Buffer state between two countries Seems historically most conventional democratic countries cannot comfortably allow another different system of diverse ideology to be coexisted within a country. Due to the fact of many voting results in the past for many countries, the results driven bt human behaviour statistically showing often 50% and 50% voters would determine which leaders are elected. Perhaps any country should allow a small part governed by different system. Hence the country and her people can have better opportunity in understanding any pros and cons in order for improvements or enhancing self-confidence. Likely the problem of major conflicts or wars would be the strong desire of chnaging another country (usually with cultural complexity background, that can produce disaster. If a common form for most countries was wanting to get change for only a small part of another country rather than a whole country, at the same time each country allows and owns a small part if land having different systems, then the dream of perpetual peace would become possibly reality, since the small part of land would function as a Buffer state between two countries.
Besides, the buffer state(s) with minority system(s) in a country would most likely have dynamic prosperity and better economy than other states due to better trade and friendky communication conditions. This kind of buffer states would be not only simply a pragmatic structure to avoid conflict, but also a bit like previous colonies in history for stimulating trades and economy, other than cultural exchange.
Some democratic countries tried to install certain communist friendly leaders like Corbin in the UK or Whitlam in AU, but this simple way doesn't work well, I think. Because they are only temporary to a whole nation that would never change drastically completely by just a one term leader. Say, if one island state of the UK or AU was designed to become a communist friendly state with proper legislation permanently, I think that particular state would prosper greatly, with much better economic development than other states probably, besides attracting more migrant talents to stay and live. Trade restrictions would never be required practically.
Some democratic countries tried to install certain communist friendly leaders like Corbin in the UK or Whitlam in AU, but this simple way doesn't work well, I think. Because they are only temporary to a whole nation that would never change drastically completely by just a one term leader. Say, if one island state of the UK or AU was designed to become a communist friendly state with proper legislation permanently, I think that particular state would prosper greatly, with much better economic development than other states probably, besides attracting more migrant talents to stay and live. Trade restrictions would never be required practically.
EvenOdd 发表于 2022-03-13 11:35
Perhaps if Ukraine goes to establish a Rusia friendly state, with different system, alone their border, then Ukraine would not only facilitate good economy but also promote perpetual peaceful relationship for two neighbour countries. Maybe that is a better deal than what exactly Russia wants nowadays, a neutral (and Russia friendly) state rather than a neutral country. Due to human behaviour statistically, always some people would like to live in this neutral state, I think. Perhaps a quick and feasible peace solution that sets an example for peace-building of future conflicts between countries. Just 2 cents!
When needing something concrete with proactive acts for peace-building, perhaps not many options can be effective when facing conflicts in the past, or eliminating escalation. Q https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/first-we-did-too-little-to-oppose-russia-now-do-we-risk-going-too-far-the-other-way First, we did too little to oppose Russia. Now do we risk going too far the other way? Hans Kundnani First, we did too little to oppose Russia. Now do we risk going too far the other way? UQ
Seems historically most conventional democratic countries cannot comfortably allow another different system of diverse ideology to be coexisted within a country.
Due to the fact of many voting results in the past for many countries, the results driven bt human behaviour statistically showing often 50% and 50% voters would determine which leaders are elected.
Perhaps any country should allow a small part governed by different system. Hence the country and her people can have better opportunity in understanding any pros and cons in order for improvements or enhancing self-confidence.
Likely the problem of major conflicts or wars would be the strong desire of chnaging another country (usually with cultural complexity background, that can produce disaster.
If a common form for most countries was wanting to get change for only a small part of another country rather than a whole country, at the same time each country allows and owns a small part if land having different systems, then the dream of perpetual peace would become possibly reality, since the small part of land would function as a Buffer state between two countries.
This kind of buffer states would be not only simply a pragmatic structure to avoid conflict, but also a bit like previous colonies in history for stimulating trades and economy, other than cultural exchange.
Say, if one island state of the UK or AU was designed to become a communist friendly state with proper legislation permanently, I think that particular state would prosper greatly, with much better economic development than other states probably, besides attracting more migrant talents to stay and live. Trade restrictions would never be required practically.
Perhaps if Ukraine goes to establish a Rusia friendly state, with different system, alone their border, then Ukraine would not only facilitate good economy but also promote perpetual peaceful relationship for two neighbour countries.
Maybe that is a better deal than what exactly Russia wants nowadays, a neutral (and Russia friendly) state rather than a neutral country.
Due to human behaviour statistically, always some people would like to live in this neutral state, I think.
Perhaps a quick and feasible peace solution that sets an example for peace-building of future conflicts between countries.
Just 2 cents!
Q https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/first-we-did-too-little-to-oppose-russia-now-do-we-risk-going-too-far-the-other-way
First, we did too little to oppose Russia. Now do we risk going too far the other way?
UQ