And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities?
I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider Singapore. What would happen if they just opened the doors and let anyone who wanted to go in, go in (IN, ID, PH, MY, BD, as well as Pan-EU)?
Better? Cuba, considering the embargo that fucked them twice over, is better off compared to most of the hell-holes intervention created in Latin America.
Even as a dictatorship it's much more benign compared to people like Pinochet that was supported, put in place, and much beloved by the US.
Also, do we ask something from the UK for embargoing us for a couple hundred years?
How many times have you been there?
You can live for years in a place and have the wrong impression about it. In fact, you can even be born in a place and leave there all your life and have and have the wrong impression about it. And you can also have historical reasons to disagree that don't apply to the general population (e.g. one's relatives being big-shots under the previous regime).
It's also easy to visit a place and just see what you wanted to see. Tourists traveling in utter misery do it all the time -- they have a great time, and people a few km from their hotel might be dying in slums.
I'm not saying that you did those things and I didn't. Just that measuring how many times more one has been there is not really relevant.
I went both times as part of a humanitarian mission to bring medical supplies. Cuba sucks. Great people. Horrible government.
Not an American, not interested in Michael Moore -- there are actual historians and accounts not just pop culture, and I've visited several times (and a large number of other parts of the world too).
But the use of "progressive news" as some kind of bad source paints a picture.
Americans act as is 20 years even is ancient history.
Even after 100 or 150 years, a huge damage can still resonate to a country.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.
This view is simply ignorant of history.
The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.
Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.
This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem.
At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again.
Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.
> Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.
Even US foreign aid is distributed in a way completely subservient to US geopolitical interests. The perhaps most chilling example(and there are many examples) of this would be when the US denied food aid to Bangaldesh in '74, when the country was undergoing a massive famine(which ultimately led to the deaths of 4 million people). This wasn't just a simple denial, but an act of ransom against an impoverished, suffering people who just won their independence from a genocide-committing, US-backed Pakistan. The Americans had initially promised food aid to Bangladesh, and this aid was ready to deliver, when the Bangladeshis were told that they had to immediately cease all trade relations with Cuba to see any of it. Not only was Cuba one of the few trading partners of Bangladesh at the time, but also one of the first few countries to recognize their independence and status as a nation. By the time Bangladeshi leaders agreed to this demand, the famine was largely over and had claimed the bulk of its victims. US aid finally arrived too late to be of any use.
All of this was at the same time as when America was giving massive quantities of grain as food "aid" to South Vietnam, which was on its own a surplus food producing country. The grain given to South Vietnam was used(indeed, meant to be used) as barter in exchange for weapons from other countries. Just another instance of when American "charity" is used for American geopolitical interests rather than any meaningful form of charity.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a nation state, especially one with the track record of the US, can be trusted to "benevolently" interfere with other countries. The only thing it will do, indeed can do, given the power structures that comprise it, is act in its own best interests, which are often as not to the detriment of the host country.
I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.
Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in.
India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.
I'm not saying that remittances from some lucky people who have the means to move are the solution to world poverty, but they help. If you don't want to do anything that helps, but won't solve the problem in three seconds flat without any side effects, then I'm all ears of what your suggestion is?
One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.
So the answer is to let X% of the population in so 5X% can receive foreign money but still be subjected to a broken environment?