
Well, let's delve one level deeper. Why is democracy better than tribalism or
other means of Govt.? The President of Georgia was elected with a thumping
majority and booted out later, w/ no objections from the UN. Similarly, the
people of Algeria elected an Islamic Fundemantalist Party into power but the
junta declared it illegal. In both cases, I personally have _no_ problems with
the outcome, but if the voice of the people is that hallowed thing that the 
world community claims to revere so, why isn't it interfering there? 

.
Exactly. My point is that it will inevitably turn out that way, and we can save
ourselves a lot of pain and trouble by simply letting people sort out their
problems on their own. Colonial interventions, even in Haiti, haven't worked 
in the past. They had a 102 coups from 1845-1915. The US invaded in 1915. And left
in 1933, almost 17 years after they had intended to. Was it a success? Well,
look at Haiti today and of the past 40 years and decide for yourself. It _was_
a success so long as the US was in, from what I remember. But it didn't last
long, obviously.


Nobody did. People should have a right to self-defense. If the UN wants to arm
the Bosnians or Haitian revolutionaries or whoever, I have no problems with
that. I do when they cross that line and attempt to re-arrange boundaries, govts.
etc., the Vance-Owen plan being one such piece of insanity.
 

We finally have a clearly-stated point of difference. Colonialism can
have its good side, which is as you stated above - removing thugs from being
able to lord it over powerless people. I am worried that the bad side is what 
will assert itself, and I am prepared to let natural forces take their course 
if that will mean we can avoid the bad side of colonialism.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If The University of Illinois shares these views, I'd be surprised.
They aren't that smart generally -:).