RE: National Sovereignty

Pat, the historical record in region where I live is quite clear. Trujillo,
Duvalier, Somoza, Batista, Pinochet were all the result either of U.S.
military occupation or intervention. 

Many of the cases you cite are open to a lot of interpretations. I would
posit that the Japanese political system is more the result of the internal
development of its institutions than of any outside intervention. The same
could be said about post-war Germany. South Korea had to suffer Syngman
Rhee, supported by the U.S., for many years. One can even wonder if it were
not for U.S. support if Rhee would not have been overthrown before. What is
the soverignty case in Taiwan?. Hong Kong is so special that it can be
considered an exception. 

The Soviet Union suffered a foreign intervention during the early years of
the civil war and was defeated. Hitler came to power through elections which
nobody could question. In my opinion no foreign intervention could have
stopped him. China is one of the countries of the world which has suffered
more foreign intervention. Whatever you might think of the history of the
People's Republic, it has now the best government China has ever had and I
do not think that there is any doubt that it is not the result of foreign
intervention.

To call the Vietnamese war for reunification a Northern aggression against
the South is quite a misrepresentation of the historical record.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De:	Pat Gunning [SMTP:jgunning@squ.edu.om]
> Enviado el:	viernes 30 de abril de 1999 5:27
> Para:	WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
> Asunto:	Re: National Sovereignty
> 
> Carlos Alzugaray Treto wrote:
> 
> > That national sovereignty (and sovereign equality) should not be
> tampered
> > with by the way of intervention is based in a long tradition that
> results
> > from the fact that when others interfere in the internal affairs of
> another
> > state, it has brought negative results for the countries where the
> > intervention has taken place. In the past, Cuba, Dominican Republica,
> Haiti,
> > Nicaragua, Vietnam, Congo, Chile, have been the object of different
> kinds of
> > intervention with atrocious consequences. That is why national
> sovereignty,
> > and non-intervention, are principles that should be respected. The new
> > 'right of humanitarian intervention' would bring about the demise of
> these
> > principles already established and lead the international system down a
> road
> > that would be catstrophic.
> 
> Would you agree, Carlos, that in the past 60 years, national sovereignty
> was also tampered with in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong
> Kong? Were there atrocious consequences in these cases? On the other
> hand, national sovereignty was not tampered with in between-the-wars
> Germany, in post WWI Soviet Union, in post WWII Mainland China, and in
> the pre-WWII Japanese territories.
> 
> Also, don't you think that you need to consider the road not taken? If,
> for example, North Vietnam had merely capitulated or stopped its
> aggression against the South, would the Vietnamese people of today be
> better or worse off? Similarly, if the U.S. had simply not come to the
> aid of the French, would the people of southeast Asia of today be better
> or worse off. These are difficult questions and I do not pretend to have
> the answers. But it seems to me that one who uses historical facts to
> either support or oppose intervention in national sovereignty on the
> basis of the harm or good it has done to the people must present a more
> complete case.
> 
> -- 
> Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
> Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
> Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
> http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
> http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm