Pericles,
This is a bit blunt, even for you. What created Yugoslavia? Was it a reforming and peaceful process of EU enticement to join, or Communist invasion and forceful take-over? Was it the implementation of efficient economic systems and accountable democracy, or the installation of a failed economic system?

Discuss

The USSR — a failure of a large Federal system and proof that Federal systems don’t work, or the failure of economic management within an authoritarian, unaccountable regime?

Discuss

Basically what is it with you and Horus bluntly assuming that regional unifying forces have to be Socialist and tyrannical? Let’s try again.


America’s rise over the last 4 centuries was due to maintaining independent isolated mini-colonies, or uniting in Federation? Discuss.


The EU now exerts more ‘soft-power’ on the world stage as a unified and successful DEMOCRATIC free market Federation. Discuss.

I agree with Pericles.

Yugoslavia: Held together under Communist regime during the USSR years by a murderous tyrannical leader. Prior to which, a region that has been under dispute for about 450 years with Kosovo being the line in the sand where the North has been able to travel no further south, and the South has been able to travel no further north. Many conflicts over the centuries, with Muslims invading and living amongst Christians, and then Christians invading and living amongst Muslims, that the region is a melting pot of confusion, inter-relationships and atrocities committed by all at some time or another.

The day the 5 Yugoslavian States got their independence was the day they starting planning to settle old scores as well as recent ones. Particularly the Croatians and Serbians, who had fresh scores to settle from WWII.

The USSR: the perversion of the ideal of communism manifested in ruthless totalitarianism for its first 30-40 years under Stalin, who created an atmosphere of fear and poverty as a result of feeding his murderous paranoia within his own circles, and the real fears of American and European intent, both pre and post WWII. This resulting in the Cold War, which fed the Industrial Military Complex post WWII in America, and Stalin felt compelled to compete against, focusing resources on the military and not the community.

China: a bloody transition that transformed a starving nation into a fed one. However over time in recognizing the lack of incentive under this system, have slowly re-introduced capitalism, but under strict government regulation. This combination is proving currently to be rather formidable.

Eclipse Now, if you're wondering how painful a transition into World Government will be, then think of the Russian or Chinese Revolutions, then put them on a global scale. Mankind does not agree to change, but is forced to change by necessity and survival...whether that be physical, emotional, financial, religious, social, et al. But we don't co-operate. We play for keeps...winner take all.

I would like it to be co-perative, but have absolutely no reason to believe that it will be.

You're avoiding the issue, Eclipse Now.

>>Basically what is it with you and Horus bluntly assuming that regional unifying forces have to be Socialist and tyrannical?<<

Nothing really. They were the most obvious and accessible examples.

But at least we agree they were unsuccessful.

>>What created Yugoslavia? Was it a reforming and peaceful process of EU enticement to join, or Communist invasion and forceful take-over?<<

More the former, actually.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was knitted together, voluntarily, following the ending of Ottoman domination via the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Montenegro was more reluctant, but was annexed anyway. The whole lot became Yugoslavia in 1929.

Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was proclaimed in 1943 - by the Yugoslav Partisans resistance movement, no less - and voluntarily installed a Communist government in 1946. At that time they established six Socialist Republics and two Socialist Autonomous Provinces.

What is instructive, is how quickly they reverted to their earlier format as separate entities, just as soon as they possibly could after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

>>The USSR — a failure of a large Federal system and proof that Federal systems don’t work, or the failure of economic management within an authoritarian, unaccountable regime<<

I'd say both, myself.

The key point being - as the EU experiment is telling us, daily - that monetary (let alone economic) union is ineffective, without political union.

So whichever of the two you decide was at fault, the other is fully implicated.

Your "examples" of the US are not at all relevant in this context.

>>America’s rise over the last 4 centuries was due to maintaining independent isolated mini-colonies, or uniting in Federation?<<

You provide only two options, I notice. On balance, I'd say neither was particularly instrumental, given that there were so many other contributing factors.

>>The EU now exerts more ‘soft-power’ on the world stage as a unified and successful DEMOCRATIC free market Federation.<<

An interesting assertion. But evidenced by... what, exactly?

Iraq?

No, based on the countless "Big Ideas" and other ABC podcasts I listen to that discuss EU soft-power. The basic idea is that EU membership is such a great 'carrot' that countries start the long road to reform on the promise that *one day* they'll share those benefits. So without a single shot fired, less accountable, less open nations start to deal with creating more successful democratic institutions.

That's all I'm talking about. The carrot, not the stick. Soft power will gradually see the African Union become more like the European Union. There is already the economic need and program to begin this. Will the final deal be a global parliament? I hope so, then we could vote on GLOBAL issues. But the cynical part of me is concerned that it will stop just short of such an achievement. We could end up with a number of regional super-powers, such as an Asian Union competing with the African Union and South American union, not to mention the EU and USA. They might get together for 'diplomatic talks behind closed doors' as happens in the current arrangements.

And anyone that prefers that over open and accountable democratic voting systems in a global parliament, well, good luck with that. I think most people want global decision making processes out in the open thanks.

Not the most convincing source, Eclipse Now.

>>...based on the countless "Big Ideas" and other ABC podcasts I listen to that discuss EU soft-power<<

EU "soft power" is a journalistic tic. It cannot be properly defined or measured.

And I'm extremely familiar with the theory.

>>The basic idea is that EU membership is such a great 'carrot' that countries start the long road to reform on the promise that *one day* they'll share those benefits. So without a single shot fired, less accountable, less open nations start to deal with creating more successful democratic institutions.<<

What I have been trying to do - in vain, clearly - is to draw your attention to the growing body of actual, real, live, documented evidence, as to what is happening in the EU.

The reason I chose to use Iraq as an example, is because in theory, it would have been an ideal opportunity for the EU's "soft power" to become tangible, and to produce results with which it could be associated.

Fact is, you can discuss what EU soft power should be able to achieve until the cows come home

You can explain that EU soft power should be able to act as a force for good, with a shimmering halo hovering over your head.

You can deliberate at great length on this podcast and that, how EU soft power will gradually do this, or gradually do that.

But what you cannot show is anything identifiable that will back up your theory. So that's where it remains - an untried, untested theory.

What is possible to demonstrate, of course, is that soft power can flow from economic and/or military dominance, just like everything else in this world. Which kinda/sorta leaves the EU out in the cold.

So, right back to the sentence that caught my eye, and against which all my words have been directed:

>>The EU is just a prototype of what is to come.<<

It may well be.

But not in the way that you would like it to be, I'm afraid.

Mate, you're either blind or dishonest.

The 'soft power' of the EU is demonstrated by the sheer number of 'non-Western' countries that have ALREADY, IN HISTORY, DEMONSTRABLY rushed to join it and changed their political and economic systems to do so!

It is also demonstrated by the ongoing debates in those countries that wish to join, one day, and are slowly — ever so slowly — reforming with a view to do so.

If you are suggesting this has to happen overnight it is a fantasy of your own construction. Surely you know how the EU formed initially out of humble beginnings in a mere Steel and Coal agreement between a few post-WW2 nations? Surely you know how it took 50 years to get to where it is today? In a similar way Africa wants to create a more successful Federal structure that can unify efforts to develop that continent, South America has similar goals, and slowly, bit by agonising bit, the pieces are falling into place.

You also never addressed whether you like dirty diplomatic deals done behind closed doors. Interesting