Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Please listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                               

Small Country Syndicates

A Way to Help Small Countries Survive
  (+4, -1)
(+4, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Increasing small countries are emerging as existing countries break up or regions assert their independence. This is an idea to help them survive.

Being a state has overheads and can be expensive so I propose the countries band together into syndicates with other like-minded countries for co-operation on currency, scientific/commerical progress and allowing them to buy to negotiate better prices for government bought goods. Small but viable states might help such syndicates by being a member - a good example of this would be Iceland assisting a syndicate of the Inuit state created from part of Canada and any other near-artic states that arise.

Note that I changed this idea's section to "Country Fragmentation" because that is what this idea is about.

Aristotle, Mar 28 2001

micronations http://www.angelfir...onations/enter.html
[mrthingy, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]

[link]






       I don't doubt you, but if Nunavut's not still a part of Canada the CBC should probably be alerted. They're always the last to know, of course.   

       Apart from the EU, see trade blocs and organizations like ASEAN and the OAS. Aggravatingly, most new small countries don't get along well with the neighbouring small countries they just got through violently breaking away from, but there probably is potential for more clubbing together on their part. I like the bit about buying government supplies in bulk, for instance. Even if it means letterhead like --   

       From the desk of the Government Of
  

       [ ] Belize
[ ] Costa Rica
[ ] El Salvador
[X] Panama
Monkfish, Mar 29 2001, last modified Apr 16 2001
  

       UnaBubba: Europe is all about moderately large countries trying to become a very large one. This is more about what to do with the fragments of Idonesia, the Balkans and Nunavut.   

       Monkfish: The way I see it is that small countries would ally with non-adjacent countries that share the same language group, ethics or who just happen to be in the same economic condition.   

       As you suggest this is also in place with Africa having a complex patchwork of trade groups that still fail to prevent wars and strife. However this is for the new ones, the ones that people shake their head over and declare there is no way they could manage to be a state as they wouldn't be able to buy their own pencils.
Aristotle, Mar 29 2001
  

       to me the EU is just a way that France and Germany can carry on with their petty arguments at the same time as alienating Britain as a cover-up for the French infecting all our animals...paranoid and xenophobic? moi?   

       also the reason that the African/Balkan/Indonesian states cannot afford pencils because they have spent all their money on guns to become independent
chud, Apr 07 2001
  

       I have to admit that a lot of small countries have problems that have been accrued by war but this way (gulp) they could probably get their guns cheaper.   

       The various syndicates would buy guns in bulk from the vairous international wholesalers and arrange for seperate deliverly to each of the member countries. Maybe these arms dealers could throw in the odd pack of pencils as part of a special offer ...
Aristotle, Jul 17 2001
  

       I'd hate to be at the meeting where the "Syndicate" is deciding on the order for the latest arms shipment... "Yo, sit the f*ck down and shut the f*ck up. Alright already. Now who wants nukes with their lethal viral agents? Vinnie?"
Guy Fox, Jul 17 2001
  

       It is a bit grim but countries do generally need some kind of security. Hopefully creatives and progressives would band to gether across a syndicate and make cultural exchanges or lobby for peaceful funding. In very small countries you only get so many famous authors whom the media is prepared to listen to, after all.
Aristotle, Jul 18 2001
  

       chud, you've got only part of the problem listed there. another reason various states don't have enough money is because of the lack of foreign aid/foreign investment in those countries. for example, israel receives over $3 billion every year from the united states (more than half of which is military aid), while the palestinian authority receives less than 10% of that number. on top of that, the us congress is debating whether or not to cut the palestinians' (and _only_ the palestinians') funding because of continued violence in the region.   

       don't forget the woefully late foreign aid pledged to the african nations to help fight the aids epidemic. without foreing aid/investment, it will take a long time for these countries to develop.
mihali, Jul 18 2001
  

       The idea also reminds me of the the Articles of Confederation that preceded the USA's Constitution. The states were, at the point, thought of as separate nations, the "united states" being essentially a treaty organization.
baf, Jul 18 2001
  

       The big difference between this and the early days of the USA is that independent nations (or ones that are trying to become independent) that could benefit from such a scheme are not necessarily connected by location. If somewhere fragments then the best nation for it to work with might not be a neighbour due to political considerations.   

       However countries will preferably pick pencils and ploughs over armaments and ammunition.
Aristotle, Jul 18 2001
  

       Laws probably would need to be altered to assist matters of procurement. This, after all, what the idea is about - helping all those increasingly small new countries to become viable states.
Aristotle, May 30 2003
  

       I can't imagine this becoming more than another level of bureaucracy. Each nation would undoubtedly want to maintain systems that they "do best", which would be duplicated at a multi-national level. So you would still have a national government, and now another layer of multi-national government above it. Kind of like the U.S. Federal government which has usurped states rights, duplicated agencies, and increased overall costs to the citizenry.
TitaniumZ, May 30 2003
  

       This is about new countries getting together to buy cheaper pencils and pool the benefits of scientific research, not a plan (sinister or otherwise) to put the world under an official, global dictator!   

       Some of the new countries are really, really small. They can consist nothing more than a town or the barren area that a native people eek a living from.   

       Think Benelux rather than Pangria ...
Aristotle, May 30 2003
  

       Hmm, more relevent for a small country syndicate would be for the countries to cut down their costs for road signs by working out the largest possible common set of signs, the quantities needed and placing a bulk order. Don't forget that with the internet disperate places like Kosovo, Vatican City and an independent Cornwall could all syndicate - although for road signs there would be issues about which the side of the road citizens drive on ...
Aristotle, May 30 2003
  

       The sinister plan mention was more a reference to [TitaniumZ]'s annotation.   

       In the real world governments cooperate all the time out of a matter of necessity. It's a crowded world and one that is getting more connected all the time. All part of the ever-changing myriad historic compromises that have shaped all human organisations.
Aristotle, Jun 03 2003
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle