I can’t believe I didn’t think of that.
OK, but how would you apply this to a situation that is not currently malignant. How about Puerto Rico?
PR is a US Commonwealth, an ambiguous status, with all PR citizens US citizens, though they don’t pay federal income tax or have representation in Congress. Although it varies somewhat depending on the current political situation, historically the population has been divided into three roughly equal views, (1) US statehood, (2) independence and (3) continued Commonwealth status, somewhere in between.
So, under your resurgent colonialism view, how should PR be treated? Obviously you would not cut it away into independence, but would you force it into statehood (the only entity with full political participation under the US Consitiution)? If so, how would you treat the US Virgin Islands, which are probably too small to constitute a state on their own?
Alot of ex-colonial states are doing ok now. India is doing ok, Thailand is doing ok, many eastern european countries are doing ok, alot of asian countries are doing ok and so are many latin american countries.
I don’t agree with how we have dealt with colonialism with just pulling out and letting some countries fall to shit (Cambodia & Uganda come to mind as what can happen without a smooth transition to independence) but even those countries are doing better. Cambodia and Uganda of today are improving and are far better than 30 years ago. Perhaps there is a path that government go through, perhaps many/most fall into dictatorship before they switch to representative democracy.
I’d say the best thing western nations can do it offer aid and advise when these countries ask for it. I feel we in the developed world are failing alot of our ex-colonies. Take Rwanda for example. Rwanda was conquered by the Germans & Belgians who aggrevated the concept of Hutu/Tutsi ethnicity. They then stoked these fires of hatred and segregation. When the shit hit the fan in 1994 the Belgians pulled out and the world ignored what happened. That is a consequence of colonialism and something the wealthy world shouldn’t be allowed to Ignore. I don’t think Russia should get away with ignoring what happens in N. Korea, Japan for ignoring Myanmar, Belgium for ignoring Rwanda, France for ignoring Indochina or the UK for ignoring Uganda. Alot of these problems can be tied into our actions. I guess I don’t support re-colonization because we have already shown we are too irresponsible to be trusted with it. Belgium will help screw up Rwanda and create an atmosphere that can lead to dictatorship and violence then abandon it when times get tough. France will do the same with Indochina and the UK with uganda. In fact one of the main propulsions of communism in the 20th century was anti-colonialism. Had those of us in the developed world not practiced such colonialism perhaps communism wouldn’t have appeared to be such an appealing option. If we reinstitute colonialism that could lead to another form of international communism.
Besides, how many of these countries would willingly join up with their ex-colonial conquerers?
Because, being on the other side of the planet, I’m in a different time zone- that and the whole “Sleep” and “Work” thing. 
Ok, first of all- forcing compliance: Look, there’s only 800,000 people in East Timor. Bribe them. A fortnightly Centrelink payment to someone (anyone) in Australia is worth about AUD$450 a fortnight- which is more than the average annual income in East Timor. I would have thought most people would agree to annexation purely to have more money and a better standard of living.
How about people in Australia? Simple, don’t tell them. Just do it anyway. Australian Governments have a long history of acting without really consulting anyone (the WorkChoices legislation springs to mind), so by the time anyone turned on the news and saw Australia had two new territories, it’d be too late. Unless the East Timorese manage to roll 2 sixes, of course. 
I think you underestimate people’s desire for sovereignty. What amount of money would you agree to let the US annex Australia for? Country is one of the few things- like religion- that people are willing to die for. You just can’t buy them off that easy. Furthermore, a one-time cash influx isn’t really going to help things.
I disagree, but even if they did agree to annexation for that reason, how long would it take for inflation to set in with a program like that? Ten minutes? Then Australia would have to either keep making payments or admit it had completely fucked the Timorese economy.
I’m not trying to accuse you particularly of anything, Martini Enfield, but are you familiar with the concept of the white man’s burden? It seems to be silently present in this thread.
The irony, to me, is that Australia is probably one of the most successful of those ex-colonies. So successfull, in fact, that some of it’s people want to do the same favour to the E-Ts. I say we get an aborigine in here, though, to get a more balanced Aussie view on the benefits of colonialism. Or maybe a Tasmanian? :dubious:
You managed to get posts #6 and #11 in while sleeping? God, you’re good.
I understand that a lot of people would see the benefit (I probably disagree with you on what % that “most” might be, though. Not everyone in ET is neccessarily completely mercenary). My question was, what about the % that doesn’t, and follows a path of armed resistance, and what about the knock-on effect that has for vendetta and increased hostility.
I see others have addressed the issue of inflation, but are you really asserting that* Australia* can easily afford A$720 million/month in addition to its expenditure on an armed presence and infrastructure development? Or that the Australian people will let its government do this without a protest?
I mean, really? 800 000 E-Ts as citizens? It’s not as if race relations are going so swimmingly now, but what about when 100 000 E-Ts move to Sydney (as they’d be able to as full Aussie citizens) and start spending those giro cheques under everyone else’s noses? What beaches are they going to hang out at without a riot?
You’re talking about adding just under 4% of your population in one fell swoop. They’d probably be the second-biggest minority after the East Asians. They’d be double the number of your current indigineous peoples population. Those are some big changes, and you think the people will be A-OK with it because they weren’t consulted? You have an interesting view of your fellow citizens’ complacency, there.
I’m not touching that with a 60ft pole.
[quote]
I understand that a lot of people would see the benefit (I probably disagree with you on what % that “most” might be, though. Not everyone in ET is neccessarily completely mercenary). My question was, what about the % that doesn’t, and follows a path of armed resistance, and what about the knock-on effect that has for vendetta and increased hostility.
[/quote
There’s always going to be a percentage of people who are pissed off about something- even in the US. Let them protest. The minute they break the law (ie, by physically rioting or attacking people), arrest them. If they’re that determined not to live in ET, pay for them to go somewhere else- NZ will probably take them. 
Not seriously, but I’m also cynical enough to be largely unsurprised if it happened- which it won’t, I do realise.
Since I don’t live in Sydney, I don’t care.
Seriously though, NZers have right of abode and work in Australia, and it’s not like the entire population of NZ has upped sticks and moved to Australia (despite jokes to the contrary). The Papua New Guineans didn’t all move when PNG was part of Australia, either. I wouldn’t think ET would be much different in that regard.
I’m not seriously advocating we do it, but it’s an interesting discussion topic nonetheless. I’ve just read too many Biggles books and spent too much time playing Civ III, and it shows.
Did I mention I have a rather jaded view of the democratic process?
And no, I’m not familiar with the concept of the “White Man’s Burden” beyond the fact it’s an old Rudyard Kipling poem.
In the British Raj, the Brits were masters, but the Indians were not slaves.
I think you misunderstand - they’re going to be blowing shit up and capping Aussie troopers, nor are they going to be sitting still for arrest. So you’ll have to kill them, and then therir formerly peaceful brothers and cousins will have reasons to hate you too - again, see Iraq.
Naah, but a lot of voters do.
This would be because NZ isn’t a 3rd world hellhole, even if their cricket team plays like it. Nor are the majority of NZers brown people.
Paua was never “part of Australia” in the sense that Queensland or ACT are, now were they? Plus the PGNers need only look towards the abos to know how they’d be treated on the mainland.
Well, it’s a topic that’s pretty offensive for us ex-colonialis who were on the wrong end of the stick. I wish you wouldn’t treat recolonization as a joke topic. There have been previous posters who were quite serious about it. I think one of them inspired one of my first pit threads, in fact. I could tell you weren’t that serious, but still. It’s a pretty offensive suggestion.
With Howard as PM? I’m not surprised at all.
It’s the exact oppposite of giving the black fella his own fair go, if that makes any sense.
One of the major issues with Timor is that it’s divided, with an undefendable border. Thus Indonesia can happily supply troops and equipment and generally destabilise the East from the safety of the West. Any long-term solution is going to have to involve Timor uniting.