US as a New World EU
William P. Baird
Michael Koerner suggested that the ascension of Puerto Rico from
territory status to statehood would possibly act like a beacon to
other Latin American Nations to join the US as states. Mike Ralls
and I disagreed with Michael that anything of that nature would
happen (as much as I would find that a good thing). Mike suggested
that the US couldn't be an EU - in the sense that it expands by
absorbing other states peacefully - because of its history and past
relations with its neighbors.
I concur.
Alas.
There is a slim possibility that Micheal could be right. It *MIGHT*
be
possible for a couple nations to take a crack at joining the US. I
don't
believe one of those is Cuba, since most Cubans in Cuba are against
the idea, but frankly, it's hard to gage their opinions honestly
until
after the current regime is swept away one way or another. The
two that come to mind are the Dominican Republic (which has
tried to get annexed in the past) and Haiti (as an act of
desperation).
It might be in Puerto Rico's interest (but it might not) to try to
attract LANs to the US as well. However, in the past they
tried hard to not let others in as territories too.
If these nations, and possibly others, were to join the US what
would the changes that would entail? Would it be in the US'
interest to begin EU style soft-power expansion? What sort of
changes would be necessary?
Unfortunately, I don't think that it's likely, but I am curious what
people think and what the consequences of the conscious decision
to take this route would be.
Since I introduced the topic, I'll let others express their thoughts
first.
Will
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: anzhalyu@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: wba...@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
mra...@willamette.edu
> There is a slim possibility that Micheal could be right. It *MIGHT*
> be
> possible for a couple nations to take a crack at joining the US. I
> don't
> believe one of those is Cuba, since most Cubans in Cuba are against
> the idea, but frankly, it's hard to gage their opinions honestly
> until
> after the current regime is swept away one way or another.
For what it's worth, I briefly studied at Havana University at the
turn of the century, and based on nothing more than my interactions
with the young Cuban elite, the idea is completely alien to them.
Probably not far off from if you proposed to a group of Frenchmen that
France join the US.
> The
> two that come to mind are the Dominican Republic (which has
> tried to get annexed in the past)
And got shot down for its efforts.
> and Haiti (as an act of
> desperation).
I think these both fumble on "Why Would the US want to annex them?"
Unlike PR, we don't have some murky rule over them, and they haven't
had US citizenship since 1917, so I'm really just not seeing _why_ the
US would be interested in adding more Latin American states to itself.
> If these nations, and possibly others, were to join the US what
> would the changes that would entail? Would it be in the US'
> interest to begin EU style soft-power expansion? What sort of
> changes would be necessary?
OK, so let's try to design a scenario where the US would be interested
in becoming an EU for the Americas.
Uh . . .
2007 - 2017: Free Trade Zone of the Americas comes into it's own.
NAFTA for the entire continent. Protectionism is pretty dead over
most of the continent, although its ghost lingers.
2017 - 2040: Convergence! Latin America has finally gotten its act
together, almost all of it remains a functioning democracy during this
period in addition to many countries having "Jaguar" economies that
zoom ahead of US growth rates, and by the end of this period the
income divergence between Mexico and the US is the same in 2040 as the
difference between Spain and the US today, that is it's there, but
it's not huge and jarring. Also, by this point the US has been taking
in large numbers of Hispanic immigrants for two or even three
generations. It's a lot more "Latin" in feel, and fears of
Mexicanization seem as silly to them as fears of "Germanization"
seemed in the 1970's. Latin Americans have consistently shown that
they are easily assimilated into mainstream American society and by
2040 everyone is Mexican on Cinco De Mayo (like how everyone is Irish
on St. Patties Day) and nobody blinks when someone of Hispanic decent
becomes president anymore than they blinked when Ike became Prez in
the 1950's.
2040 - 2075: Some type of international troubles cause the US to need
to grow closer and closer with it's American neighbors and FTZotA
becomes the equivalent of the Coal and Steel deal in Europe?
--
Mike Ralls
William P. Baird
> For what it's worth, I briefly studied at Havana University at the
> turn of the century, and based on nothing more than my interactions
> with the young Cuban elite, the idea is completely alien to them.
> Probably not far off from if you proposed to a group of Frenchmen that
> France join the US.
Yeah, that's about what I thought it would be. I have to wonder what
is going to happen after Castro goes. The Other Weird Scenario
(than joining the US) is joining Venezuela: Castro bequeaths Cuba to
Chavez. That gets...weird.
> > The
> > two that come to mind are the Dominican Republic (which has
> > tried to get annexed in the past)
>
> And got shot down for its efforts.
Yep. It could try again. I'm not sure why it would want to other
than
perhaps free immigration and to negate the very minor tourism
advantage that PR has over it.
> I think these both fumble on "Why Would the US want to annex them?"
Haiti simply to suture the permanent mess than Haiti is. How many
times
have we intervened there? In the last decade? How many times in the
coming decade?
In either case, we definitely don't have 'some murky rule' over them.
It
would have to be that it was in our interests to have
> Unlike PR, we don't have some murky rule over them, and they haven't
> had US citizenship since 1917, so I'm really just not seeing _why_ the
> US would be interested in adding more Latin American states to itself.
Best I can think of is that there might be more possibilities of
economic growth and profit under American rule of law. If so,
it might open up better access to capital than currently. Free flow
of "immigrants" (both ways). Uniformity of environmental law
enforcement. A way of growing the economy and population base
to compete with other nations that are larger and converging (india,
china) or integrating (EU).
Those all are disputable. Of course.
Will
> Mike Ralls
KM
> If these nations, and possibly others, were to join the US what
> would the changes that would entail? Would it be in the US'
> interest to begin EU style soft-power expansion? What sort of
> changes would be necessary?
Any such expansion would have to be mutually beneficial in order to be
implemented.
While there are countries such as the Dominican Republic and Haiti
that would benefit economically from some form of association with the
U.S., the resources that the U.S. would then have to devote to raising
living standards in those places would offset or eliminate the
advantages to the U.S. from that relationship. So much so that it's
unclear how it would be in America's self-interest to go down that
road.
More affluent countries (either in relative or absolute terms) would
have little interest in surrendering their sovereignty unless the U.S.
surrendered some of its own sovereignty as well. That idea will remain
a non-starter into the foreseeable future.
William P. Baird
> Any such expansion would have to be mutually beneficial in order to be
> implemented.
Totally agreed.
> While there are countries such as the Dominican Republic and Haiti
> that would benefit economically from some form of association with the
> U.S., the resources that the U.S. would then have to devote to raising
> living standards in those places would offset or eliminate the
> advantages to the U.S. from that relationship. So much so that it's
> unclear how it would be in America's self-interest to go down that
> road.
I believe that there are more than a few advantages for taking in
both
of them for the US. They're for different reasons though.
The DR is a pretty solidly democratic country with a growing economy.
It has a the potential to be a nice, as Noel has put it, longer term
investment. Right now its economy is growing at a clip 7%. It also
has some rather nice nickel deposits. Not to mention some rather
nice real estate. I am sure more than a few companies would consider
relocating to the state of Santo Domingo with the reduced cost of
living -
something that's seriously afflicting California pretty bad right now
- and
all the opportunities with the infrastructure upgrade contracts
flowing.
The infrastructure contracts needn't annually exceed what the DR puts
out in tax revenue in the beginning I suspect (which would be rather
nice
and generate more with the whole spending multiplier effect).
Seems like a plus to me, but, hey, I'm willing to listen.
Haiti has a different reason for the US to annex it: it's a disaster
that we keep putting a bandaide on a gushing croc bite. The Haitians
continue to try to immigrate illegally to the US. They are a sore
upon
the western hemisphere for lack of law and order (a LOT of the illegal
drugs flow through there as a result) and we keep going back in to do
something about it. Even if the US was able to pull up the economic
growth to US standards it'd almost double what Haiti is doing now.
Ultimately,
> More affluent countries (either in relative or absolute terms) would
> have little interest in surrendering their sovereignty unless the U.S.
> surrendered some of its own sovereignty as well. That idea will remain
> a non-starter into the foreseeable future.
I guess what I was aiming for was a country that would join as a state
or multiple states (DR or Belize as single ones, Mexico (only as an
example) as thirty plus). Technically it is expansionism, but with
the
twist that the newcomers would graduate to states with full political
force immediately (or after some short and delineated ascension
chronology (with fixed dates) by negotiated by the newcomer
(none of this century+ TL crap like for PR).
Will
Michael G. Koerner
> On Apr 18, 3:48 pm, KM <mcdou...@mts.net> wrote:
>> Any such expansion would have to be mutually beneficial in order to be
>> implemented.
>
> Totally agreed.
Ditto.
Haiti is the one that I see as most likely to involve a USA military
occupation with the locals ultimately just asking the forces to stay and add
themselves to the USA's sovereign territory.
I'm also pondering the potential of a particularly nasty future revolution in
Mexico that could involve USA forces having to take action, if for no other
reason than to try to stabilize things in order to prevent potentially
millions of refugees from flooding northward.
In addition, back in the mid-1990s, I read several potentially messy scenarios
regarding a 'Oui' Quebec separation referendum outcome, some involving USA
forces being sent to secure Hydro-Quebec dams and power lines from warring
Crees and other remaining fragments of Canada ultimately 'looking south' in an
EU ascension manner.
>> More affluent countries (either in relative or absolute terms) would
>> have little interest in surrendering their sovereignty unless the U.S.
>> surrendered some of its own sovereignty as well. That idea will remain
>> a non-starter into the foreseeable future.
> I guess what I was aiming for was a country that would join as a state
> or multiple states (DR or Belize as single ones, Mexico (only as an
> example) as thirty plus). Technically it is expansionism, but with
> the
> twist that the newcomers would graduate to states with full political
> force immediately (or after some short and delineated ascension
> chronology (with fixed dates) by negotiated by the newcomer
> (none of this century+ TL crap like for PR).
That's part of the horsetrading that has accompanied every statehood admission
since Vermont (the first post-Constitution new state) and pretty much on the
lines of what I'm pondering, too.
As for the topic in general, I was thinking mostly on the lines of the locals
in those places looking towards an EU style ascension to the USA mainly for
the relative political and economic stability that it would offer, much in
line with your musings regarding Haiti.
Yes it is indeed a longshot, but, IMHO, it is still a legitimate potential
future course and very worthy of discussion.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
KM
> The DR is a pretty solidly democratic country with a growing economy.
> It has a the potential to be a nice, as Noel has put it, longer term
> investment. Right now its economy is growing at a clip 7%. It also
> has some rather nice nickel deposits. Not to mention some rather
> nice real estate. I am sure more than a few companies would consider
> relocating to the state of Santo Domingo with the reduced cost of
> living -
While the DR is indeed a democracy and showing some good economic
growth, it still faces a number of hurdles.
The first is corruption, where Transparency International had the DR
tied with the Republic of Georgia, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique and
Ukraine at 2.8 out of 10 in its 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Corruption can stunt a country's long-term economic prospects in
several ways: by undermining the rule of law, by creating ideal
conditions for political unrest and through the sheer squandering of
resources.
The second is a considerable portion of its workforce (2002 est.: 16%)
being tied up in a low-productivity agricultural sector. Trimming this
down to the five percent or less that is characteristic of high-income
countries without creating massive social upheaval would require a
generation's work or more.
The third is the need to build an educational system that would allow
the DR to create the embryo R&D, business services and financial
services sectors that would allow the country to achieve prosperity.
Again, this would be a generation-long project.
The difficulty here is in getting politicians -- or their opponents --
to think about the long term. Even if progress in all three of the
areas above were part of the deal, the difficulty would be in selling
it politically as being something more noble than a marriage of
convenience.
Therefore, perhaps the answer is some sort of mentorship program
between the more and less affluent countries in the Americas that
would grant poorer countries privileges in exchange for meeting goals
on reducing corruption and building effective educational systems that
can move people from less productive pursuits to more productive ones.
This kind of mentorship program would be less vulnerable to attacks
from the populist right (who'd attack political union with poorer
countries as an "attack on the middle class") and the idealistic left
(who'd attack it as "exploitation").
KM
give it another try.
On Apr 19, 6:40 pm, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> In addition, back in the mid-1990s, I read several potentially messy scenarios
> regarding a 'Oui' Quebec separation referendum outcome, some involving USA
> forces being sent to secure Hydro-Quebec dams and power lines from warring
> Crees and other remaining fragments of Canada ultimately 'looking south' in an
> EU ascension manner.
I remember seeing suggestions to this effect back in the '90s. My own
opinion is that it represented a "worst case scenario" at the time,
and was a view exascerbated by the economic insecurities of the time.
Canada had basically spent the first half of the '90s in a deep
recession that, combined with issues around Quebec, had left the
country in a deep malaise.
If Quebec secession happened today, it would give Canada a jolt, but
it wouldn't lead to the meltdown scenario suggested in the mid-'90s.
Canada's economic and political centres of gravity has moved decidedly
to the west in recent years: about two-thirds of federal electoral
districts are located and three-quarters of all economic activity
originates from west of the Ontario/Quebec border.
Not to mention that the political right in the U.S. would find any
sort of political association with Canada undesirable: a poll taken
during the 2004 presidential campaign showed that John Kerry would
have beat George W. Bush by a margin of nearly three-to-one in the
"Canadian vote", while prior polls taken during previous U.S.
presidential elections showed that Canadians would consistently vote
Democrat if given the chance.
William P. Baird
I'm not really knowledgeable enough to comment on internal
Canadian politics. There are a few posters that are, but
we'll have to try harder to entice James and Randy to join
us.
> Not to mention that the political right in the U.S. would find any
> sort of political association with Canada undesirable: a poll taken
> during the 2004 presidential campaign showed that John Kerry would
> have beat George W. Bush by a margin of nearly three-to-one in the
> "Canadian vote", while prior polls taken during previous U.S.
> presidential elections showed that Canadians would consistently vote
> Democrat if given the chance.
The addition of Canada to the US does double plus uber
interesting things to American politics. It effectively neutralizes
the South for all parts save Texas. That alone would give The Right
a serious case of anti-annexation hives.
"State" Population:
California 36,132,147
Texas 22,859,968
New York 19,254,630
Florida 17,789,864
Illinios 12,763,371
Ontario 12,541,400
Pennsylvania 12,429,616
Ohio 11,464,042
Michigan 10,120,860
Georgia 9,072,576
New Jersey 8,717,925
North Carolina 8,683,242
Quebec 7,598,100
Virginia 7,567,465
Massachusetts 6,398,743
Washington 6,287,759
Indiana 6,271,973
Tennessee 5,962,959
Arizona 5,939,292
Missouri 5,800,310
Maryland 5,600,388
Wisconsin 5,536,201
Minnesota 5,132,799
Colorado 4,665,177
Alabama 4,557,808
Louisiana 4,523,628
South Carolina 4,255,083
British Columbia 4,254,500
Kentucky 4,173,405
Puerto Rico 3,916,632
Oregon 3,641,056
Oklahoma 3,547,884
Connecticut 3,510,297
Alberta 3,256,800
Iowa 2,966,334
Mississippi 2,921,088
Arkansas 2,779,154
Kansas 2,744,687
Utah 2,469,585
Nevada 2,414,807
New Mexico 1,928,384
West Virginia 1,816,856
Nebraska 1,758,787
Idaho 1,429,096
Maine 1,321,505
New Hampshire 1,309,940
Hawaii 1,275,194
Manitoba 1,177,600
Rhode Island 1,076,189
Saskatchewan 994,100
Nova Scotia 937,900
Montana 935,670
Delaware 843,524
South Dakota 775,933
New Brunswick 752,000
Alaska 663,661
North Dakota 636,677
Vermont 623,050
Newfoundland and Labrador 516,000
Wyoming 509,294
Prince Edward Island 138,100
Northwest Territories 43,000
Yukon 31,000
Nunavut 30,000
Sorry if the spacing gets screwed up. I have this as a text
file I edited with vi.
FWIW.
William P. Baird
> While the DR is indeed a democracy and showing some good economic
> growth, it still faces a number of hurdles.
Oh indeed. It's a work in progress.
> The first is corruption, where Transparency International had the DR
> tied with the Republic of Georgia, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique and
> Ukraine at 2.8 out of 10 in its 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Yep, I've been to Ukraine multiple times now and spent an aggregate
of about two months there so I know exactly what level they're
talking about.
> Corruption can stunt a country's long-term economic prospects in
> several ways: by undermining the rule of law, by creating ideal
> conditions for political unrest and through the sheer squandering of
> resources.
Yep, it can. It does. Adopting the DR into the US would give some
serious chances of cleaning that out a lot faster than on its own.
Unleashing the FBI, Carlos Yu, and all that.
> The second is a considerable portion of its workforce (2002 est.: 16%)
> being tied up in a low-productivity agricultural sector. Trimming this
> down to the five percent or less that is characteristic of high-income
> countries without creating massive social upheaval would require a
> generation's work or more.
There will be social upheaval no matter what if there's an annexation:
immigration suddenly gets "easy". How will you keep them down on
the farm then? That, uh, safety valve would allow for people to flow
elsewhere and take up other work.
> The third is the need to build an educational system that would allow
> the DR to create the embryo R&D, business services and financial
> services sectors that would allow the country to achieve prosperity.
Yup. Not easy to do, but doable, I think. You have to build all
those
elementary and secondary schools, never mind, universities. I'd think
it'd be a chance to work out a bilingual education and even a chance
to adopt Carlos' "Everyone with a Premed" college system: giving DR
a comparative advantage (who won't want to go to college in the Santo
Domingo; Carribean beaches, good schools, the premed program).
I've worked the secondary school level as a volunteer during the 1990s
in New Mexico (with some of the best and worst schools in the nation)
and I've encountered the vipers there-in. I still think its doable.
That said, the DR wouldn't - couldn't - go through the leap from
independent
nation to statehood immediately. The transition could be as much as
20
years but with a explicit date for statehood.
> The difficulty here is in getting politicians -- or their opponents --
> to think about the long term.
That's very true. The EU might be a counterexample if you squint.
> Even if progress in all three of the
> areas above were part of the deal, the difficulty would be in selling
> it politically as being something more noble than a marriage of
> convenience.
Nobility. That's hard to nail down and even harder to keep during the
political process. An add up of hard positive bonuses to both sides
seems to be easier to do. If you can get the DRicans - or any other
nation's people - to want to do this, I think you've got a lot of
bonus
points here.
> This kind of mentorship program would be less vulnerable to attacks
> from the populist right (who'd attack political union with poorer
> countries as an "attack on the middle class") and the idealistic left
> (who'd attack it as "exploitation").
Still doesn't work. You get nailed by the right for spending American
money somewhere else and the left for being cultural imperialists.
IMNSHO, you, me, or anyone just can't win on that regard.
William P. Baird
> William P. Baird wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 3:48 pm, KM <mcdou...@mts.net> wrote:
> >> Any such expansion would have to be mutually beneficial in order to be
> >> implemented.
>
> > Totally agreed.
>
> Ditto.
I get the feeling though that people automatically assume
that it is always to the benefit of one or the other instead
of both. If it wasn't why would the EU be enlarging? I think
that the same advantages can be granted via enlargement
of the US via peaceful means and this isn't imperialism all
over again.
> I'm also pondering the potential of a particularly nasty future revolution in
> Mexico that could involve USA forces having to take action, if for no other
> reason than to try to stabilize things in order to prevent potentially
> millions of refugees from flooding northward.
I don't think Mexico is in danger of having a nasty revolution at
all. Mexico,
imo, is going to at the worst muddle through the future and probably
do a lot
better than merely that.
> That's part of the horsetrading that has accompanied every statehood admission
> since Vermont (the first post-Constitution new state) and pretty much on the
> lines of what I'm pondering, too.
Yah. I'd expect that. The important part is to negotiate that it
will be a
part of the incorporated US rather than the unincorporated. Those
Insular
Cases are damned evil.
> Yes it is indeed a longshot, but, IMHO, it is still a legitimate potential
> future course and very worthy of discussion.
I definitely think so. We have a lot of historical baggage to
overcome
though.
Will
> Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
--
Tim McDaniel
William P. Baird <anzh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It *MIGHT* be possible for a couple nations to take a crack at
I gather that Haiti is extremely proud of being the second successful
New World colonial revolt and the only large-scale slave rebellion,
and *intensely* nationalistic.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com