|
>> >> Perhaps I should clarify this. I was not actually advocating a mechanism which
>> >> breaks Indonesia into many smaller nations. The thinking over the last 40 years
>> >> or so is that more nations = more possible threats, and more wars with each
>> >> other (India and Pakistan are perhaps a good example). >> Less nations means less time wrangling trade agreements and quibbles over
>> dumping and so on. There is a definite non military benefit to less nations, or
>> nations which unilaterally have trade policies, that of which is the gains from
>> freer trade. True, but more nations also increases competition between governments. If I
live within commuting distance of five different countries, I can choose to
work in the one which offers the best climate for my business, I can even
choose to move to the one which offers the best living conditions for myself
and family etc and still be close to extended family and friends. Of course this presupposes I start off in a country which allows me to
leave it - a despotic socialist government is always a possibility. It also
presupposes that the neigbouring countries allow me to come and work there, but
the ones that don't will soon see the economic benefits reaped by their
neighbours who do. >> But, does less enemies mean that the chance of war is lower? The bigger they
>> are, the harder they fall so they don't wish to expose themselves? Why would
>> smaller, economically weaker nations wish to wage war more so than more
>> powerful and populated states? I take your point. If you believe that the chance that a country will go
bad (ie be taken over by a fascist warmongering dictator) is the same regardless
of the size of the country, then more countries will mean more wars. If you
believe that that larger countries are inherently more likely to wage war, then
the equation changes. If you assume that 1% of dictators will be mad as rattlesnakes, and will
attempt to acquire WMD as a means of retaining power, then more countries means
more problems for others trying to stop this. Beyond this, it's pretty well inconclusive. But I have always assumed that
is the rationale of the US refusing to allow creation of more countries (Kosovo
and Kurdistan didn't happen, and Palestine .. well .. lets wait and see. Of course others may believe the US are trying to keep the number of snouts
in the UN trough to a minimum.
| 
