A) Perhaps the irony of the situation (prickly conscience? liberal guilt?) is that while not directly responsible for the poverty, misery and hopelessness of life in places remote from us (or are we?) we are left with little choice not only to fight the immediate wars but also to spend enormous sums on building institutions, infrastructure etc. to prevent the \’root causes\’ of such wars. Yet, we cannot afford to spend these vast amounts-we need to spend on our country and people as we lose the economic competitive edge.
How do we deal with the desperate, defiant, ragtag Somali pirates of not-too-far-back years? destroying them in the act? in their homes as deterrent to others?
What about the innumerable refugees fleeing from sectarian conflicts? do we have to find a real solution by improving their life chances- many, many millions of them in those parts of the world?
B). If global imbalances build up to destabilizing levels who gains? who loses? Because markets and national economies are increasingly interlinked, perhaps no state or region would stand to gain in the long run. Having said that, nation-states who have MORE (status quo, satiated, successful powers) have more to lose in case of instability. The cost of maintaining stability is to be borne disproportionately by them, thenGermany pressured to rescue Greece recently, or the U.S. bailout of Mexico in 1994.all the while pondering over the moral hazard of such actions..
