 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
Unbelievable. 30 posts and only one man blamed Israel.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
When I started this thread I was mainly thinking of the points Roland raised. There have been plenty of areas such as East Asia and Latin America with US or other intervention. Most of these may have received more development aid than the Arab world, but none has come close to the foreign exchange earnings the Arab world has from its oil. And yet the Arab world compares very unfavorably with these areas in human development. Does this suggest that giving more aid in the hope of improving human development and reducing terrorism is pushing a rope?
There are places where the US has provided aid or impetus for reform in the Arab world. We gave Egypt a fair amount of aid for going out on a limb and signing a peace treaty with Israel. And Sadat got assassinated for his trouble. We pushed the Kuwaitis to enact political reforms after the Gulf War, and supported libralization groups there. At present these groups constitute a 40 percent minority bloc in their parliament which supports reform, but they are getting stiffed by the majority.
Che
I dont think I buy the argument that fear of nationalization is suppressing democratic reforms. Most (all?) Arab oil companies have been nationalized since the 1970's. For example, quote:
In 1973 (1392/93 AH), the Saudi Arabian government took a 25% stake in Aramco. In 1974 (1393/94 AH), this share was increased to 60% and in 1980 (1400/01 AH) it was amicably agreed that Aramco should become 100% Saudi-owned, with the date of ownership back-dated to 1976 (1396/97 AH). |
HERE is the source.
edit: wording change
Last edited by Adam Smith on 18-07-2002 at 01:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
It's cheap to blame the west for this.
The Arab world has had, on the whole, almost the LEAST amount of intervention by the West, compared to the rest of the world. China was maimed, robbed, occupied, carved up, and so forth, and today is a world power.
Eastern Europe was occupied for 50 years by the Russians.
And you're going to compare the support of a few dictators to those two?
Hmm. This brings up an interesting question. Why has the arabic world alone failed to produce any success stories? Most other regions have at least one successful nation which is pretty modern.
To put it another way, Who broke islam?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:20
|
|
With regards to Asia, a lot depends on when you take the snapshot.
Take a picture in 1975 and things don't look so great.
Even today, the picture isn't so great. Truly democratic governments only exist in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Economic growth is rather fragile (HK now has 7.7 per cent unemployment and major economic structural problems).
Economically, East Asia benefited from massive investment that came from Japan and the US.
American investment into the Middle East is limited by regular cycles of anti-American sentiment.
The oil revenues may also have been a curse in disguise. As long as a country can reap money from oil, there is less incentive to develop other areas. Countries that lack natural resources are forced to be more creative. That happened in Singapore.
The countries in East Asia have also witnessed the devestation of war at a level that far exceeded the Arab world. That has created a disincentive towards the use of violence to solve international problems. the Arabs haven't learned that lesson yet.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-07-2002 23:15
[I don't know why, but I thought it was just about 100 million]. If united they would make a formidable power. 
|