According declassified US documents, US intelligence reports, academic studies, and press reports, the primary US foreign policy concern has always been "the protection of our raw materials" from the "radical nationalists" who "are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country's resources should be the people of that country". This philosophy "embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses". The implication being, "their economic transformation in ways which reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West" - therefore intolerable and must be overcome. Moreover: Consequently: Thus, "As the leading 'have' power, we may expect to have to fight to protect our national valuables against envious 'have nots.'" Accordingly, "the United States reserves the right to the unilateral use of military power [for] ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources." In addition, "We have to be forward deployed in Europe and in Asia in order to shape people's opinions about us [and] to shape events that will affect our livelihood and our security. And we can do that when people see us. They see our power. They see our professionalism. They see our patriotism. And they say that's a country that we want to be with." In Latin America, the Unites States compelled clients to work for "the elimination of economic nationalism in all it's forms" and resisted "excessive industrial development", thereby ensuring "a favorable climate for US business and private investment...[and] free access to markets and raw materials". However, in "our little region over here", "probably the most striking political development in the other American republics during the past half-century is the wide acceptance of the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people. This has resulted in a phenomenal growth of social and economic legislation designed to protect labor, distribute land more widely . . . and increase opportunities for education." (This evil doctrine was regarded as "communism" - a cover term - during the Cold War) The primary threat is "the trend toward nationalistic regimes" that respond to "increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and that are thus concerned "to increase production and to diversify their economies".. The trends toward nationalist regimes have lead to the elections of a "small group of radical populist governments [which] emphasize economic nationalism at the at the expense of market-based approaches. ...measures that directly clash with US initiatives." Therefore, it is "essential to arrest the drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes". The United States must encourage them by economic assistance and other means to base their economies on a system of private enterprise and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment, of both domestic and foreign capital, including opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return.." However, "should the inter-American system fail to protect vital United States national interests in this hemisphere, it is recognized that unilateral action by the United States may be necessary".
The first beneficiaries of a country's resources should be the people who put them into production. Whether they're people who live within 1km, 10km, 100km, or 1000km of the resource is irrelevant in my eyes.
You are absolutely right - And Australia is an excellent example of how the owners of a resource and the users of a resource can both benefit.
I think Australia is a good example of foreign and local investment coexisting - but we have a lot of barriers to foreign ownership which prevent that. I'm no fan of Labor, but Keating was right in moving us toward integration with the Asia Pacific region. We can have ties with the United States and Western Europe too, but we should focus on being the regional leader. We've had to give up a lot of independence to maintain our alliance with the US, and every decade they throw in a bunch of new demands. We should seek to become our own nation. We're quite capable of providing for our own defense now. Become a Federal Republic. Try to resist the urge to centralize power in Canberra. Allow states control over internal policy and encourage competition between them. Declare free and open trade with all - get rid of all tariffs and import taxes, allow free and open immigration, Open business up to foreign investment. Don't even consider propping up car manufacturers with tax dollars. Stop protecting Qantas. Leave ANZUS, promote friendly relations but don't compromise sovereignty. Star by rejecting the TPP - they ask too much and give too little.
This was a half fast effort on my part. Kinda sloppy and I left a lot out. Organizing it all is quite a chore and time consuming.
