FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A Divided Future For Planet Earth

A Divided Future For Planet Earth

By *V-Alice OP TV/TS over a year ago

Ayr

Firstly, if there's actually a full scale nuclear war - it'll be a united planet, in all the very worst ways.

But, avoiding that - and I've mentioned this in previous posts - is the world going to divide, ever more rigidly, into democracies and dictatorships?

I'm very happy to live in a country where I enjoy the sort of freedoms that people in Russia and China don't.

However, is it realistic for the USA, EU and UK to insist that, if you don't have our values, we're going to punish you economically?

Clearly, sanctions against Russia are justified, in the face of what they're doing in Ukraine - but, in general, the West has been happy enough to trade with all manner of regimes, despite their various evils.

What I'm really thinking about here, is a long term access to the Earth's resources.

Despite the vastness of North and South America, and the additional territories of Europe and Australia - by quite some considerable margin - the Earth's resources, ie. people, food and raw materials, are in China, India, the rest of Asia and the continent of Africa.

Clearly, India is a democracy - in name, at least, like the USA and UK are. So are Japan and S. Korea.

However, India's allegiance to the West is questionable - and it's adherence to democracy is not under threat, since it is a nuclear power and China knows it. So is Pakistan, come to that.

So, to pick just one example, if India and Pakistan want to trade with China - but the USA doesn't want them to; what then?

Is it a case of denying your citizens the improvements that all that trade could bring? Or would "Fuck off, whitey!" be an easier solution?

This is the 21st Century, not the 18th, 19th or 20th. The Western countries can no longer plunder resources - human or otherwise - from Africa and Asia, as they did centuries ago, in order to build the foundations of their current wealth. Even if they wanted to, they no longer have the means to do so.

Antagonising the parts of the world where the bulk of the resources are - as the USA and some of its allies seem happy to do - in order to get them to live the way you think they should; that's a very risky business.

Democracy is a fairly new thing - barely 200 years old, as we know it today; far less, if you include women being allowed to vote.

It's unrealistic to expect China to pursue it.

It's unrealistic to think that you can continue to enjoy your current way of life in the West, if you don't trade with them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I believe it will divide more rigidly dictatorships struggle to have even limited democracies as their allies without causing internal problems(The French as an example)

I don’t like the idea of barring trade however believe we are nearing the point where the tyrants aren’t going to give us a choice so I am worried about quality of life but better to take the hit sooner rather than later.

I don’t think India or Pakistan would back China over the Americans though so don’t see that happening.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

If i was india it would be fuck off whitey and mind your buissnes i will trade with who i want to

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

West should just leave them to it. Using trade as a diplomatic tool as not been that successful in the grand scheme of things.

Let there be trade, but limit other aspects. In 50 years time much of the rest of the world will be too hot anyway. So better to focus on keeping the cool bit healthy (democratically speaking).

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *V-Alice OP TV/TS over a year ago

Ayr

"I believe it will divide more rigidly dictatorships struggle to have even limited democracies as their allies without causing internal problems(The French as an example)

I don’t think India or Pakistan would back China over the Americans though so don’t see that happening.

Why take the hit at all? The West has never had a problem with Saudi Arabia's human rights record, or its internal politics - and an absolute monarchy is a dictatorship by another name.

As for "backing" China - it's not that I'm talking about; it's the right to trade with them if you want to - without being told by the freedom loving USA that you're not free to do so, in their eyes.

The bottom line is this - the West lacks the power necessary to dictate terms to the whole of Asia and Africa; but it doesn't want to acknowledge it - and, in pretending to a level of influence the simply do not have, they risk losing out on resources that they could trade for.

Again, we've never been squeamish about trade with evil regimes - indeed, we still aren't; but if we clutch our pearls too hard, they'll be all we have left.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oubleswing2019Man over a year ago

Colchester

We are fortunate in the UK in many ways, as has been mentioned previously. I'm not saying we are perfect, not by a long chalk, but we are considerably further ahead with many personal freedoms.

Some other countries are not.

They are oppressive regimes, with appalling human rights abuses and totalitarian in they way they treat their citizens.

People just like you and me.

People who want a home, security, food in their bellies, the opportunity for a family, a fair wage for the work they do, and not to live in fear (or worse) if they happen to be gay, bi, or elsewhere on the LGBTQ+ scale. And free to practice their religion and beliefs.

Freedom from oppression.

Freedom from fear.

Now either we turn a blind eye to these things (making us at the very least complicit by inaction), or we say enough is enough and we will leverage our collective power to effect change.

If that means having to be "Globo Cop", then so be it. Errant and oppressive regimes need to be confronted, and told in no uncertain terms, clean up your act and stop treating your people like dirt.

And it it means those cheap Chinese goods have to cost a bit more, because workers rights don't come free, then I'd gladly pay it. It's the only sane and compassionate thing to do.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I believe it will divide more rigidly dictatorships struggle to have even limited democracies as their allies without causing internal problems(The French as an example)

I don’t think India or Pakistan would back China over the Americans though so don’t see that happening.

Why take the hit at all? The West has never had a problem with Saudi Arabia's human rights record, or its internal politics - and an absolute monarchy is a dictatorship by another name.

As for "backing" China - it's not that I'm talking about; it's the right to trade with them if you want to - without being told by the freedom loving USA that you're not free to do so, in their eyes.

Again, we've never been squeamish about trade with evil regimes - indeed, we still aren't; but if we clutch our pearls too hard, they'll be all we have left."

Agree with most of what you said but will say I disagree with trade with any tyrant even those who are allied to the US.The alliance isn’t going to collapse magically and theres a few issues we should tell the US where to stick it.

We don’t have the economic power yes and the US will never go that far but doesn’t mean we should not take a stand here and now.We certainly do

not have the influence and agree we are deluding ourselves but that goes both ways we are not going to convince these nations peacefully so why give them extra funds for their aggression?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic