Since developmentalism is rooted in equality, justice and independence, the US painted it as the first step towards godless communism, forever tarnishing it in Americans minds. Then, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched the war on development by appointing the Dulles brothers – who had represented the Cuban Sugar Cane Co. and United Fruit Co. – as Secretary of State and CIA Director. When Iran elected a fervent developmentalist President, Mohammad Mossadegh, the Dulles brothers set out to destroy him and his country, a project that remains a White House priority.
Ike’s anti-development policy was called Capitalist Modernization Theory: Western societies are inherently progressive in ways older civilizations can never be, and the wealth they generate is distributed unevenly because some people work harder than others. But the only road to economic evolution and social modernization leads through free trade, individual effort and capitalism, and those who stray from the path will be destroyed.
So thorough was the anti-developmentalist campaign that the US carried its attack to the UN, where it blocked all resolutions recognizing food, shelter and national development as human rights. Learning of this a horrified Harold Pinter wrote, "The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. "U.S. foreign policy is best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in. It is as simple and as crude as that. What is interesting about it is that it’s so incredibly successful. It possesses the structures of disinformation, use of rhetoric, distortion of language, which are very persuasive, but are actually a pack of lies. It is very successful propaganda. They have the money, they have the technology, they have all the means to get away with it, and they do.” – Nobel Prize lecture, 1958.
"European nations imposed political control over most of Africa, Asia, and Oceania, and employed it to exploit natural resources and cheap (or forced) domestic labor."
It's so curious you didn't include the genocide of the Americas in your list, which should be no less than a fifth "bad development."
At any rate, you are probably right that reparations could never be determined by our ancient, decrepit, and often contradictory legal system with it's boolean decisions of who is right and who wrong, and the common grotesque statutory decisions which frequently emanate from it. But your phrase:
"These 'bads' have been, and continue to be, debated and while learning about each of them is to be encouraged, they do not have direct political or financial consequences on today's world."
This is a patent absurdity. How can history exist if they have no "direct political or financial consequences on today's world?" I think there is a reason economists in general have a bad reputation, even if yours are better than most. When your models and reality fall into contradiction you choose your models every time. And what's worse, you don't even see it as a problem.
To paraphrase Max Plank, in his infinite wisdom, said the ultimate truth: science can only advance one funeral at a time.
I am from and live in Brazil. I was once lectured by a Frenchman for having three kids and the impact that would have on the environment. Don't take this as a serious comment on the (very nice) article by Branko, I am just venting a bit.
The BBC interviewer is so obnoxious that he’s painful to watch. He’s also inconsistent — one moment he attacks Guyana’s president for not getting a better deal with Exxon, the next he accuses him of allowing oil and gas production.
Branko misses what is "bad." He says: "The ideas, floated from time to time, for monetary compensation for such ills are far-fetched and unrealizable. Nor is there any ability to clearly identify the “culprits” and the “victims”. Colonial relations have contiued to this day as neocolonialism and Branko's dismissal of reparations argument is based on his biased, ideological view of the world. ODA based on "charitable" impulses has been self-serving. The Global North contiues to colonize the Global South and there needs to be massive ongoing resource transfers to compensate and achieve a just world.
Perhaps the flip-side to your comment is how remarkable China’s industrialisation and rise is. It’s achieved without the first three “bads”, and China looks like it is going to avoid the fourth bad if it achieves carbon neutrality at much lower per capita emissions compared to the US, Canada and Australia, and the EU.
Exactly as Mahathir Muhammed of Malaysia said at the UN Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992. And better rhetorically than even Fidel Castro did.
Now, of course, the oil should stay in the soil. Including the oil for example UK takes up from the North Sea. A general ban of oil (and coal) extraction should of of course help development of other possibilities. And sun & wind energy is already cheaper than oil, see for example https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth. So I don't understand what we are waiting for. It is not technical solutions.
He was not “lectured,” that is the format of the program, Hard Talk. The host is the same with all guests, including politicians and NGO heads from rich countries. Guests go on the program for the opportunity to answer.
As you are probably aware we are unlikely to agree regardless of how many "facts" "opinions" or "anecdotal evidence" we throw at each other.
The sole "owner" of everything of any value was a Communist Party - of course, by proxy - i.e. members of the party (I assume Branko's parents) were beneficiaries and there were more of Serbian Nationality in the positions of power and ability to benefit.
Since 1949 Yugoslavia distanced itself from Moscow and Tito used Moscow only as a game piece when he wanted to threaten the West. I had to leave because of refusing to join Communist Party and being called out as "Techno Manager" - whatever the hell that meant. Getting an apartment or being promoted was out of the question. You mean outcry for "exploitation" not exploration (damn the automatic spell checker)- Personally, I despised nationalism's propaganda as much as the alternative. During my close to eight decades on this earth I realized that "truth" is also relative and depends on observer.
It was fun to hear from you - I have Serbian friends in the USA as well as Belgrade, so I am afraid we may have some mutual acquittances wherever you are ;-).
The way I stumbled on Branko's Blog is funny coincidence - he has the same last name as the current Croatian President (A complete Idiot btw.)
Reading Branko's posts makes me feel thousand years old, though I have only a few years on him.
"Equality" is a myth and any kind of attempt at reparations or redistribution is naive (stupid?). I was born only few hundred miles from Branko but we could have been born on different planets. Yugoslavia drained Croatia's resources for half a century and while Branko lived a privileged life, studied abroad etc. I worked my ass off as did my parents. It never occurred to me that someone "owes" me.
Fifty years in North America thought me that USA is the worst country in the world except for all the others.
Enjoy the Capitalism while it lasts (Freedom Of Speech & Private Property)
I believe it would be fairer if the developed world would be willing to share their tacit knowledge on development methods with less carbon emissions with the developing world.
It is well-known that knowledge dissemination is a crucial factor in solving international wealth inequalities.
Even if in Haiti, France and the United States today paid the historical debt for the odious debts imposed there, there would still be a lack of a political culture in Haiti that would not squander that reparation.
In a sense it’s still the rich world that’s benefiting from cases such as Guyana, given I believe it’s Exxon that in developing and receiving most of the proceeds.
Since developmentalism is rooted in equality, justice and independence, the US painted it as the first step towards godless communism, forever tarnishing it in Americans minds. Then, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched the war on development by appointing the Dulles brothers – who had represented the Cuban Sugar Cane Co. and United Fruit Co. – as Secretary of State and CIA Director. When Iran elected a fervent developmentalist President, Mohammad Mossadegh, the Dulles brothers set out to destroy him and his country, a project that remains a White House priority.
Ike’s anti-development policy was called Capitalist Modernization Theory: Western societies are inherently progressive in ways older civilizations can never be, and the wealth they generate is distributed unevenly because some people work harder than others. But the only road to economic evolution and social modernization leads through free trade, individual effort and capitalism, and those who stray from the path will be destroyed.
So thorough was the anti-developmentalist campaign that the US carried its attack to the UN, where it blocked all resolutions recognizing food, shelter and national development as human rights. Learning of this a horrified Harold Pinter wrote, "The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. "U.S. foreign policy is best defined as follows: kiss my arse or I’ll kick your head in. It is as simple and as crude as that. What is interesting about it is that it’s so incredibly successful. It possesses the structures of disinformation, use of rhetoric, distortion of language, which are very persuasive, but are actually a pack of lies. It is very successful propaganda. They have the money, they have the technology, they have all the means to get away with it, and they do.” – Nobel Prize lecture, 1958.
https://herecomeschina.substack.com/p/how-america-impoverished-the-90
"European nations imposed political control over most of Africa, Asia, and Oceania, and employed it to exploit natural resources and cheap (or forced) domestic labor."
It's so curious you didn't include the genocide of the Americas in your list, which should be no less than a fifth "bad development."
At any rate, you are probably right that reparations could never be determined by our ancient, decrepit, and often contradictory legal system with it's boolean decisions of who is right and who wrong, and the common grotesque statutory decisions which frequently emanate from it. But your phrase:
"These 'bads' have been, and continue to be, debated and while learning about each of them is to be encouraged, they do not have direct political or financial consequences on today's world."
This is a patent absurdity. How can history exist if they have no "direct political or financial consequences on today's world?" I think there is a reason economists in general have a bad reputation, even if yours are better than most. When your models and reality fall into contradiction you choose your models every time. And what's worse, you don't even see it as a problem.
To paraphrase Max Plank, in his infinite wisdom, said the ultimate truth: science can only advance one funeral at a time.
I am from and live in Brazil. I was once lectured by a Frenchman for having three kids and the impact that would have on the environment. Don't take this as a serious comment on the (very nice) article by Branko, I am just venting a bit.
The BBC interviewer is so obnoxious that he’s painful to watch. He’s also inconsistent — one moment he attacks Guyana’s president for not getting a better deal with Exxon, the next he accuses him of allowing oil and gas production.
Branko misses what is "bad." He says: "The ideas, floated from time to time, for monetary compensation for such ills are far-fetched and unrealizable. Nor is there any ability to clearly identify the “culprits” and the “victims”. Colonial relations have contiued to this day as neocolonialism and Branko's dismissal of reparations argument is based on his biased, ideological view of the world. ODA based on "charitable" impulses has been self-serving. The Global North contiues to colonize the Global South and there needs to be massive ongoing resource transfers to compensate and achieve a just world.
Perhaps the flip-side to your comment is how remarkable China’s industrialisation and rise is. It’s achieved without the first three “bads”, and China looks like it is going to avoid the fourth bad if it achieves carbon neutrality at much lower per capita emissions compared to the US, Canada and Australia, and the EU.
Hypocrisy, finger wagging and lectures are the West's dominant exports these days.
The rest of the world can be forgiven for being tired of it, I should think ...
Exactly as Mahathir Muhammed of Malaysia said at the UN Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992. And better rhetorically than even Fidel Castro did.
Now, of course, the oil should stay in the soil. Including the oil for example UK takes up from the North Sea. A general ban of oil (and coal) extraction should of of course help development of other possibilities. And sun & wind energy is already cheaper than oil, see for example https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth. So I don't understand what we are waiting for. It is not technical solutions.
He was not “lectured,” that is the format of the program, Hard Talk. The host is the same with all guests, including politicians and NGO heads from rich countries. Guests go on the program for the opportunity to answer.
When we talk about previous “stock” of emissions, do we have a data showing the emission rate through years? Ideally for past 50-100 years.
Cause if it has an exponential grow, then the responsibility of the rich countries might be seen a bit differently.
As you are probably aware we are unlikely to agree regardless of how many "facts" "opinions" or "anecdotal evidence" we throw at each other.
The sole "owner" of everything of any value was a Communist Party - of course, by proxy - i.e. members of the party (I assume Branko's parents) were beneficiaries and there were more of Serbian Nationality in the positions of power and ability to benefit.
Since 1949 Yugoslavia distanced itself from Moscow and Tito used Moscow only as a game piece when he wanted to threaten the West. I had to leave because of refusing to join Communist Party and being called out as "Techno Manager" - whatever the hell that meant. Getting an apartment or being promoted was out of the question. You mean outcry for "exploitation" not exploration (damn the automatic spell checker)- Personally, I despised nationalism's propaganda as much as the alternative. During my close to eight decades on this earth I realized that "truth" is also relative and depends on observer.
It was fun to hear from you - I have Serbian friends in the USA as well as Belgrade, so I am afraid we may have some mutual acquittances wherever you are ;-).
The way I stumbled on Branko's Blog is funny coincidence - he has the same last name as the current Croatian President (A complete Idiot btw.)
Reading Branko's posts makes me feel thousand years old, though I have only a few years on him.
"Equality" is a myth and any kind of attempt at reparations or redistribution is naive (stupid?). I was born only few hundred miles from Branko but we could have been born on different planets. Yugoslavia drained Croatia's resources for half a century and while Branko lived a privileged life, studied abroad etc. I worked my ass off as did my parents. It never occurred to me that someone "owes" me.
Fifty years in North America thought me that USA is the worst country in the world except for all the others.
Enjoy the Capitalism while it lasts (Freedom Of Speech & Private Property)
I believe it would be fairer if the developed world would be willing to share their tacit knowledge on development methods with less carbon emissions with the developing world.
It is well-known that knowledge dissemination is a crucial factor in solving international wealth inequalities.
What, no mention of resource curse?
Even if in Haiti, France and the United States today paid the historical debt for the odious debts imposed there, there would still be a lack of a political culture in Haiti that would not squander that reparation.
In a sense it’s still the rich world that’s benefiting from cases such as Guyana, given I believe it’s Exxon that in developing and receiving most of the proceeds.