense of it when a long war had just ended. It wasn't until Marshall added the Marshall plan and explicitly sold it to the public and policy makers as a policy that combines strategic interest with explicit economic self-interest that public and political opinion turned in favor of supporting Europe.

I'm very well aware of the history of the Marshall Plan.  That's why it cannot (and should not) happen today.  What spectre out there today is the equivalent of the USSR?  It cetainly is not even the most militant of militant Islamists.  The most talented demagogue around can't convince even the slowest observer that there is a potentially real existential threat to the US, and that we should build up other parts of the world to stand as a bulwark against said threat.

[MishaK]

I'm very well aware of the history of the Marshall Plan.  That's why it cannot (and should not) happen today.  What spectre out there today is the equivalent of the USSR?  It cetainly is not even the most militant of militant Islamists.  The most talented demagogue around can't convince even the slowest observer that there is a potentially real existential threat to the US, and that we should build up other parts of the world to stand as a bulwark against said threat.

The Marshall Plan's main objective was not necessarily stopping communism, but rebuilding the European economy and tying it to US economic interests for the long term, while preventing widescale unemployment in the US when the WWII army was demobilized. You don't need an enemy to make such an effort. What you do need is a mindset that accepts that organized public effort can accomplish such a big task, rather than the current belief that the private sector can solve everything. The private sector has too short of an attention span and too jittery investors to do it.

[Todd]

The Marshall Plan's main objective was not necessarily stopping communism, but rebuilding the European economy and tying it to US economic interests for the long term, while preventing widescale unemployment in the US when the WWII army was demobilized. You don't need an enemy to make such an effort. What you do need is a mindset that accepts that organized public effort can accomplish such a big task, rather than the current belief that the private sector can solve everything. The private sector has too short of an attention span and too jittery investors to do it.

This is an interesting revision of history. 

It was deemed necessary to rebuild Europe to prevent it from falling to Communism.  The offer of funding to the Soviet Union was a nice, cynical touch to the proceedings.  There were always additional objectives, like building markets for US companies to boost employment and opening capital markets to the one country with fully functioning commercial and investment banks (with both objectives also being served by Bretton Woods), but preventing the spread of Communism was always one of the main objectives.  It helps that the ultimately circular funding of the Dawes Plan displayed the fundamental weakness of such schemes in the 20s, so policy makers knew that something different was needed in the 40s and 50s. 

I'm not quite sure what the private sector has to do with any of this.  No investor would take on that scale and type of risk, at least without explicit loss coverage by the federal government.  I'm not certain who believes the private sector can solve everything today.  Who, for instance, believes the private sector can eradicate polio?  Who even believed contractors could rebuild Iraq without the US government?  There were and are a lot of private companies profiting from reconstruction, but that's with a lot of public funding. 

I'm not sure how any of this translates into a need for some type of global Marshall Plan, as you mentioned earlier.  How many war ravaged lands outside of the Middle East are strategically important to the US, and how many of them offer sizeable enough markets for US companies to justify huge outlays?  There is no need for a new version of the Marshall Plan.  Smaller aid packages, sure, but that's quite a bit different.  An enemy may not be needed to make such an effort, though it usually helps, but an ROI sure the hell is needed, even if it's a public project. 

[MishaK]

I think we have sufficiently derailed this thread already... but just a few answers...

This is an interesting revision of history. 

It was deemed necessary to rebuild Europe to prevent it from falling to Communism.  The offer of funding to the Soviet Union was a nice, cynical touch to the proceedings.  There were always additional objectives, like building markets for US companies to boost employment and opening capital markets to the one country with fully functioning commercial and investment banks (with both objectives also being served by Bretton Woods), but preventing the spread of Communism was always one of the main objectives. 

Look at the public's and Washington's reaction to a) the Truman doctrine speech, and b) the later Marshall Plan speech. The Marshall Plan was all about finding a way for the US to profit from what the Truman doctrine tried to accomplish by mainly military means, but for which there was insufficient public and political support. This isn't revision, it's a matter of public record. The Truman doctrine came before the Marshall Plan and it went nowhere until the Marshall Plan came around, because the Truman doctrine by itself offered no material benefits for a war-weary population. The communist bogeyman was convenient, but the incentives for rebuilding Europe would have been there even without the Communist threat. And again, the communist bogeyman was insufficient to rally support for the Truman doctrine. The US population in 1945-1947 had no interest in, and no appetite to fight, communism. In hindsight it seems like communism was the overarching great threat, and it may indeed have seemed that way to some policymakers at the time, but for the population at large it wasn't even on the radar. That changed only after 1947. You also underestimate the massive problem that a demobilzed WWII military would have meant to the US economy absent some economic program to absorb all those thousands of new workers recently discharged from the military (as I said before, the GI bill also helped absorb many of those as well).

EDIT: a pertinent quote from the Marshall Plan speech at Harvard in 1947:

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question.

Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

Read the text. There is not a single mention of deterring communism. It's all about economic necessities and preventing further economic misery that would affect the US economy as well.

Who even believed contractors could rebuild Iraq without the US government?

Apparently, many of the individuals who ran the CPA quite honestly did believe that, as unbelievable as that sounds. They were that doctrinaire.

I'm not sure how any of this translates into a need for some type of global Marshall Plan, as you mentioned earlier.  How many war ravaged lands outside of the Middle East are strategically important to the US, and how many of them offer sizeable enough markets for US companies to justify huge outlays?  There is no need for a new version of the Marshall Plan.  Smaller aid packages, sure, but that's quite a bit different.  An enemy may not be needed to make such an effort, though it usually helps, but an ROI sure the hell is needed, even if it's a public project.

I think Afghanistan and other recent issues have shown that many seemingly unimportant countries have the potential of seriously destabilizing the world economy if unsustainable political conditions are left unchecked for too long and if the population is left outside of the world economy for too long. A large scale international investment effort with a real commitment towards development would help not only Arab post conflict states but many sub-saharan African states as well, and it would benefit Western economies as well, all of which are suffering from the economic downturn still. At present, the vacuum is left to the Chinese and in some cases the Saudis, both of which have often less humanitarian interests and whose long-term influence may not benefit either the locals or the rest of the world. A wealthier more stable country is a better trading partner and that creates jobs. The ROI sure as hell is there, it may just take a while to realize, just as it was in postwar Europe and Japan. There are no benefits whatsoever to be derived from leaving a country in an underdeveloped state with an unstable government. Whatever you can do to effectively improve that situation will bring some sort of ROI.

[Todd]

but the incentives for rebuilding Europe would have been there even without the Communist threat.

I think Afghanistan and other recent issues have shown that many seemingly unimportant countries have the potential of seriously destabilizing the world economy if unsustainable political conditions are left unchecked for too long and if the population is left outside of the world economy for too long.

The first statement is contrafactual, and can be neither proven nor disproven.  The reality is that there was a Communist threat, or at least a perceived threat.  Rebuilding Western Europe was seen as a way to keep it from becoming like Eastern Europe.  The timing of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan only reinforces this: if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Your example of Afghanistan is not a good one, and it certainly isn't a good analogy for other countries in, say, sub-Saharan Africa.  Afghanistan has been a strategically important country in Central Asia for centuries.  Empires in centuries past have fought wars in it and over it.  It offers passes into and out of the sub-continent.  That's one of the reasons why Pakistan started trying to install and back the Taliban in the 90s.  It is a unique country with a unique set of challenges.

Your concluding paragraph contains a bit of wishful thinking.  The Arab world and Africa are small and poor economically.  They aren't even remotely as economically significant as Western Europe and Japan were in the 40s.  That's like comparing apples and dump trucks.  The idea that "investing" in these regions - and throw in Southeast Asia and the poorer parts of South America, too - will have any impact on the current economic recovery is absolutely wrong.  These countries are poor and underdeveloped for myriad reasons, including hideous governance, that will not be and cannot be fixed in a few years time.  It will take many years, in some cases decades, to establish proper political and economic systems to create economically significant nations, and that's presuming they can be established.  I have no problem with the US contributing to economic development programs, but the idea that a large sustained effort will somehow magically transition these countries into something more modern is just wrong.  You yourself had mentioned somewhere else the fallacy of the US establishing democracy in post-war countries, but here you suggest we try creating, what, efficient, regulated capitalist economies, presumably with democratic governments to boot, where the underlying institutions do not exist?  As to lingering neo-con (and others') concerns that continued economic stagnation in such countries will create failed states where groups like al-Qaeda can operate, well, as Obama has shown, it's not to hard to order drone attacks and cruise missile attacks at will.  I do not see any justification for a large scale economic intervention in the developing world.

[MishaK]

The first statement is contrafactual, and can be neither proven nor disproven.  The reality is that there was a Communist threat, or at least a perceived threat.  Rebuilding Western Europe was seen as a way to keep it from becoming like Eastern Europe.  The timing of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan only reinforces this: if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Did you even bother reading the speech I linked? Marshall quite clearly speaks of the harm that would be done to the US economy by leaving Europe in poverty. Communism was secondary to the Marshall Plan. I never denied that communism played *a* role in the marshall plan, but the economic incentives speak for themselves and those incentives can be realized elsewhere as well.

Your example of Afghanistan is not a good one, and it certainly isn't a good analogy for other countries in, say, sub-Saharan Africa.  Afghanistan has been a strategically important country in Central Asia for centuries.  Empires in centuries past have fought wars in it and over it.  It offers passes into and out of the sub-continent.  That's one of the reasons why Pakistan started trying to install and back the Taliban in the 90s.  It is a unique country with a unique set of challenges.

Nobody denies the uniqueness of *every* country, least of all me. But you underestimate the strategic importance of other African coutries over which wars were and are still fought, you just know less about them. As I said, China is very active in Africa these days, while the West ignores the opportunities at its own peril. The Chinese know the strategic importance and they take a longer term view.

Your concluding paragraph contains a bit of wishful thinking.  The Arab world and Africa are small and poor economically.

Regarding the Arab world, that is not true. Regarding Africa, it depends which Africa you are talking about. There are quite significant economies like Nigeria and rather "unimportant" ones. In no case, does that however mitigate against enabling greater prosperity which would then create more important economies with more economic opportunities for everyone involved. In all cases, you are talking about economies that aren't at their full potential, which also means that you are missing potential trading partners who could buy stuff and therefore bring jobs to your own population.

They aren't even remotely as economically significant as Western Europe and Japan were in the 40s.

You seem to be thinking more of present day Europe and Japan. Large parts of 1940s Europe were total backwaters then, e.g. Portugal, Greece.

That's like comparing apples and dump trucks.  The idea that "investing" in these regions - and throw in Southeast Asia and the poorer parts of South America, too - will have any impact on the current economic recovery is absolutely wrong.  These countries are poor and underdeveloped for myriad reasons, including hideous governance, that will not be and cannot be fixed in a few years time.

Actually, the main reasons are a combination of the legacies of colonialism, including support for cronyist oligarchies; import tarrifs that prevent the import of cheaper 3rd world agricultural products to the west, while dumping subsidized western agricultural products on 3rd world markets, which makes it economically undesirable for local famers to go into farming crops to feed the local population, thus resulting in a few wealthy farmers controllling a market in luxury items for export to the West (coffee, cocoa, tropical fruits), while other languish in barely survivable susbistence farming; combined with the stupid policies of the IMF and the World Bank which provide loans but don't really effectively look at what the money is spent on, while insisting on monetarist policies that the borrower country can't afford to inflict on its population. It's a total mess. Compare with the Marshall Plan which delivered actual machinery needed for development and provided expertise and know-how, rather than just providing money and leaving it to local strongmen to be spent. Nothing that you have said in any way demonstrates that Marshall-plan style aid would be less successful, let alone more detrimental in poorer countries. I fail to see how providing agricultural machinery and improving infrastructure directly, rather than providing loans and leaving it to local leadership to spend, would be harmful in any way. Of course we do need to revamp the vastly unfair international trade system...

It will take many years, in some cases decades, to establish proper political and economic systems to create economically significant nations, and that's presuming they can be established.   I have no problem with the US contributing to economic development programs, but the idea that a large sustained effort will somehow magically transition these countries into something more modern is just wrong.

It took decades in Europe, too. Aside from France and Germany, most of the other countries were basket cases for decades. Need I remind you of Italy, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc. The first waves of "Gastarbeiter" in 50's economic miracle Germany came from Italy, Greece and Portugal because economic opportunities there were so few. Even Austria was so poor outside of Vienna that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't wait to emigrate. You're looking at Europe either through a very rosy-colored rear view mirror, or you're just talking about Germany and France. The rest really wasn't all that hot.

You yourself had mentioned somewhere else the fallacy of the US establishing democracy in post-war countries, but here you suggest we try creating, what, efficient, regulated capitalist economies, presumably with democratic governments to boot, where the underlying institutions do not exist? 

I was talking about the fallacy of imposing democracy through force where no prior civil and legal institutions exist. Democracy and war are inherently incompatible. Any nation at war tends to limit democracy and war hinders the development of democratic institutions where none existed before. The antagonism of war creates an antagonistic population, and the destruction and hardship of war create fear and uncertainty, all of which combine to dissuade thoughtful constitutional processes that could yield a stable democratic nation. That is certainly not the case with development programs. You are jumping to conclusions and comparing very different things. And I don't at all deny that it will take decades. That's precisely why a concerted public effort is needed for which the private sector has no patience.

As to lingering neo-con (and others') concerns that continued economic stagnation in such countries will create failed states where groups like al-Qaeda can operate, well, as Obama has shown, it's not to hard to order drone attacks and cruise missile attacks at will.  I do not see any justification for a large scale economic intervention in the developing world.

The justification, as I said, is that if we don't help, you breed poverty and instability. At best you invite someone else (Saudi, China) to "help" who might have counterproductive agendas. Don't forget that the Saudis funded the Mujaheddin and the Taliban as well and were often more important to their well being than the Pakistan. Don't forget the influence Iran plays in South Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine, all of which were more or less abandoned by the West, because policymakers like yourself saw no justification on wasting funds on such seemingly insignificant economies. Those vacuums get filled and others see the strategic importance we may not see. The result is changed regional dynamics that benefit less benevolent regimes. We do this at our peril. To say that Marshall Plan aid was an immense success in poor smaller European Nations, but cannot work in underdeveloped nations amounts to cultural relativism at best.

[Lethevich]

The Libyan regime is getting stranger and stranger. Their PR campaigns are reminding me of Iraq's Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

I just watched a (UK) Channel 4 new reporter being taken with various others out of their hotels to be shown "evidence" of civilian casualties. First they were taken to a large, empty town square where they were in short time mobbed by green-wearing government supporters. Then they were taken to a bombed warehouse with several burnt-out trucks with mounted racks of missile launchers and their minder launched into a lecture about this being the spilling of "Libyan civilian blood". No corpses were shown, because evidently there aren't any. He ended with a smug air of satisfaction at having delivered unshakable evidence to the world based simply on his conviction in his own lies. They claim that Gaddafi is eratic, but he's nothing compared to the lunatics who work for him.

If it wasn't so serious, this would be amusing.

It also seems that the rebels are still without a fixed leadership, but are doing reasonably well in engagements they are having with the Libyan armed forces. It seems that outside of the elite units, their army isn't trained particularly well.

[Florestan]

Broadly speaking the assumptions behind most legal systems are the same.

Agreed without any doubt, but this does not account for the different legal systems that history has witnessed. I ask you two specific questions: (1) which legal system would you rather live in, US / German / French (differences notwithstanding) or Sharia? and (2) why?

The assumptions matter less than the organizational structure, the distribution of responsibilities and burden of proof, etc.

Once again, I agree completely.

But I can't help asking why is it that the things that really matters, i.e. "the organizational structure, the distribution of responsibilities and burden of proof, etc" are much more satisfactory in the US / Germany / France / [insert whatever European nation you want] than in Saudi Arabia / Iran / Yemen / Lybia / [insert whatever Muslim nation you want] ?

The US-Anglo civil law systems are really a different universe compared to the continental European civil law systems. You overestimate the differences with "non-Western" cultures and underestimate the differences among "Western" systems. E.g. France's constitution explicitly focuses on equality, Germany's on "human dignity", two concepts completely foreign to US law.

You are playing word games, which is fine with me --- at the end of the day, you're a lawer and this is your daily bread --- be it said without any any disrespect for lawyers, and Shakespeare notwithstanding. But I ask you one more specific question: where would you rather practice your trade (and enjoy the benefits thereof): in US / Germany / France / [insert whatever European nation you want] or in Saudi Arabia / Iran / Yemen / Lybia / [insert whatever Muslim nation you want] ?

As are continental European systems a colonial inheritance from Roman imperial rule. So? I'm sure the old Germans and Gauls didn't much appreciate that at the time either.

The old Germans and Gauls are long since extinct and so are their religious / tribal practices ---- hardly the case with Indian / Arab peoples.

I was speaking about in practice, not on paper. On paper most countries are "democracies" with "elected" leaders.

My point exactly. Feel free to show me an African country that is more on a par with US in terms of social, economical, political and legal reality than an European country.

Maybe I was unclear. What I mean to say is that while the US is an ethnically diverse country, it was a country ruled by whites in the 40s/50s, and it was whites with a European background who worked on the reconstruction effort in Europe, and who hence felt a kinship to the Europeans they were helping,

Living an ethnically diverse country would have come as a big surprise to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidents during whose terms the political /economical supremacy of the White race of European origin was taken as granted.

Now, if what you mean is that (1) immediately after WWII there was no essential, background-ish (is that a word?) and insurmountable opposition between the mentality, customs and manners of the US and the Western European countries ; (2) the US policy-makers felt that helping Western Europe to recover economically and to build its own political / social / economical institutions was in no way opposed to US interests, on the contrary, it only strengthened them; (3) the Western European countries (far left excepted) did not feel in any way that the Marshall Plan subjected them to US economical and political colonialism; and (4) both US and Western Europe saw this development as only too natural and beneficent for each party involved --- then I completely agree with you.

But then again, I ask you a specific question: show me the Arab / Muslim country which qualifies for the above.

[Florestan]

the Marshall Plan which delivered actual machinery needed for development and provided expertise and know-how, rather than just providing money and leaving it to local strongmen to be spent.

Are you implying that there were no German, French, Italian, Dutch, Belgian or British businessmen / engineers / technicians / whatever/... left in post-WWII Europe? Are you implying that Europe was just  a "waste land" where the US engaged in a succesful nation-buliding, exclusively providing know-how and expertise?

If you are not, then what's your point? I don't get it at all.

[MishaK]

Agreed without any doubt, but this does not account for the different legal systems that history has witnessed. I ask you two specific questions: (1) which legal system would you rather live in, US / German / French (differences notwithstanding) or Sharia? and (2) why?

I'll give you a lawyer's answer: depends.  If you're a guilty criminal, for example, the US gives you a lot more rights in the guilt phase of the trial. It's great to be in the US system at that time under those circumstances. But once they find you guilty, you'd be much better off in continental Europe, where the point of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation, while in the US the main objective is retribution and providing a steady flow of customers for the prison-industrial complex, so in the US you would get slammed with a draconian and disproportionate sentence. If I'm a business person looking for the least obstacles to starting a business, the US is attractive. On the other hand, US securities laws and tax code and contract law are so complex, that my transaction costs and lawyers fees would be vastly lower in Europe, though in Europe labor laws are stronger making the labor force more expensive. But all of these are political and economic considerations. Sharia gets a bad rap, really. Of course it is completely inadequate from a modern human rights perspective, but the use of local judges (Qadis) for resolution of small claims disputes is really much more efficient and not that much worse often than what we have in the West. Remember also that women's rights (another major criticism of Sharia) is a postwar development in the West. Most of the criticisms against Sharia existed in the West not that long ago in some form as well.

The old Germans and Gauls are long since extinct and so are their religious / tribal practices ---- hardly the case with Indian / Arab peoples.

But their ancestors happily use a legal system based on the Roman legal system and don't feel animosity against Rome anyway. I doubt that in a few generations pragmatic Arabs and Indians will not recognize the benefits of at least some aspects of the legal system left behind by their former colonizers. You have to look at these things over time, rather than simply comparing snapshots from dissimilar points in a given society's development.

My point exactly. Feel free to show me an African country that is more on a par with US in terms of social, economical, political and legal reality than an European country.

South Africa is not really that far off, actually. It's certainly not significantly worse than some poorer European countries were around the late 50s for example. A lot of potential there. Even some countries like Ethiopia are making a decent amount of progress. And that is with a lot of systemic obstacles in their way, mind you!

Living an ethnically diverse country would have come as a big surprise to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, presidents during whose terms the political /economical supremacy of the White race of European origin was taken as granted.

Now, if what you mean is that (1) immediately after WWII there was no essential, background-ish (is that a word?) and insurmountable opposition between the mentality, customs and manners of the US and the Western European countries ; (2) the US policy-makers felt that helping Western Europe to recover economically and to build its own political / social / economical institutions was in no way opposed to US interests, on the contrary, it only strengthened them; (3) the Western European countries (far left excepted) did not feel in any way that the Marshall Plan subjected them to US economical and political colonialism; and (4) both US and Western Europe saw this development as only too natural and beneficent for each party involved --- then I completely agree with you.

But then again, I ask you a specific question: show me the Arab / Muslim country which qualifies for the above.

That's not what I meant at all.

[Todd]

Did you even bother reading the speech I linked?

I've read the speech several times.  There is more to the policy than the speech. 

Nobody denies the uniqueness of *every* country, least of all me. But you underestimate the strategic importance of other African coutries over which wars were and are still fought, you just know less about them. As I said, China is very active in Africa these days, while the West ignores the opportunities at its own peril. The Chinese know the strategic importance and they take a longer term view.

Even when you are wrong and choose a very poor analogy, you can't admit it. 

I'm aware of Chinese involvement in Africa, and various wars, but they are not nearly as strategically significant as you are trying to make them out to be.  Contrary to the impression you are trying to make, you are not an expert on this either, hence the nicely vague phraseology you use.  Stop trying to pretend as though you are an expert on Africa and foreign relations in the continent.

Regarding the Arab world, that is not true.

It is true.  The entire Arab world's GDP is roughly one mid-sized European country.  They are economically small and poor. 

Regarding Africa, it depends which Africa you are talking about.

There are economies of various sized in Africa.  They all share two things in common: they are small and poor.  Nigeria is huge in terms of population, but in terms of GDP and GDP per capita, it's very poor.  Africa as a whole is even poorer than the Arab countries.  Really, this data is readily available on the net. 

You seem to be thinking more of present day Europe and Japan. Large parts of 1940s Europe were total backwaters then, e.g. Portugal, Greece.

Nope, I was referring to post-war Western Europe primarily, but even Japan.  Yes, there were smaller countries, but the big ones mattered most, and the large ones were vastly more important to the US then than all of Africa today.  Most of the Arab world today is economically and strategically important only because of oil.

Actually, the main reasons are a combination of the legacies of colonialism

That becomes less true with each succeeding year and decade.  You have done nothing to show that Marshall Plan-style aid would be successful. 

It took decades in Europe, too.

Then explain again how this helps resolve the economic downturn.

You are jumping to conclusions and comparing very different things.

No, that's not true at all.   Establishing political and economic systems are quite different, but both rely on certain things like the rule of law, and for economic activity, enforcement of property rights is essential at some point.  If a nation does not have the appropriate established institutions, they will not appear because of aid.

The justification, as I said, is that if we don't help, you breed poverty and instability.

What grandiose visions you have.  If the US doesn't dole out copious aid, the resulting poverty and instability are at least partly attributable to the US.  And if we don't help, then a nation, presumably evil, like China may help.  Well, not help, because they have a counterproductive agenda.  Which is what, exactly?  Something that doesn't align with your opinions? 

Not all countries are equally important to the US, or any other country for that matter.  It is pure fiction to pretend as though they are, or that pouring large sums of money into them in a new Marshall Plan will work because it worked 70 years ago on a different continent with a different history and a different set of strategic and economic concerns.

[Florestan]

South Africa is not really that far off, actually.

Interestingly enough, I have close relatives living in Johannesburg. So there we are.

First: South Africa has been for decades an apartheid country --- the legal, political, economical, social and cultural arrangements were exclusively White-ish, i.e. European: a mixture of English and Dutch practices which completely excluded native peoples form having any influence on how the country was ruled.

Second: years after the apartheid system was undone, South Africa has been on a very steep slope of rampant criminality and economic decline --- White neighborhoods being physically and weaponly separated from Black ones.

Frankly, you could have hardly found a worse example to back your case.  I mean: India, South Africa --- these are countries that have been strongly and indelibly marked by Western values. Presenting them today as some sort of succesful non-Western stories is completely disingenuous