Political Philosophy

The Strait of Hormuz between Allah and Mammon

2012-01-01T16:54:00.003+13:00

The Ayatollahs: Allah, Petrol and the Great Satan

The last weeks brought a seemingly incoherent actions by the Iranian dictators. First they threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, next they invite international inspectors to play the game of cat and mouse with the Iranian nuclear program and its suspected military aspects.

What could be the reason for such inconsistent behavior. Either stick it up to the man (the USA, the Western world and the world public opinion) or meekly accept their superiority and do as they say. It would be difficult to divine supernatural causes because I would expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to inspire consistency. So if it is not Allah it must be the Great Satan who can be blamed for the wavering of the faithful.

That has certain logic behind it. The United States have hurt the international transactions of Iranian banks by imposing sanctions on them and have paraded an aircraft carrier near the narrow straight which is so important for international oil trade although not affecting particularly US oil imports which come mainly from other sources.

So if not God or the Great Satan who can be the culprit? The last suspect is Mammon. The Ayatollahs are not so worried about things divine or they would have defied the Great Satan but more about things pecuniary. That is why it is easy for them to continue with the military posturing – they know that the US is no position politically, military or financially to sustain another war (and Iran is a much more dangerous adversary than Saddam's Iraq or Afghanistan) and on the other hand the rulers of Tehran wouldn't risk their earthly positions in a war with the USA too because the fate of Saddam, Milosevic and Gaddafi is not something to be desired. On the other hand it turns out that petrol has become the US main export. So both countries US and Iran (actually even Russia) will benefit from a rise in the price of petrol and certain military posturing won't hurt (especially bearing in mind that the US military are facing painful cuts and need an excuse to boost the perception that the bloated defense budget is still needed).

Nuclear weapons are something else althogether. The USA has demonstrated with Saddam that this pretext can be used easily for an intervention that is why the Ayatollahs invite international monitors to preempt such a possibility.

That makes them quite clever and decisive and not inconsistent at all. They need a foreign enemy to scare the ignorant part of their subjects into submission (the Arab spring was preceded by the demonstrations against voting irregularities in Persia, now Russia has the same problems but more about that later).

Unfortunately it looks like it's not Allah or other high ethical principle or enlightened idea that motivates them and the Americans but petty business interest which could be not bad if it leads to good results but higher price of petrol is a good result only for those who trade in it and for the rest of us remains the hope to manage to save enough for an electric car to be able to travel further than the natural limitations of a bicycle.

There could be one good consequence of all this – expensive gas leading to less pollution.

Links:

U.S., EU Rebuff Iran's Hormuz Passing Threat | New Middle East News

nmen.org/u-s-eu-rebuff-irans-hormuz-passing-threat-3/

56 minutes ago - “The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait. Therefore all ships, no matter what flag they fly, have the right of transit passage.” Iranian Vice President ...

Iran plans missile tests near Strait of Hormuz | World | DAWN.COM

www.dawn.com/.../iran-plans-missile-tests-near-strait-of-hor... - Pakistan

59 minutes ago - TEHRAN, Dec 31: Iran on Saturday kept tensions simmering over its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers by readying war game missile tests near ...

Iranian missile spin closes Hormuz for five hours | MELCHIZEDEK ...

www.melchizedekpriest.com/?p=13737

19 minutes ago - 31, Iran's state agencies “reported” long-range and other missiles had been test-fired as part of its ongoing naval drill around the Strait of Hormuz. Ahead of the ...

Iran backs off threat to close oil strait | News24

www.news24.com/.../Iran-backs-off-threat-to-close-oil-strait-201112...

37 minutes ago - Tehran - Talk of blocking the strategic oil route through the Strait of Hormuz is a discussion of the past, a commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said on...

Iran Delays Missile Test & Suggests Talks - War On Terror News

waronterrornews.typepad.com/.../iran-delays-missile-test-suggests-tal...

22 minutes ago - The fresh diplomatic overture follows Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz earlier this week. The U.S. later countered with a promise to keep the strait...

THE BIBLE BLOG | Blog | Strait talking: Iran gets tough as US fleet ...

www.thebibleblog.co/.../strait-talking-iran-gets-tough-as-us-fleet-loo...

27 minutes ago - The US says its warships, which crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, are heading to the Arabian Sea. Iran's long-range missile systems, including the ...

Iran - Press TV

www.presstv.ir/section/3510201.html

18 minutes ago - The spokesman for Iranian Navy's Velayat 90 war games in the Strait of Hormuz says three of Iran's newest domestically-manufactured Ghadir-class submarines ...

Britannia Radio

britanniaradio.blogspot.com/.../us-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank.ht...

57 minutes ago - 31, DEBKAfile reported Iran had managed by a media trick to close the Strait of Hormuz for at least five hours without firing a shot. Posted by Britannia Radio at ...

BBC News -Iran denies test-firing long-range missiles in Gulf

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16372141

18 minutes ago - On Tuesday Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil export route, if new sanctions were imposed over its nuclear programme. The US and its...

North Korea - What Now?

2011-12-27T21:52:00.003+13:00

What will happen in North Korea?

The regime seems far less stable than the Arab dictatorships or even the USSR by the end of the 80s.
For there is no doubt that North Korean regime will collapse most probably sooner than later and in any case not later than the end of this decade if not in the first half of it.
The problem is how the world or the major interests involved will deal with it. If there are any particular plans they don't seem to be public if they exist at all so I will feel free to speculate.
Questions to be answered:

First, what could happen?
Second, who are the major players and what are their interests?
Third, what can they do to promote them or what can be expected that they may do?

Possible answers to the first question – possible developments :

Russian scenario. A Gorbachev style move towards reforms starts well but ends in Yeltsin type chaos of crime and corruption until the Putin type strongman regulates corruption in favor of his clique and puts the losers in jail
Chinese scenario. Deng Xiaoping style reforms lead to improved living standards while preserving the rule of the communist party and postponing the inevitable collapse.
East German scenario. South Korea absorbs North Korea and the North Korean communist elite melts into obscurity.

Additional questions stemming from the proposed answers to the first question:

Which is the preferred scenario?
Which is the most probable one?
Which is the most dangerous?

Answer to the second question – major stakeholders :

The people of North Korea – interested in survival, development, democracy and opportunities
The communist elite of North Korea – interested in preserving their privileges
South Korea – interest in dealing with the military threat from the North and reunification.
China – interested in stability in Korea to prevent destabilization of its regions bordering Korea.
Japan – interested in removing the threat from North Korea and a host of problems.
USA – a peaceful Korea will reduce the need for US military presence but open opportunities for trade.
Russia – has shown remarkable indifference for a country so close and the importance accorded by the government to the development of the Russian Pacific region so close to North Korea.

So far all stakeholders (with the notable exception of the sovereign – the people of North Korea) have pledged to work with the elite in North Korea to facilitate a smooth transition. Russia has warned against “provocations” by North Korean neighbors probably meaning that the Russian government won't tolerate a repeat of the Libyan scenario.
That may be the most sensible foreign policy in response to the contingency of the moment but what should the main stakeholders do to secure the promotion of there strategic interests in the future?
And what those interest may be? (I am aware that the concise list provided here is far from complete and may be even off the mark.)

You Cannot Love If You Don't Know

2011-12-25T18:42:00.003+13:00

If you want to give
you have to have.
If you want to live
you have to love.

You can only have
what you understand,
not what is in your hand,
and you cannot know it if you don't love.

Russian Spring and US National Interest

2011-12-17T17:34:00.003+13:00

One night the Khalif Harum al Rashid summoned his vizier Jafar and said to him: “I wish to go into the city to find out what is happening and to question the people about the conduct of my administrators so that I may dismiss those who they complain of and promote those they praise...”
from the Tale of Three Apples not Newton's, Beatles' and Steve Jobs' but the one from The Thousand and One Nights

The Khalif in Moscow seems to have forgotten that he has to check what people think of his administrators and confident in his popularity after ruling uncontested for over 12 years was unpleasantly surprised by his party's loss of more than 20 per cent of their seats in the Russian parliament regardless of the intimidation of his opponents and his control over the media (perhaps that was caused in part by the 20 per cent increase of internet penetration among the highly literate Russian population). Even worse he seems failing to acknowledge that the people have genuine concerns and dismisses the protesters in true Leninist style as paid by the West. To top it up US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed her concern with the rigged elections, prompting Mr Putin to retaliate that she was instigating the protests which is hardly try. Try spending several hours outside in the Russian winter. No matter how big a fan of Mrs Clinton you may be that thought won't be enough to keep you warm. Just how shaky Putin's position is at the moment can be discerned by his nervousness and lack of confidence (this is the man who rides his horse half-naked even when Sarah Palin is not watching from Alaska) but making the allusion that the white ribbons used by the protesters look like condoms is pretty low (and exposes ignorance that condoms may come in different colors). Gorbachev too (hardly a political competitor anymore) incurred the wrath of Putin by calling for a rerun of the elections.
Having said all that most of the protesters have spent most of their creative lives under the relatively secure, stable and prosperous rule of Putin and his political allies especially if compared with the chaotic Yeltsin regime. Those are the less flamboyant KGB guys (the more extravagant ones are in London dazzling the UK public with extreme wealth obtain though unthinkable corruption) and they may continue to rule Russia for quite some time with or without Putin mostly because they are unlikely to give up their positions without a fight. On the other hand the protestors are not the workers, soldiers and sailors of the October Revolution from the previous century. They are mostly middle class people who are looking for a government that can provide for more opportunities for development and innovation besides selling oil and gas to the West and China.
And that is where the interests of the people standing in the cold in Russia coincide with US national interest. A more democratic Russia where innovation and development will create more markets for US products and more products for US markets can only benefit the US middle class.
In that line of thought it was lucky timing that Russia was accepted as a member of the WTO just when it needs a boost. US – Russia relations cannot be fully covered by the philosophy of a “reset”. They need much more creative thinking to build a whole new system of interdependence and cooperation that will not only boost domestic economies but help create the conditions for stability and prosperity across Eurasia where pockets of volatile conflicts and regional animosities threaten to blow out of proportions, not to mention the imminent collapse of Chinese communism with yet unknown and unpredictable consequences.
The most precious legacy of the G.W. Bush era is the expensive lesson that the US cannot and should not act alone attempting to resolve international issues no matter how well-intentioned and powerful it may feel. It is debilitatingly expensive and the results are at best inconclusive if not disastrous.
The cheapest and most effective way to promote US national interest globally (and in space) is through cooperation – Marshal Plan style, or Kissinger's policy towards China style or International Space Station style. That is not confined to US international experience. Post WWII French policy to entangle Germany in an EU, (I remember it was originally an US idea) but it only became successful after France started pursuing it with religious fervor, and has managed to forge fascinating unity on the Old Continent torn by the most devastating wars in human history less than a century ago, and that united continent is one of the most reliable US trade partners and military allies.
Russia has moved a long way since the stagnation of the Brezhnev era. It is not perfect but it is moving slowly forward. It's in our interest to support that movement.

… the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand as in what direction we are moving: To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it— but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor...
--- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Desires and Values

2011-12-09T17:56:00.002+13:00

In our quest for happiness conjuring plans and putting them into action to fulfill our goals to satisfy our desires we acquire knowledge that can be shared with others for the mutual benefit of reaching our goals easier and cheaper. Thus knowledge is any information that can be used for the creation of a workable way to pursue our interests. Distilling our interest from the fountain of desires bursting from the spring of life fueled by love and beauty builds the structure of the tower of wisdom. That tower will be shinier and taller if it is built on sincerity and honesty or else deception can easily lead to misunderstanding that will cause it to crumble. Because of its complexity the search of happiness is only partially achievable by reason alone. It needs the passion of divine faith to serve as guiding light in the darkness of uncertainty. Desires may be born in the quest for earthly pleasures but that is only a refection of their heavenly source and destination. To deny the moving force of desires is to deny life itself. If they are there they must serve a purpose. It might be divine if you believe in God or you can consider it natural if you believe in Nature but they have the power of an ocean wave that can drown you or give lift you high and take you far in an exhilarating ride if you have mastered the skill to use it.

Sincerity and faith will make communication with like-minded souls possible. You may be able to achieve faster and more impressive results through lies but those results are likely to be short-lived and will most certainly cause more harm than good in the long run. Also depriving others of your honest oppinion on your interests and the best ways to achieve them deprives the community of valuable input which may be decisive for success or failure based on the advantage gained by deliberation.

Desires lead to values through the process of defining first interests, then goals by tempering them in the furnaces of reason, faith and passion. True wisdom will not come only through reason or, faith or passion alone or by merely absorbing knowledge useful to others. It can only blossom from a constant personal quest to understand what I really want, who I really am, why do I love myself and how will that help me become a better (happier) person with the help of others and how can I help them do that.

What You See Is What You Get

2011-12-05T11:43:00.001+13:00

What you see is what you get in live. If you know more you will get it easier. Understanding how the world works is critical to achieve ones goals easier. That knowledge comes from reflection on personal and others' experience. By reflection I mean both creating assumptions on cause and effect relationships and analyzing the result of testing these assumptions in real life. Personal experience is the most expensive but most reliable method of testing these assumptions and it relates them to our personal goals, interests or desires more closely than others. An experiment or in other words an artificial model of reality to test our theories is cheaper than real life experience but can be inaccurate or misleading due to the necessary simplification of that reality. The danger of self deception is even greater when applied to complex phenomena like society, business and especially politics.

But if personal experience leads to better knowledge wouldn't that also mean that personal theories of happiness, ethics, economics and politics are better than general ones. And indeed that is the logical conclusion. General theories are always weaker and less informative than personal ones. That doesn't meant that the are unnecessary – we need them to establish understanding between us so we can get other to help us achieve our goals which would be difficult (if not impossible unless one resorts to coercion) if we don't have a shared system of values, meanings and beliefs on the projected results of certain actions. Coercion is bad not because of some obscure commandment but because it can only achieve short lived results deceptively easy. The results will be short lived and the whole coercive enterprise a waste of resources because anything that does not develop is bound to die out. The only way to improve the results from coercion is by more coercion thus inevitably causing more resistance until the balance tips over against the perpetrator of coercive practices. It's a futile exercise and that makes it bad policy to pursue.

Scapegoat

2011-12-03T11:16:00.002+13:00

Who is to blame for the mess we are in?

The politicians?

Big business?

Both?

Or its all our own fault?

Mad is not the man who eats two cabbage pies,

but mad is the one who gives them to the man.

Bulgarian wisdom (don't count on it's relevance, but ignore it on your own risk)

The Tea (for lack of beer) Party will blame big government and unaccountability and they are to a great extent right. The OWS will blame big business and they too have a point. But it is like blaming the GPS if you don't know where you want to go. If your goal is clear then the deficiencies of the instruments to get you there would be more obvious. The main problem with government is not lack of efficiency but lack of effectiveness. It's no use to blame someone for wastefulness if you don't know the final goal. You cannot allocate resources if you don't have priorities, you cannot find the way if you don't know the destination. Once you know that you are looking for the Wizard of Oz the Yellow Brick Road becomes visible clearer than before.

Less regulation may seem like more freedom to its advocates by they should remember that free markets are impossible without a government guaranteeing private property and the critics of capitalism while right about the negative consequences from breathtaking inequality should keep in mind that when private property is compromised even worse inequality (Chinese, Cuban or North Korean style) emerges inevitably. The above are simple laws of how society works. By simple I do not imply insignificant but basic and solid to the extent that further attempt to disprove them will be rightfully considered waste of time. I will restate them:

1. There is no democracy without free markets.

2. There is no free market economy without democracy.

3. There is no freedom without both of the above being in place.

But if the goal setting is the most important part of the politico/economic process how do we go about setting them?

Here the answer cannot be simple because the goals must incorporate the interests of each and every citizen. Market and Politics work differently. When buying or selling it is the customer peculiar preferences that come to the surface. In a democracy on the other hand it is the same peculiar, individual, pesonal interests that are most important but they are negotiated in a manner appealing to some common, overarching interest. That has let some to believe that this commont interest is above personal interest and that is the worst political error with the gravest consequences as has been proven by the actions of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot among others. Private, individual interest always has the priority and only by protecting and respecting it is possible to formulate and protect a common course of action that wouldn't turn against those who it is supposed to benefit.

Therefore it is not politicians and big business who are to blame. It's me and you – equally. Perhaps to a certain extent it's more my fault than yours. Think about it. Tell me what you think.

Who needs ideas?

2011-11-30T11:38:00.000+13:00

All theories are just assumptions of cause and effect relationships that seem plausible and provide reasonably useful prediction for how things might work so we can plan accordingly. It is prudent to be always aware that even the most trustworthy theory might prove inapplicable in a particular situation which demands an innovative approach.

We act we act on our beliefs . We act on what we believe is our best interest and we do what we believe is the best way to achieve it. A prudent person will make every effort to gather all available relevant information and evaluate its reliability as objectively as possible. But ultimately people will be driven by their passions and desires and will act on what they believe is genuine knowledge about how things work. The strength of our beliefs and factored by the relevance of our knowledge will make our actions a part of reality. What is more important it will have more significant effect on that part of reality the is closest to us and affects us the most. Therefore faith is a substantial part of reality and the most important force and tool to achieve our goals. We live because we believe. Or more correctly - the way we live is a reflection of our beliefs.

Philosophy – a journey to the other world

2011-07-06T16:55:00.000+12:00

(a quest for wisdom, love and freedom)

This world is the world we know and understand. The other world is the world of the unknown. Philosophy is the name of the ship that can take us on a voyage of exploration of that world. The controls of this ship are easy to master because the only indispensable qualification is love for wisdom. Easy as it seems it must be handled with care like any tool that can harm you or those around you if it is not applied with care and forethought especially its sharp edge called doubt. This ship will use faith as the wind that will propel it on its way and dreams to serve as stars to guide it towards the its goal.

Faith that if you work hard all your emotional, intellectual, political and economic needs will be fulfilled and the best way to do that is if you think deep, love with abandon, work hard and sincerely believe.

Democracy is the way to fully appreciate the individual thus setting them on their path to develop their full potential for a their own and consequently everyone's benefit. Though it is the most natural way for organising a society it doesn't come naturally. Humanity's inherent complexity demands the ultimate intellectual, emotional and spiritual effort to make society work. The problems often seem insurmountable but the alternative is “nasty, brutish” and deadly. Power comes from working together chasing personal happiness.

Questions on Greece, Strauss-Kahn, Libya and ignorance

2011-07-02T15:00:00.003+12:00

Is there anything common between the demonstrations in Greece, Libya and Syria?

Wouldn't it be good for Greece to go bankrupt as Island did? Island seems to be OK now.

Why wouldn't the US default on its debt? Again there is nothing wrong with Iceland.

Why in the case of Greece the world community represented by the IMF appears to be aganist the people while in Libya the UN Security Council and NATO appear to protect the people?

It looks like former IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn and his accuser both demonstrated poor judgemnt. He ruined his career and she her lucrative money laundering side business. So they were both in finance and both not very clever. No wonder the financial system is plagued by crises.

Why do things go wrong?
Everything of course can be blamed on world imperialism, illuminati conspirators or the Satan himself, but the more plausible explanation will be that it is human stupidity that causes all the suffering. It is a ignorati conspiracy and the only way out is if we the reasonable stop being complacent.

The IMF and NATO offer a knee jerk reaction to serious problems. The debt is not the problem in Greece it is the symptom of inadequate development but neither the IMF nor the EU seem to be concerned with treating the causes. In Libya the lack of democracy is the problem but there is not thought about post Gaddafi reconstruction. The naïve expectation that things will just work out may backfire the way things turned out in Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is our world and if we don't take care of it it will come crashing on our heads. It is not someone else's fault and someone else's failure. It is my failure too but mostly your failure. Think about it and write a passionate comment.

Is God always Happy?

2011-05-30T15:56:00.002+12:00

Why not? All powerful, immortal, all knowing it looks like God should be happy at all times. If you imagine God as a content Buddha – free of desires or a like Jesus ascending to Heaven that may be so but I doubt it. Yes, I too can see the serene beauty of a stone or of vapour rising to the clouds but is that happiness? Rocks are peaceful lacking desires, but the do not have souls either. While God of the Bible seems to have doubts even about creation. Remember God creates something and then sees that it is good. Then God creates humanity – the pinnacle of creation in God's own image but is so often disappointed. But that is not my problem.

My problems is that I don't seem to be happy all the time either. I know there are those of you who will say that happiness is actually the pursuit of happiness or else something that you cannot achieve on this world but I will disagree. There are moments on this world when I feel definitely happy and the pursuit of happiness even if it can be breathtakingly inspiring at times there are moments when it suicidally frustrating. But if it is in my nature to suffer from unsatisfied desires pulling my soul in different directions with no apparent meaning to it all and then again if we are created in God's image then what will be the strength of happiness and of frustration that God feels?

And whose responsibility is all this? (I will suppress the intuitive reaction to blame the government.)

There were times when people believed that if prayers to God do not provide quick solutions perhaps a contract with the devil will do. But that seems like an illusion too. If I was the devil I wouldn't be very interested in providing services in exchange for a corrupt soul too anxious to prostitute itself. That's damaged goods.

With no apparent help from above or below it seems that happiness is my responsibility alone. And if desires seem to contradict each other it's up to me to mould them into a coherent and satisfactory vision. But even then the path remains elusive.

It's easy in the Wizard of Oz – just follow the Yellow Brick Road and the dreams that you dare to dream will come true. In real life the roads of faith, enterprise, politics or thinking seem to lead into different directions. Faith seems like the best (and deceivingly easiest) choice but believing without acting can easily degenerate into hypocrisy because how can I be know by what I do if I do nothing. Politics then seem a good approach as I can harness the power of the many like minded people to pursue our goals together, but that may mean adjusting my goals to fit the common interest. Then thinking may be a good way to achieve what I want but reason also can painfully illuminate the impossibility of my dearest desires. Perhaps a combination of thinking based on faith can help me build a political consensus to support an enterprise that can materialise my dreams?

Tell me what you think?

In God's Image

2011-04-08T22:39:00.000+12:00

If we the people are created in God's image then we must have God's perfection, sovereignty, power and knowledge. Unfortunately we don't. Most people are far from perfect, easily oppressed or enslaved and often helpless. Our knowledge is frequently inadequate and ignorance causes most of humanity's troubles.

Should we then discard the notion that we were created in God's image as wishful dreaming, an unsubstantiated prejudice by an self-conceited primate that imagines itself at the top of the evolutionary ladder or food chain even if there are others who are bigger, faster, more elegant and, who knows, perhaps even smarter. The answer is: No!

Because humanity has demonstrated capability for greatness even through periods when hate, ignorance and barbarity which sometimes threatened the extermination not only of humankind but all live on Earth.

We the people have shown that we have the power to change things the way we want them if we act together. Although a group of people can act to oppress another group of people and extract short term advantage that never works for longer periods. Therefore it is in the strategic interest of everybody to act together in the name of high ideas and protect our lives, freedom and the right to pursue opportunities.

People can be coerced into submission through threats and violence and such an contraption may even achieve certain illusionary success. The truth is that sooner or later it will collapse under the weight of lack of understanding and failure to accommodate the interests of all participants like a Tower of Babel – a grand vision but lacking substance.

The answer is in personal sovereignty. If everyone is created in God's own image then the opinion of everyone matters. On the other hand only cooperation can make that personal sovereignty, safety, freedom and opportunity possible. Coming from the premise that you can only love what you know. And the person you can know best is the one closest to you – yourself. And only if you love yourself a lot you can love your neighbor a lot too (you cannot possibly love your neighbor more because it is impossible to know someone else better than yourself). Everything else comes after that including the love of God.

To sum it up: people are unique and the best judges of their own interests. On the other hand these interests can only be protected and pursued in cooperation. Politics is the mechanism of this cooperation.

Alah Akbar

2011-04-03T21:31:00.002+12:00

A scared middle aged Yemeni man running towards the camera repeatedly yelling Allahu Akbar his voice trembling is the picture that will remain etched in my memory from the recent pro-democracy protests in the Arab world. The fact that the man is obviously afraid and horrible things might be happening behind his back causing him to flee in terror he still is there – on the square, taking a stand, proclaiming God’s greatness. God doesn't need our assurances but we do. We shout God is Great in the secret hope that as we are created in God’s image we must be great too. And perhaps if not great we can expect great things to happen, and attempt to make these great things happen. That doesn't mean ignorant and naïve actions like burning the Koran or even worse slaughtering innocent UN employees. A Great God cannot ask for murder or burning of a book of wisdom. God is there where there is understanding. We can understand each other because we have something in common, common ancestors (as claimed in the Bible and proven by scientists), a human soul, a common Creator or Nature if you prefer that. The name doesn't matter as long as it is clear that it is the same concept regardless of how the name sounds in different languages and world-views. There is something bigger than us and yet we are in the center of events. We should except great things but they will only happen if we attempt great things, no matter how scary. Because God is Great and we are created in God’s image.

Please, sign the petition to free Eman Al-Obeidy in Libya!

Why Politics

2011-01-12T20:11:00.003+13:00

Happiness
Happiness is what people are after. It has two prerequisites; life (for obvious reasons) and liberty (somewhat more obscure but based on the premise that people can only pursue happiness when they are free to decide what it is and how to pursue it). To achieve happiness people make plans complete with goals, priorities, steps and dedicate resources.

Politics
Politics is about people acting together to achieve their goals easier.
Politics is the highest level of organising this cooperative action the other cheaper and often more effective methods being business and community organisations.
Politics comes where the other cheaper and more effective methods do not work.
The measure of success in politics is where the interests of the people are effectively formulated and pursued.
As government gives certain advantages to those able to exploit its inability to protect itself from corruption. Successful governments have effective mechanisms in place to prevent such exploitation. Those who do not succumb to corruption to the detriment of their citizens and ultimately to the elite too.

Relations
Most relations among people and notably the most important ones related to love, friendship and pooling resources to archive prosperity are managed without the interference of the state. The state only steps in if something goes wrong. The state defines, adjudicates and enforces rules to increase the chances that such intervention does not cause harm and helps improve the situation by providing a reasonably lasting solution. Historical experience has demonstrated that rules are best established through deliberation and that these rules have to protect the rights of every member of society in order to be stable and defensible. Thus the need for liberty which is based on the protection of rights.

When Borders Are Crossed
Most relations which do not fall under the jurisdiction of a sole government are managed between people without the interference of a government they are mostly successfully managed privately by individuals themselves or facilitated by non-government entities like travel agents, international trading companies, banks, NGOs, Churches and other religious entities as with relations within a state perhaps with the advent of new technology the role of these intermediaries will gradually decrease. When these methods fail the government needs to intervene following interests and rules.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is about the state policies to promote the interests of its citizens abroad. But how does the state find out what these interests are if foreign policy is not an election priority if compared to the economy and other issues.

Life, Freedom and Wealth are Private

2010-12-16T21:13:00.002+13:00

Life, freedom and wealth are individual. They constitute the good life. To pursue these goals people cooperate in the fields of business, politics and ideas.

Business is best governed by the market but that being based on human judgement is not perfect. Its utility is in the fact that he market aggregates value judgements from a large number of people thus reducing but not eliminating the possibility of error. The danger of error exists because market choices might be made on the basis of insufficient or erroneous information. Therefore the market needs regulation by the government. The advantage is that political value judgement is formed in a manner different from that of the market thus minimising the danger of aggravating the same error. The way politics define value does not have the numerical measure that the market has and its less straightforward and well defined. That is why politics need a political theory which is based on philosophy and especially ethics and resulting theory of law and economics where it negotiates the legitimacy of its interaction with business.

Freedom is what makes us human. Bees and ants have better organised and consequently more effective and efficient societies but lack freedom and the concept of the primacy of individual interest. In contrast monkeys are on a constant vacation with few if any constraints (especially for the stronger individuals) and where food and shelter are basically free. Yet if compared to humanity their abilities to enjoy life are limited.

People unite to pursue their goals. This political activity has the potential for undesirable side effects. The first are grouped around the necessity to establish rules. That can be mitigated by negotiating the rules. The others are grouped around the potential of united people to exploit and oppress other people leading naturally to the danger of humanity obliterating itself. This threat is overcome by the elaborate security arrangements that define human history.

Faith and art define humanity and might have played a decisive role in its survival. Art and faith have an legitimate but uneasy relationship to philosophy through aesthetics and theology and to politics and business through their influence on public opinion and distribution channels and religion. Nevertheless governing faith and art using political or business tools have proved to be disastrous.

The modern democratic state based on a prosperous middle class thriving in a well regulated by an unobtrusive government market economy is the pinnacle of contemporary governance achieved through centuries of experimentation with theocracies, hereditary monarchies, primitive democracies like the ancient Greek and Roman and merchant republics like Venice and Florence. Apart from it there are states that are state only in form but not in substance which I will label collectively kleptocracies. These are states where the governing elites are concerned with providing exclusive privileges for themselves at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve.

Love Yourself!

2010-07-07T21:03:00.000+12:00

The ability to love yourself ultimately determines the extent of your ability to love somebody. To claim that you can love someone more than yourself is hypocritical and sounds as a claim that your glass is five quarters full J You can only love someone you know and the person you know best is yourself. You can only know others because you know yourself. It is impossible to learn truly and honestly about other people from any other perspective except your own. Anything else is hypocrisy and ignorance and is dangerous for you and those around you. When Jesus asked us to love our neighbour as we love ourselves he did not mean love your neighbour a little! I believe he meant a lot, and like yourself was the ultimate measure he could use. He did not mean a somewhat insignificant love bu the greatest possible love. I know you are not perfect. Sadly I am not either. But I believe I was created in God’s image and if that is so what is there not to love about myself.

Ethics, Rights, Identities and Interests

2010-05-11T11:14:00.001+12:00

Ethics, Rights, Identities and Interests
Ethical considerations have no meaning if they do not lead to better life for the participants in a social interaction. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (Dante). Due the complexity of modern life, though, it is often difficult to foresee the consequences of a certain action. That calls for the creation of rules of behaviour based on a concept of universal rights. It could be that in a disconnected world people can attempt to create a particular concept of rights applicable only to their group (that is what sects do) but that is impractical if impossible in an interconnected world. Rights are there to protect interests which on their part are how people perceive their need and that perception can be right or wrong. As this process itself is complicated and human beings are inherently lazy and bound to look for an easier way out we look for group identities in addition to our individual one to help us comprehend the world around us and the pursuit of our goals in it. (Additionally choosing a group identity can help us discover our true individual identity or further obscure it and destroy our personality.)
These ideas of ethics, rights, identities, and interests are constantly constructed , remodeled and abandoned in society and the more they correspond to material reality the more successful the societies and individuals employing them are. Also the fact that ideas are socially constructed does not mean that they are not real or arbitrary. The fact that they people use them to guide their actions makes ideas a powerful material force worth studying even as for most people social relations are much more important for the quality of their lives than interaction with nature. And the dependence of success and failure of any human endeavor on the relevance of ideas to reality consisting of nature and other ideas makes arbitrary choice of ideas a dangerous path to follow and therefore it is not so common.
People and communities chose ideas of ethical behavior, rights and identities based on their understanding of their interests. Therefore the study of interests seems like a good starting point for any inquiry into society and politics.

Who Needs the Pen to Be Mightier than the Sword

2010-04-17T23:38:00.002+12:00

Its in the common interest to create a society where "the pen is mightier that the sword" if only because the pen is less dangerous that the sword and mistakes with a pen are easier to fix than those committed with a sword. The first attempt at political organization probably stemmed from two lines of historical experience that have proven beneficial if not crucial for the survival of humanity: family and tribal loyalty on one hand, and the importance of preserving preferred hereditary traits leading to more productive crops and domesticated animals. The logic consequences of these line of thinking was the absolutist hereditary monarchy which failed in the long term after numerous obstinate attempts to make it work. The first attempts at democracy the most well-known in Ancient Greece were not very impressive too: they managed to kill Socrates and loose their freedom to a dictator - Alexander and later to Imperial Rome.

Only the unique combination of Enlightenment in Western Europe (brought in part by Arabic and Muslim cultural influences both original and through their acting as an intermediary for the penetration in Europe of Ancient Indian and Chinese culture and their role for the preservation of Ancient Greek and Roman sources), combined with the advances in trade and industry brought to the initially fledgeling democracies of Switzerland and the North of Europe to culminate with the creation of the U.S.A.

The problems is that even after the end of the cold war and a seeming worldwide consensus on the fact that their is no alternative to liberal democracy and market economy as the only political and economic guarantees for aligning the interests of the individuals to create viable political and economic entities, too many of the countries whose governments proclaim adherence to the above principles (often under some international pressure) in reality develop corrupt states, harboring organized crime and terrorists and stiffing economic development while covertly or overtly abusing the human rights of their hapless citizens.

It cannot be that the citizens of these failed or failing states want this. It is against their interests. I cannot be that the people of the developed countries want them to suffer too if not so much for reasons of sympathy and compassion but more realistically because of the danger that oppression and crime in one country can easily spill over the world through mafia activities, terrorism and the actions of the corrupt state causing suffering and death regardless of borders, cultural preferences and political allegiance.

From a political point of view the easiest way to deal with one's interests may be to take care of everything on your own. Retire in the mountains, fish and hunt for dinner and forget about the rest of the world. That may be a boring but feasible and with some luck sustainable existence. The security, freedom and opportunities of civilization come with complications and danger of becoming a slave of nonessential desires and activities. But it's the only prudent way.

Proper institutions may help but ultimately its everyone's responsibility to take pursue personal goals. The care of others though gives the power and ability to pursue these goals more efficiently and effectively while mainlining a level of security and freedom impossible individually. Freedom as understood by Roosevelt in his four freedoms: "freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of faith and freedom of expression".

Interests and Rights

2010-04-12T17:07:00.002+12:00

Philosophy

The thesis that individual interests ultimately converge to form municipal, national and international political and business institutions will be the focal point of my research. Initially the priorities of these interests can be discerned as personal above community and if rated by urgency short term as more important than long term. An qualitative prioritization of interests is possible along a modified Maslow's pyramid of needs could follow the the prioritization along the lines of security/survival issues, followed by freedom and last the existence of opportunities for building a better life. In other words: you cannot be free if you fear about your security and you cannot be sure of your safety if your fate is determined by someone else when you are not free, and you cannot be either safe or free if you are denied opportunities to work for your happiness.

Political reality is a social construct. There is no contradiction in the above statement. Political institutions are created by people acting together to pursue their common goals. On the other hand institutions impose, rules of behaviour, utilise resources and change the world in ways that affect not only the people that created them and not only in ways that were initially intended. Consequently, people can change these embodiments of their political ideas in ways they consider better suited to further their (people's) goals. The influence, growth and durability of these institutions depends on how well they work towards furthering the interests of the people involved in them and the resistance they encounter. Individual rights are a rough guide towards this stated compliance of policies with interests. The more universal recognition rights have the more people will work towards defending them consequently these rights will have more weight.

Therefore ultimately the priority of interests will be cyclical with the individual interested in promoting collective interests as this will help achieve individual goals more effectively and efficiently and the same is valid for the interdependence of short term and long term interests. While immediate needs might be more pressing especially if they involve security and survival, but planning ahead can make survival and safety much more easier to achieve. The interdependence of interests grouped by survival/security, freedom and opportunity is discussed in the first paragraph.

Conclusion
The reason why game theory often does not lead to satisfactory results when analysing real life developments. s that people tend to escalate often and fast from security/survival/sustainability concerns to attempts to secure freedom and striving towards opportunity led by the correct understanding that they are inseparably linked. That's why rebellions are possible because innovation is humanities most proven method to deal with adversity and freedom and opportunity are crucial for innovation.

China US Economic Relations

2009-10-24T08:50:00.001+13:00

This is an attempt to look at the economic aspect of US - China relations from a Chinese perspective. This approach may yield interesting insights in the most important economic axis of economic interdependence of the modern world, and generate innovative ideas about how to approach existing and future issues.

Theoretical background
The contemporary phase of US-Chinese relationship characterized by high level of economic interdependence can be analyzed from a realist perspective. Henry Kissinger was working towards a classic “realist” balance of power arrangement by seeking closer relationship with China to counterbalance Soviet influence in Asia after the end of the Vietnam war. In Dr. Kissinger's own words with Nixon they “had ideas for the construction of peace on a global scale”. Consequently it could be argued from a constructivist perspective that this classic 'realist' foreign policy act created a reality that will develop into the most remarkable phenomenon of modern politics the economic interdependence between the world's leading liberal free market democracy and the last explicitly communist state. The impressive rise of the economic exchange between the two countries after the reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1979 led to the current situation in which they dominate world trade and global economic stability is dependent on their successful development. The management of these relations and the interlinked political and security implications require skillful economic statecraft to resolve the issues bound to arise from the unparallelled scope of the economic interdependence and the structural differences between the communist rule over an economy in transition to free market in the case of China and an economy in transition from the 'laissez-faire ' principles of the Reagan era to increasing calls for more regulation after the global financial crisis of 2008.

Historical Context
The relationship between US and China began to develop in in a new direction after Henry Kissinger approached China and the economic relationship picked up particularly after the reforms of Deng Xio Ping in 1979. Trade with the US has helped China achieve dramatic success in improving the quality of life of the most populous country in the world. Chinese political life has advanced towards more openness, democracy and accountability and the protection of private property has given the opportunity for a prosperous middle class to emerge. At the same time China remains a Communist country ruled by Communist Party which is far even from the notion of something resembling Gorbachev's perestroika, let alone more comprehensive political reforms. The remarkable economic development has been accompanied by extensive environmental damage. Some of the new rich have earned their wealth through corruption and the lack of effective judiciary to deal with the problem is due in part to the CCP opposition to political reform. The livelihood of a large part of the population though better than the starving populations of sub-Saharan Africa is still precariously close to the poverty line. The economic development is based on cheap labor and has yet to show signs of achievement into more technologically advanced areas as Japan, and the Asian Tigers have done.
The US approach to China has ranged from the desire to ensure good relations to alleviate the security threat in the 70s through the remarkable period of the growth of economic relations starting with Deng's reforms and culminating in China gaining the top spot among US trading partners and world wide prominence leading to US uncertainty as to how to treat China: as a rival, an ally or controversial partner-difficult to deal with but impossible to reject.
Floating exchange rage for Chinese currency.
The Chinese government has strongly resisted international pressure led by the US to float Chinese currency. The Chinese complain that now after the financial crisis the problem is not the exchange rate of their currency but the value of the dollar or more correctly not the value but the stability of the dollar which is dependent on the stability of US policy. The above conclusion of the Wang Qing, an economist from Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong make the US government responsible for exchange rates linking their stability with the stability of policy. While a link between policy and currency values may be established it is not that direct. There was no observable policy change when the financial crisis struck in the latter days of the Bush administration. It is more the adequacy of particular policy that may affect the exchange rate. In any case the huge Chinese trade surplus has materialized in US dollars mostly in the form of Treasury bonds.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” The problem is that The Chinese cannot undertake a massive sellout of US treasury bonds as this will cause their price to fall. But even if they hold them massive US stimulus will mean the US government selling more bonds and the market may demand higher interest rate for them than the interest rate for the bonds the Chinese hold. That scenario will result in a price drop of bonds held by the Chinese. Alternatively if the US government chose to limit the borrowing and respectively the stimulus may mean slower recovery for the US economy which will hurt Chinese exports to the US. Another scenario involves reduced US trade deficit because of the crisis resulting in less Chinese purchases of US bonds. In any case the financial crisis confronts the Chinese leaders with a difficult dilemma. The US sees the solution in encouraging Chinese domestic consumption. The Chinese government sees a solution in decreasing its reliance for its reserves on the US dollar and dependence on US financial policies outside its control, by calling (alongside Russia) for the establishment of an internationally managed reserve currency that will increase the stability of world financial markets and have the added benefit of more freedom for the financial policies of reserve currency polities like the US, the EU and Japan.

2. What China expects from the US

Budget deficit control
Following the financial crisis and the implementation of stimulus measures the primary concern of China is the US government's resolve and ability to bring the budget deficit under control. From the perspective of Chinese national interest their ability to deal with the adverse effects of the global financial crisis depend on the value of their national reserves which is dependent on US policies. Commentators speculate on whether China will continue to buy US securities to and thus finance US government spending. The obvious answer is yes because there is no substitute for US government bonds in terms of secure investment even when taking into account all the pitfalls of using them as financial reserve instruments. A logical consequence of improving trade balance between China and the US will be that China will buy less US securities as it will have less free funds to use for bonds purchases but will use the money gain from export to the US to pay for imports instead. To conclude if China had a financially viable option to switch reserves to other safe haven like IMF Special Drawing Rights or Euro they would have done so and they will not hesitate to do it if it becomes viable in the future. The current calculations though make the US dollar most attractive despite its contradictory position of serving as an international currency but held under US national control. China will continue to keep their national reserves in US dollars and attempt to influence the US government to pursue policies that will prevent the dollar from losing value.

Free trade not rotectionism
The other most important economic statecraft policy issue that China would like to see positively resolved in their relations with the US is how the administration will go about with dealing with protectionist pressures from Congress. China is understandably suspicious on the true US intentions. On one side we have the resolute declarations of president Obama on several G20 meetings warning against the dangers of protectionism and on the other the controversial imposition of tariffs on tires imported from China.

New US financial regulations to prevent crises
China is concerned with the negative impact of the current financial crisis that has exposed their economic vulnerability to events beyond their control. Understandably, China wants to see better regulation to ensure the smooth operation and predictability of the US financial system as the world trade is dependent on its health.

Increased role for China in IMF
At the 20th meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund in Istanbul the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of China Yi Gang made a point for a larger quota for the developing nations and better monitoring abilities for the International Monetary Fund. He accused the IMF of failing to foresee the global financial crisis and blamed this failure on mismanagement stemming from skewed representation in IMF governing bodies. That is a valid Chinese complaint as they have done what was expected from them: efficiently produced goods for export and the financial collapse adversely affected them without warning. That the IMF is in need of structural and administrative reform including quota revision is acknowledged supported by the US government.

Recognition of the status of China as a market economy.
The recognition of China as a market economy affects the way the fair market value of goods is calculated to determine whether the country engages in subsidies or dumping. As China is not recognized as a market economy by its main trading partners the US and the EU they can more easily apply punitive measures against China as was in the latest case of US tariffs on tires imported from China. Theoretically the question has two sides. The first one is can China be considered a market economy? The prevalence of state enterprises and the strict control over the national currency points towards a negative answer. On the other hand the remarkable development of China towards establishing efficient enterprises including private ones successfully working towards ever increasing export capacity points to a conclusion that China is making considerable effort to implent an market driven system. The results of the latest China - US Strategic Dialogue show that there are no insurmountable obstacles on the way of US recognition of China's market economy status which will materialize sooner or later depending on political developments in both countries.

While official Chinese policies may be concerned with the continuing dominance of the Communist Party and Marxist ideology from the Russian (and Yugoslav) experiences suggest that the true interests of the ruling elite may be the more material than ideological centering on the perpetuation of their economic power. The metastasis of corruption feeding on China's economic boom points int that direction Bearing that in mind three scenarios can be discerned for the future development of China. The most desirable, but maybe not the most probable will be the gradual political development of the Chinese society towards democracy following the consolidation of the market principles in the economy. The most dangerous would be a slip backwards under the pressure of economic duress into the oppression and belligerence of the Mao era. The most probable though will be the collapse of the Communist party and transfer of power into the hands of corrupt officials and mafia like structures. US inducement for democratic reforms in China may diffuse the dangers of chaotic collapse of communism and the and the considerable security implications that may cause. Ultimately it can be concluded that there is a convergence of interests between the Chinese Communist Party, the entrepreneurs and the people of China and that leads to peaceful economic development as a way to solve all problems facing modern China. That position can find understanding in the US and the rest of the world because it is in harmony with the long term interests of all countries interested in developing economic relations with China on a win-win basis.

Why Love and Who Are You?

2009-10-14T23:07:00.004+13:00

God (if yo are a believer) doesn't seem to take part in daily micromanagement of world affairs and we are very much free do do as we please. Including do wrong and including harm ourselves and others. Yet deep inside we are similar and some see this as proof of one creator and I agree with them but that is not the point. The truth is that we come to this world profoundly similar deep inside but with varied talents and free will to use or wasted them as we wish still our rights remain the same but our lives and personalities are unique. In this we try to unite or identify with certain groups we find useful and that's the only way to reach our goals. Unfortunately sometimes such unity is turned against non-members and that is counterproductive and bad, if not outright criminal. Therefore the only real claim to justice that I can possibly have are my own interests, and the only real ethical guide in the call to love your neighbor like you love yourself, no more but as you love yourself (it is then obvious that if you do not love yourself you cannot possibly love anybody).

Sovereignty, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect

2009-10-13T21:50:00.002+13:00

Sovereignty involves rights and duties among which the protection of one's fellow citizens is paramount.
Historically people have organized in territorially distinct and independent states to build up the power and security necessary for achieving their goals of prosperity and peace. When a government either fails to fulfill its mandate or malevolently turns against the people, they can overthrow it and install a government according to their will.
The contemporary globalized world and modern weaponry added an international twist to the above classic postulate. In the modern world a small group of people can terrorize a large population using advanced weapons and ruthless tactics. The international community can and does help people under the danger of extermination or other grave deprivations of human rights.
Public support and national interest, as perceived by governments, will make humanitarian intervention a likely and acceptable policy alternative, but the analysis will not be complete if we do not contemplate the possibility to avoid humanitarian intervention altogether or at least minimize the involvement as much as possible . Such an alternative seems even more tempting from the perspective if possible casualties and unavoidable material costs to both intervening and target countries. Politics as part of the universe are intolerant to power vacuum and the absence of a proper democratic institutions based on an economy driven by private property.1 Still it is tempting to avoid intervention to avoid risking life and treasure facing the uncertainty of success. While success military operation may be elusive and the costs unpredictable failure to act almost certainly lead to consequences that are even worse than a failed intervention. The examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia where armed intervention to stop human suffering and restore civil society was withdrawn, insufficient or non existent have become fertile ground for terrorism and organized criminal activities including trafficking of people, arms and drugs and finding willing recruits among the desperate population.2 Alternative approaches to force and end to humanitarian abuses using persuasion, economic sanctions or arms embargoes rarely achieve anything as in the case of Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Slobodan Milosevic (who manged to destroy Yugoslavia) and Sudan's al Bashir.3 In general these attempts to avoid armed humanitarian intervention result in prolonging the suffering of the victims as in the case of Bosnia, directly causing hardship for the innocent as with the economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War and being forced to intervene in the end as in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even if there is a trend of among democratic governments and international public opinion towards favoring armed humanitarian intervention when the circumstances call for it that does not eliminate the need to explore the ethical and legal acceptability of coercive interference into other countries affairs. The post cold war theory has developed from attempts to justify humanitarian interventions under Chapter VII if the UN Charter through the report of the ICISS to the "2005 World Summit Outcome." United Nations General Assembly, 2005. confirming in its Articles 138 and 139 a refined Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It combines the theory of sovereignty as responsibility to protect with implied international responsibility to help a state fulfill that responsibility all the way to intervening with force and take charge if the state fails to protect its citizens. This justification of intervention is limited to four distinct cases of severe humanitarian abuses: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.4 The declared universal acceptance of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is due to the fact that it is based on established and widely accepted concepts as sovereignty as responsibility, just war, theory, the four Geneva conventions, the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide and the added crime of ethnic cleansing. The solid theoretical work done by the ICISS composed of leading authorities on the subject also contributed to that end. That declared acceptance though does not translate into more effective humanitarian action.
The alternative
Public support and national interest, as perceived by governments, may make humanitarian intervention a likely and acceptable policy alternative, but the analysis will not be complete if we do not contemplate the possibility to avoid humanitarian intervention altogether or at least minimize the involvement as much as possible . Such an alternative seems even more tempting from the perspective if possible casualties and unavoidable material costs to both intervening and target countries. Politics as part of the universe are intolerant to power vacuum and the absence of a proper democratic institutions based on an economy driven by private property.1 Still it is tempting to avoid intervention to avoid risking life and treasure facing the uncertainty of success. While success military operation may be elusive and the costs unpredictable failure to act almost certainly lead to consequences that are even worse than a failed intervention. The examples of Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia where armed intervention to stop human suffering and restore civil society was withdrawn, insufficient or non existent have become fertile ground for terrorism and organized criminal activities including trafficking of people, arms and drugs and finding willing recruits among the desperate population.2 Alternative approaches to force and end to humanitarian abuses using persuasion, economic sanctions or arms embargoes rarely achieve anything as in the case of Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, Slobodan Milosevic (who manged to destroy Yugoslavia) and Sudan's al Bashir.3 In general these attempts to avoid armed humanitarian intervention result in prolonging the suffering of the victims as in the case of Bosnia, directly causing hardship for the innocent as with the economic sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War and being forced to intervene in the end as in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even if there is a trend of among democratic governments and international public opinion towards favoring armed humanitarian intervention when the circumstances call for it that does not eliminate the need to explore the ethical and legal acceptability of coercive interference into other countries affairs. The post cold war theory has developed from attempts to justify humanitarian interventions under Chapter VII if the UN Charter through the report of the ICISS to the "2005 World Summit Outcome." United Nations General Assembly, 2005. confirming in its Articles 138 and 139 a refined Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It combines the theory of sovereignty as responsibility to protect with implied international responsibility to help a state fulfill that responsibility all the way to intervening with force and take charge if the state fails to protect its citizens. This justification of intervention is limited to four distinct cases of severe humanitarian abuses: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.4 The declared universal acceptance of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is due to the fact that it is based on established and widely accepted concepts as sovereignty as responsibility, just war, theory, the four Geneva conventions, the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide and the added crime of ethnic cleansing. The solid theoretical work done by the ICISS composed of leading authorities on the subject also contributed to that end. That declared acceptance though does not translate into more effective humanitarian action.
How to define a successful intervention?
A simple and clear definition would be one that has achieved its aims with minimum casualties and maximum efficiency. There are several difficulties with attempting to apply this definition to real life cases. The first obvious one is with the aims of the intervention. It could be the stated goals in that case Somalia was a successful intervention as the US and UN forces helped distribute humanitarian aid. Many observers, analysts, experts and the general public do not agree with a positive assessment of the Somalia operation.5 Another approach would be to deduce an implicit goal for all humanitarian interventions as lasting peace which would involve state building. Assessing the efficiency of an armed intervention can be even more difficult than assessing the effectiveness. While obviously less causalities is better how can the level of acceptable casualties be defined? The Kosovo campaign with zero casualties for the intervening forces is a champion of effectiveness. On the other hand the intervention in Afghanistan is praised for the low level of troops involved and consequently low cost but the slow progress and mounting casualties will hardly make it a good example to follow. It comes back to the opening question:What is a successful intervention?

There are two well documented examples of armed intervention and subsequent policies which led to unsurpassed positive humanitarian results: Japan and Germany after WWII. Even if the war itself was of the classic aggressive, defensive type the mass atrocities committed by the Japanese and German armies made the Allied victory an humanitarian relief operation of epic proportions. Post WWII development also contributes to the concept that promoting economic development and democracy as the US did in Western Europe and Japan leads to a state of peace and stability in these regions. The Soviet block managed to provide for basic economic needs but the suppression of democracy led to an explosion of organized crime and corruption after the fall of communism. From another point of view the US intervention in Haiti stopped abuse and restored a semblance of democracy but failure to prompt democracy with economic development led to the predictable crumbling of the fragile democratic institutions.
To prevent the regrowth or metastasis of the root causes for intervention the need for state building including creating viable opportunities for sustainable economic development and reform in the most important spheres of public life as media freedom, law reform and the rebuilding of civil society.
In the case of Somalia, initially the United Nations Security Council resolution 794 (1992) authorizing UNITAF calls only for establishing of a secure environment for humanitarian operations. It can be argued that this limited objective prevented more decisive action towards disarmament of the marauding militias and ultimately undermined the success of the operation. Alternatively others argue that that the change of mission from humanitarian aid to nation building led to a decline of public support by pursuing an seemingly unattainable goal even before the tragic events in Mogadishu that triggered the withdrawal of US forces.8 Later with resolution 814 (1993) the UN Security Council raised the goals by including state building right when the newly created UNISOM II force lacked the number and resources to accomplish the task

Confused and Dazzled

2009-09-30T23:37:00.002+13:00

You big, amazing, crazy world
are stunning, beautiful, painful and absurd.
You made me and I'm making you
every second, day after day,
but still don't understand
all whats and hows and
most importantly most whys.
But even if I don't know why
I feel what's good and what is bad.
It helps me stumble along my path
and not go mad

Allah Akbar, Death to the Dictator!

2009-06-27T22:32:00.002+12:00

God is Great and death to all dictators! The call from the rooftops of Tehran echoed around the world. God is Great and the dictators in charge of Iran and those who support them have nothing to do with God. They are all about their petty interests afraid from the wrath of the people, afraid that if they lose power their dirty little secrets will be discovered. But if we believe in Allah, Allah is great and sees all that is happening and no amount of killing one's compatriots can hide any crimes that they have committed.
A story so often repeated a corrupt clique against a proud people. Who will win? I believe we all know the answer. The problem is not that Iran won't win its rightful place as a democratic, proud and powerful nation regardless of the efforts of the corrupt leaders to prolong the agony of an illegitimate regime. We could have given them the benefit of a doubt (although why won't you admit international observers if your elections are so sparking clean?) but ordering the killing of innocent people deprives them from any legitimacy.
God is Great and has given us freedom to manage our own affairs because we were created in Gods image (or alternatively evolved from monkeys (I don't know why evolutionists insist on insulting monkeys by linking them to humans)). Consequently we have to deal with our problems ourselves. Persia belongs to the people of Iran not to corrupt clerics and politicians.

All Hands on Deck!

2009-03-24T00:39:00.001+13:00

We discussed global economics in a group at my local church
We discussed the need to incorporate ethical judment in the study of politics. I know its dangerous to mix science and ideology or even worse try to pass ideology for science. I come from a communist country and know first hand how bad is that. Still politics, philosophy and economics have profound effects on people's lives and we cannot pretend to study them without any bias. If we judge by effectiveness in achieving goals and popular support certainly Hitler would come up high in our evaluations scale at least in the first years of his leadership but was he good? We all know the answer and don't need political science to tell us what it is.
My son remarked that society hasn't really changed much from ancient times, but I said that is probably because we only choose to remember particular events from the ancient society, In reality I believe it was much more primitive and horrible but we remember the good things that only came to matter in our age because people made them happen.
Now we have a crooked world. A world in crisis. A world that have exhausted most of the intellectual and philosophical capital of the past. Western Enlightened that came about when Christian West European medieval thinkers rediscovered ancient Greek philosophy preserved by Muslim scholars who had managed to combine Judaism and Christianity (born on the border of Greek and Roman fascination with Judaism) into Islam a spiritual-political system that went on to create one of the most far reaching and culturally diverse empires only to collapse under the weight of corruption and resistance to change to it's present pitiful condition. The Catholic empire went the same way so did Communist Russia. In the East Buddhism found acceptance in Taoist, Confucianist China and Shinto Japan that wen on to adopt Western ways after being humiliated by the Commodore Perry. China went on to adopt Russian Leninism and make it even more horrible. Then Deng figured out the it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice and here we have contemporary Communist China as the main creditor of capitalist USA.
And that's it. Since Kant, Marx and Keynes nothing radical new under the sun of human thought. After “We the people hold these truths to be self evident … “ we have only the pale echo of the UN Charter and Declaration of human rights and that's it. Where on from now? The great philosophers a thing of the past, the great spiritual prophets too. Yet humanity faces problems immensely more complicated than thousands of years ago.
I believe the answer is in respect for every human being. Only collective wisdom can help us overcome. It is there we have to reach for it. And make sure the voices of millions disenfranchised are heard too because they may come up with important part of the solution.

Foreign Policy Challenges for the Obama Admisitration and Possible Solutions

2009-02-28T22:08:00.000+13:00

Iraq the problems is not security but lack of democracy. And democracy is not about elections but about economically and politically independent middle class which is lacking in Iraq. We have corrupt government that supports corruption in politics and the economy and is widely perceived by the United State and it is. Until that changes no amount of military involvement will make any difference. The only way to turn things around is if US projects in Iraq are open for competition including international. That will bring more transparency and lead to better efficiency and effectiveness of US involvement in Iraqi economy, bring in willing Europeans, Chinese, Russians and possibly Indians, lead to Iraqi economic revival and ultimately discredit militants.
The same is valid for Pakistan and Afghanistan.. At present poor tribal villagers have no choice but to succumb to Taliban and Al-Quaeda bullying and grow opium for them for lack of other productive opportunities. For sure militants can be defeated only by armed force but that alone have proven unsuccessful in the long run. Depriving the armed groups of their financial and popular support is the key to defeating them. Military action will be the last not the primary concern.
Europe is in very precarious position and that has unique possibilities for development. Eastern Europe is in serious trouble and Western Europe seems reluctant to help. The US can promote its own agenda through economic help which could be financial but more important intellectual in the sphere of management while utilizing local engineering talent. The same applies to Russia. Pushing NATO agenda is a lose – lose situation. For Eastern Europeans (Czechs for example) the attempt to build a US missile base on their territory is just another attempt to bring foreign troops on Czech soil just when they got rid of the Russians. Other Eastern European nations will interpret it just the same. Membership in the Russia led Warsaw pact was cemented with cheap Russian oil and gas. I doubt the US is prepared to pay for such questionable loyalty. Yet the Obama administration has the unique chance of forging an independent of Western Europe policy towards Eastern Europe based on economic (not military) cooperation and win the loyalty of the people of Eastern Europe who are tired of being exploited as cheap labor and environmental dump of Western Europe not to mention Russian bullying.
Putin’s Russia is at a crossroads. It will be unwise to antagonize them in these difficult times, There are many converging interests where both countries can work together for shared benefit. Let’s not forget that détente led to perestroika and ultimately to the dismantling of the oppressive Soviet Union and its system of international domination while more than forty years of isolation did nothing to change the regime in Cuba. There is no use lamenting the plight of Russian “businessmen’ bullied by their government as most of them are common crooks owing their riches to the lawlessness of the Yeltsin era, on the other hand murdering journalists and letting the assassins walk free is a crime against freedom of speech not to be condoned..
I believe it will be beneficial if the Obama administration leans a bit harder on China not only on human rights but on North Korea too. I know keeping the criminal regime their alive is in the interests of those who favor US military presence in South Korea but its not sustainable in the long run and ultimately detrimental to US interests and the interests of the people in the region. So North Korea must go and the signal must come from the White House.
Israel? The Israelis are among the most intelligent people in the world. I am sure they just wait for the sign of where the prevailing winds will blow. But the sign must be consistent enough I don’t think there is an easy solution. A federation of Jews and Arabs seems like a good idea but may be impossible to implement. In any case more than sixty years of realpolitik in the region didn’t lead to anything good. It is time for innovative solutions taking into account not the interests and preferences of corrupt governments and shady terrorist organizations but the real world interests of the people in the region regardless of their religions, national or political affiliation..
The same is valid for Latin Americans who have yet to see an United States administration treating them with respect as people regardless of the corrupt governments, corporate interests and mafia connections.

I believe it is self evident that any American administration should conduct its foreign policy based on the premise that we are all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Identity? National, religious, other? How do you feel about it?

2009-02-28T18:18:00.004+13:00

I think identity is a thing of the past. I'm more interested in who (not what) a person is. But many people cling to and find illusionary security in some imagined national, religious, racial, class, caste or neighborhood belonging.
We only belong to ourselves. Anything else is from the devil used for exploitation by unethical personalities.
It's only individual identity that matters and that one is particularly hard to define. Maybe that's why many people prefer to adopt a ready made prefabricated one.
Still it can be impossibly difficult to try to understand the world in its complexity and sophistication all by oneself. We need to believe in something, take some knowledge for granted unable to check it ourselves and that's when group knowledge seems reasonably believable and one is prepared to accept the opinion of priests, scientists, politicians or even soothsayers.
Nevertheless I believe sticking to imagined national, religious, or professional identity robs a person from the opportunity to form an independent, objective and balanced opinion that has more chance to be true. Ignoring truth is not only an unwise choice but outright dangerous for the perpetrators and their environment so that's one liberty that we cannot afford. Striving to assert one's individuality is a right and responsibility to oneself and those around.

Expect Great Things Attempt Great Things

2009-02-22T16:15:00.003+13:00

William Carey a devoted Christian said that but the power of any true faith is that it is universal. You don’t even have to believe in God to figure out the truth. If this world we exist in is great then we can only expect great things. Attempting great things makes a lot of sense then. Actually not attempting them sounds like pretty silly and going against nature itself. Of course we always have a choice. Albert Einstein figured out that there are only two ways to live your life: one is as though nothing is a miracle;
the other is as though everything is a miracle. The truth is that he is joking. Life is a miracle already and if you choose to ignore it you are an idiot.
We don’t know everything and that’s OK. We make errors and that’s OK too because only those who do nothing make no errors. We are just human. The beauty of our challenge hidden in the urge to strive towards perfection knowing the impossibility to ever achieve it thus making our quest eternal should not lead to frustration but be a source of motivation.
Greatness is how the universe goes about its business so it is just natural for us to take over that law and attempt to use it for our own ends even if they may be mundane and seemingly insignificant. Everything is a miracle and has its place in the glorious harmony of the world even if you choose to ignore it. “How can you see clearly,” asks Mark Twain “if your imagination is out of focus?” You can’t of course. Not only you can’t see clearly if you don’t use imagination and ignore the miracle you will have trouble communicating with others because who will ever believe you if you don’t see the truth and don’t tell them the truth? And who will help you when you need help and who will ask you for help so you can feel needed if we don’t share that truth?
And our most powerful tool for discovering the truth are our dreams, propelled by our imagination, made real though reason. “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” says Henry David Thoreau and if you haven’t built the castles yet, the miracle of reality must eluding you.
Because: “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” as Eleanor Roosevelt observed. And reality is only yesterday’s future.

To Give and Take: The Art of Love

2009-02-15T13:58:00.000+13:00

Or some will say the art of business but love or business it’s so similar because it’s all about human relations and the value we see in them.
I think, if I am not happy with what I give, it will be stupid to expect that I’ll be happy with what I get.
That leads me to the question: What will make me really happy?
It’s obvious something that I want. And even better something that I want a lot. Also probably something that’s not easily obtainable because if bubble gum is going to make me happy that’s easy to get and unlikely to deserve any more attention.
If only it was clear what I really want? The one that is so big, and all important and almost impossible to get? Then I will know what I should do. What steps to take and I will give and give joyfully with love because that will be part of my goal, my life, the most important part of me.
That means that basically I am what I want. It is so easy and so hard.

Henry Kissinger sent to Russia by Obama: what to expect?

2009-02-08T17:31:00.005+13:00

If Henry Kissinger is up to some secret negotiations dramatic results are bound to follow. Usually good for the US and the rest of the world: like the end of the Vietnam war, transforming China from worst enemy to best trading partner, and ending hostilities between Israel and Egypt. What can we expect now?
Russia has been steadily antagonised by withholding their WTO membership for no valid reasons, promoting NATO expansion while Russia is not invited they have no choice but regard NATO as a hostile organisation, prod neighbours like Georgia to physically attack Russian soldiers. Not the best trust building policies. But what should be done?
I think the best approach will be to hug the bear so hard it will find it hard not to respond. Let me explain:
1. That's the approach the US used successfully in post-war Germany and Japan, that was the approach used successfully by the brilliant Nixon-Kissinger team towards communist China. (I wonder how the US would have managed in a world where the worlds most powerful economies were hostile).
2. The mindless foreign policy of the Bush administration has successfully alienated the US from most of the civilized world and has left the current administration with almost no alternative than try and repair the eroded trust (which ultimately may be a good thing: nothing wrong with consistently positive foreign policy for a change).
3. Siemens (from Germany) is developing nuclear cooperation with Russia, Areva (from France) with China, Iran is sending a satellite in space with Russian help and Russo-Chinese and Russo-Indian military cooperation (not without their own problems) is developing. It looks like Joe Biden is on his way to start repairing the damage done by the Bush administration in alienating the Europeans. The alternative will be an undesirable anti-American Euro-Russo alliance (or even worse Euro-Russo-Chinese or Indian alliance. Unlikely because of the the importance of the US for these countries that will neutralize their interest in anti US arrangements. Possible US protectionism though could make that option more viable.

That's why I think Afghanistan is the smallest American foreign policy problem. I regret to be cynical but who cares about that illiterate mountain people and a bunch of smelly Taliban with flea infested beards. No one! Just cut of their sources of international currency and they will literally have no money to travel abroad to cause trouble. (If you really care about the Afghan people think about how to offer them better livelihood than growing poppies for the Taliban instead of how to send more troops that might be cheaper and more effective).

So I suggest:
1. Get Russia into the WTO, NATO and the EU which will lead to better transparency and trust. Keeping them out gives the government the excuse to brake international norms.
2. Get the Russian army into Afghanistan (if they are to share the fruits of democracy they should share the responsibilities too).
3. Increase academic exchange between the two countries for two reasons:
a) that may actually benefit the US in the flow of technology and b) that will increase understanding and good will between the two countries and make it more difficult for the ruling elites to resort to war mongering and scare tactics.
c)send government funded consultants to help improve Russian economy (no one want's to fight on a full belly:)

If I Was God

2009-02-07T12:59:00.000+13:00

If I was God I will create a world as beautiful and fascinating as it can possibly be.
If I was God I will create beings in my image and will set them free.
There is no other way if they are created in Gods image.
Even if I know that they are not perfect I will not interfere.
I’ll let them make there own decisions no matter how disastrous they may be because that the only way that they can learn to be real children of God: by taking responsibility.
I will be tempted to offer rewards for good behavior and punishment for bad but I will refrain from doing that because it will limit their freedom of choice and without freedom they cannot be beings made in the image of God.
I will be tempted to prevent them from doing something so stupid that it may end the existence of their kind but I wouldn’t because that will limit their freedom and I created them in my image so their freedom is without limit. I will be sad and weep when they destroy each other but I won’t interfere because I love them.
If I was God I will love all people equally because I would have created them all!

Personal Interests, Politics and Philosophy

2009-01-30T21:19:00.001+13:00

Personal interests are our only legitimate claim we have to resources including the time and effort of others. I believe we can only inquire about other’s interests to be able to find ways to align ours to theirs and help each other achieve our goals through cooperation. Free association through discussion and good all fashioned haggling about who gets what should complete the process to everyone’s satisfaction.
Unfortunately human history is littered with wars and injustice and despite the major advances in science and technology that ensure that al humanity’s needs can be met at an acceptable level to situation in politics prevents that from happening. On the contrary we the people continue to waste resources for expensive and destructive armaments, disregard the environment which affects us and our offspring and worst of all: do nothing to relief the suffering of fellow human beings who are in dire conditions through no fault of their own or even worse killing, oppressing or denying opportunities for development.
That is even more perplexing because if you check the statements of our politicians and the declarations of the only global political body we have, regardless of its deficiencies the UN we all want peace, prosperity, care for the environment and sustainable development.
There is an explanation for that discrepancy between intention and reality and I will not accuse politicians of hypocrisy but the sheer complexity of balancing all interests, the complexity of ensuring proper governance of resources and the ingrained ancient and ineffective in the modern age concerns about security prevent the right things from being done.
Corrupt politicians and business leaders will exist always. Good, bad and completely rotten people will exist always. That’s human nature and I have no explanation for that. But the least we can do is eliminate groundless fear that stems from ignorance or reluctance to abolish defunct systems, knowledge and beliefs that worked before but are no longer relevant. It’s easy to find excuses for inaction but I believe that if we realize that it’s our own lives, our own welfare that we are playing with we’ll be more keen to take matters in our own hands and think more, listen more, learn more and act more sensibly in our own interests which ultimately is in everyone else’s interest.

Master of Reality

2009-01-24T21:40:00.001+13:00

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; the proper study of Mankind is Man.”
Alexander Pope. An Essay on Man

I believe we are responsible for our own lives. It would be irrational to delude yourself with rewards sometimes in the unknown future let alone in unknown worlds. We have the greatest gift of life and all we need to forge our path though it. Unbelievable as it may seem at times most of us have the ability to reason. Regardless if you believe in God or Nature we have freedom because God loves because Nature values us. Loving parents respect their offspring and wouldn’t offend them with demeaning micromanagement and control. Slaves don’t have responsibilities, free people do regardless of position and in our own lives we are entitled to the highest possible position.
We are the sovereign kings and queens of the most important realm: our own lives. That’s a right to govern we don’t have the right to cede. And if that sounds too comfortable to be true it isn’t. If we are free of constraints it should be OK to do with our lives whatever we want including wasting them completely. But I don’t believe that’s true.
I love the biblical story about the Master of Talents who gave his servants talents according to their ability and when he came back demanded not only the talents back but also profit and reprimanded the one who buried them. That’s why I believe that as we expect good governance from politicians to deal with our taxes and other common resources and from business leaders to whom we entrust our investments it’s only logical that we have the greatest responsibility to govern our own lives not only to preserve but to make them as good as possible.
To put it simple I see God or Nature if you prefer as Masters of Talents and us as Masters of Reality. We take it as it is given to us and have the responsibility to make our lives as good as possible. We have all the tools and the ability to think is the most powerful among them followed by the ability to communicate and cooperate to achieve goals unreachable on one’s own.
We make mistakes along this road and that is only human. It is part of the learning process. The best bet to avoid mistakes and errors is to discuss and learn from others. Success is based on the respect for everyone’s rights and opinions even if we don’t agree.
Reality is what we create, it is what we dream of and work to achieve. A castle in the clouds will collapse if we don’t build foundations under it and that makes us real Masters of Reality. Reality exists as we create it or is the way it is because of our neglect. The Master has given us talents and it’s up to us to use them for prosperity. That’s the only way to be human. We have talents and freedom go chose a live of miracle and beauty or the life fit of a beast.

Kimmy Sharing Light: Getting Back To What You Love

2009-01-16T09:15:00.000+13:00

Kimmy Sharing Light: Getting Back To What You Love

The Choice of Freedom

2009-01-14T16:17:00.000+13:00

Liberty has two interrelated aspects. First it is an inalienable right and that means that you are not free to sell your freedom. and any contract to that end is null and void.
The second aspect is the realization of this right. The mere fact of it’s existence doesn’t give me anything tangible. It’s up to me to make use of it. Freedom if used knowledgeably can lead to happiness or if you make the wrong choices that can severely limit your freedom. So knowledge how to make freedom your own is crucial.
Paul said it simply: You’ll know the truth and the truth will make you free. But what is that truth that will make us free? That’s something you have to find for yourself. If Paul knew it he certainly would have given us the answer. Truth is personal and truth is born in discussion.
We organize in families, neighborhoods, churches, business partnerships, bridge clubs, and countries to achieve different goals in our lives. We can only be free with the help and acknowledgement of others. A savage person alone on an island has limited choices and respectively limited freedom, free from oppression but oppressed by need. We need the help of others to be free. We are free to choose what we want in life, but we can only achieve it effectively in cooperation. Truth is personal because the most important part of it is: what we want. It’s our purpose in life and only we can know it even if we can only achieve it cooperation with others.
There is no such thing as country, society and the economy outside of our combined interests. And we are the only one who really know and can take care of these interests. Any institutions or persons who claim that they know better than us are either confused or hypocritical.
Liberty is not about freedom from the government. Government helps us keep our freedom. And if it doesn’t, we have the right and obligation to choose a government that will. It may be easy or it may be hard but we have to do it in order to earn our freedom. Liberty is our right, the knowledge what we want and how to get there and what we are doing to successfully get there. (not mindless work to avoid idling but creative, passionate action geared to win).
Majority rule is about choices and the majority may be right and they may be wrong in the end they are only human the only gamble here being that the majority is more often right than wrong. still that doesn’t give the majority any right to oppress the minority whose rights are equally inalienable. The truth is born in discussion and as the truth is essential for freedom we need to make sure every voice is heard so we can have more chance to strike the mother lode of wisdom. Democracy is about, majority rule, observing the rights of everyone and good governance but ultimately designed to assist us in our pursuit of happiness.
We the people have Liberty and no one can take it from us. Still it’s up to us to turn this right to freedom into the reality of happiness without which freedom will have no meaning.

The Triangular Personality and Honesty

2009-01-07T21:40:00.003+13:00

I grew up being both an unpopular geek till I turned 14 and moved to another school in another town to become one of the most popular guys and then again Mr. Unknown in yet another new place. I am independent but crave approval. I guess all of us do even if we don't admit it.

I have a working hypothesis that a persons consists of three aspects: what he or she thinks of himself or herself, what the other think of him or her and what he or she really is. If these aspects form a triangle at each angle I would add an arrow towards where we want to be from the point of what I think about myself, where others want to see us go from the point of what others think of me and last but most important is where our heart urges us to go from what we really are. The point is except for the last one the other two are prone to corruption. And if what we want, what society expects from us and the direction where our heart leads us to can be completely confused work against each other and cause disappointment and frustration. To try to smooth the differences by ignoring them or pretending they not exist is not OK. It may seem the easy solution but it leads to misery and hell.
If you look deep inside your soul and find that feeling that gives you peace of mind and confidence. If you are truthful to those around you about your plans and their expectations you may be up to a more rewarding and fulfilling life.
I believe that honesty (though often intuitively not the best approach) ultimately leads to alignment of our true goals and desires, our innermost dreams with our everyday work and mundane plans. And an inspired person tends to inspire the people around who are more likely to help.

Desires and Beliefs on the Path to the Truth

2009-01-02T16:41:00.000+13:00

Desires are like lamps on our path in life marking the direction towards our purpose. As any force of nature they can be perilous and destructive or propel us towards our purpose in life if managed by a skilful captain. We are free to choose to guide the ship of our life towards exotic places or left without direction towards the only place our life will naturally go: the bottom, no matter how much we wallow in self pity.
To find out where we are and where we want to go we try to base our decisions on fact and proven theory. But life is much more complicated and on top of that personal so its often hard to find useful advice and guidance. What are we and were do we want to go? Everyone certainly has some idea about that. So do your friends and wider circle of relatives, workmates etc. There view may be close to yours or widely different. And somewhere there is the real you independent of opinion but certainly moving or being moved in one or other direction for good or bad.
Among all that we have our beliefs: the things we hold to be true without decisive proof because we didn’t have the time or the opportunity to check their validity. We still act upon them because we need to act and make choice big and small in every moment of our lives. So these beliefs influence reality and so in fact create into reality. Again we may be successful but that would be entirely due to chance. Only by sharing our beliefs, assumptions, hypothesis with other reasonable people and accepting any constructive criticism can we see clearer in the fog of complexity created by contemporary society. Our desires, passions, values, goals being the compass the best map will be the one created by thinking and experience, and open to corrections by fellow travelers.
And not only for advice often if not always we need outright help from others to achieve our goals. But how do we enlist that help? There are two obvious ways: Cooperation or Coercion. Coercion might come first to mind and seems like a quick and easy way to achieve your goals but it's self-defeating in the end. Cooperation builds on common reasoning and pooling of resource to reach goals both personal and common trough understanding, compassion and common sense.

Passion or Reason? Coercion or Cooperation? War and Peace!

2008-12-30T21:30:00.004+13:00

Passion or Reason? Coercion or Cooperation? War and Peace!
I believe both. Passion to tell me what I want and Reason to tell me how to get it.
I don't believe passion should be suppressed.
If it is there it must be for a reason.
Yet it can wreck havoc.
Reason left on its own tends towards confusion wondering what's the meaning of life.
Yet people should be free to follow their passions in any way they choose (if they live by themselves in the jungle). If they choose to live with other people and enjoy civilization they they agree not to harm others or get in their way and even better help them follow their passions and they will probably help you follow yours. That sounds good but is often so hard to achieve. It requires communication, compromise, consensus which so often lead to endless delays and feared dead ends.
The alternative is easy: coercion does not require endless communication, painful compromise or elusive consensus. It has worked during the ages. In fact it has worked successfully over the ages in conjunction with cooperation. People united in families, tribes, nations, classes and castes to be able to oppress and enslave and reap the benefits. And it worked. It worked so well that it turned war into the pinnacle of human aspirations of achievement. The best inventors, thinkers, strategists and politicians put their efforts in war and it paid until war grew out of proportion with the industrialized massacre of WWII and especially with the resultant nuclear weapons and systems for their delivery with global access.
At that time one of the creators of these weapons Andrei Sakharov found out that science and technology can only develop in free discussion and so does society.
The new weapons made war not only unreasonable but unthinkable.
Unfortunately some of these weapons were in the hands of despotic and corrupt communist regimes. The United States government undertook two dramatically different approaches both of them successful. Passionately defending human rights in the USSR and its satellites led to the premature death of European communism. In China the pragmatic reasonable approach of improving relations and trade preferences led to the only successful communist country in modern times continuing to exist with US help though no longer that hostile if at all..
How is peace better achievable?
Reason without passion can lead to brilliant solutions and enhance understanding. Yet passion I believe should tell us what we really want. Not what other tell us but that what our heart wants deep inside. The passion that is the source of our fondest dreams. The dreams that always come true.
If the USSR and China problems were solved so easily then the Middle East should be far easier bearing in mind the relative weakness of the corrupt regimes there. It will be extremely easy if the goal is set properly: what we really want. What is that that we want and the people there want and will wholeheartedly support. The solution is simple.

Who Is Most Important This Christmas: Santa, Jesus or Me?

2008-12-24T19:03:00.003+13:00

I know you would say one of the first two guys and they certainly are more known. Yet to me it seems I am the reason they exist. To judge me, to save me, to bring me presents, to love me and hopefully I am good and stay clear from the naughty list, and love my neighbor a lot (but not more than I love myself and to love my neighbor a lot I must love myself even more). Santa brings presents for me and even when I am the one giving the presents it’s me in the focus again because it’s my loved ones I by presents for and I get to chose them.
And that’s scary. It would have been easier to leave the world to someone like Jesus or Santa to take car of but it looks like they left me make all those important decisions by myself and bear the consequences. I have the freedom of choice because they love me. And I am created in God’s image anyway and should have enough brains to manage, to be successful, to achieve my goals, to be happy, to be me.
And if something goes wrong it looks like I cannot blame either. I can only blame me. That again makes me the most important and that feels good.
Merry Christmas!

Freedom, Talent and Happiness

2008-12-21T21:17:00.001+13:00

Creativity and imagination are the most precious resources of civilization. They are the building material forming the basis for understanding and invention. Luckily it seems their seeds are spread widely and abundantly. At the same time they seem to easily wither and die without proper nurture and care.

A dead dream is everyone’s loss and people can’t follow their dreams if they are hungry, scared or oppressed. Need, fear, and ignorance kill freedom and with freedom the chance for understanding and prosperity.

Freedom doesn’t come free of charge. Precious as it is it must be cherished, earned, and defended. It’s not a goal but a process and indispensable first step towards good life and happiness. Freedom is not divisible. You cannot be partly free. Freedom can only reign supreme or else it dies.

You cannot be truly free if your neighbor is not. That’s even more so if you have special talents and in my opinion everyone has talents. Only some don’t bother to develop them. That’s not simple laziness that is a crime. By ignoring your talents you rob yourself and those close to you from the happiness and good life that you deserve.

Who are you? What do you want?

2008-12-19T22:04:00.000+13:00

Pretty normal questions even if they sound a bit rude. A wrong answer to the first one can get you killed in some places like the Middle East or the Balkans, and the second one is the most important question in the world. What you want and actually knowing what you really want shapes what you are and gives meaning to your life. The truth is that most probably you'll get what you really want dreams tend to come true (sometimes nightmares come true too).
I think, what you really are, is shaped by how you see yourself, where you want to be and how others see you. The real you at any moment is somewhere in between those three points. Of course you can always imagine other views like where others want you to be and how you are influence by the other's view of you. And again you have to figure out who you are in general terms. I believe in John Lennon’s credo from Imagine.(there is no country and no religion too) but many people seem to cling to some kind of belonging which they find comforting. I have my own loyalties to family and friends, and am proud of my cultural heritage, but can't imagine using that against any other human being except in clear cut defense situation.
Belonging to a religious, political, professional or sports community how diverse we are not how different we are. It's OK to be proud but stupid to be arrogant. I actually think that you can only be really proud if you are not arrogant. Only when you acknowledge the qualities of other you can shine in your own way too. Anything else would have been a race without opponents. Not much honor in winning one of those.
What do you really want? Fame? Power? Money? ... Love? Our deepest desires are what we really are. Divine sparks of inspiration shaping our calling that we must follow to feel at peace with the universe and to succeed and any wavering from which is frustrating and makes us miserable.
I guess what you want makes who you are. And it's up to me to decide who I am. If what I really want is challenging and inspiring, and deep desires usually are, we need the help and cooperation of other people all with their dreams, desires. world views and identities. If we are true to your inner self and your innermost desires it's more likely to be able to impress friends, neighbors and colleagues to help us follow our dream while perhaps helping them follow theirs because dreams always come true if we build foundations under our castles in the air.

Marx, Aristotle, Jesus and Jefferson on power and the people

2008-12-16T10:49:00.001+13:00

Marx was right the working class rules. Down with Aristotelian aristocracy. The truth is they both were right.
Yes the working class rules but not the working class communist parties tried to portray as digging in the mud or hammer wielding muscular individuals that may have been the working class of the Neanderthal age. The working class or the modern age: thinking, imagining, designing and managing the production of our future rules the world. (In general if you can be replaced by a machine you are not working, just temporarily filling a place due to lack of technology). Does it mean we all rule the world collectively? No. That's not true look around only the best rule the world and those best ones are the aristocracy (that Aristotle was talking about) of the working class (that Marx was taking about). Yes we certainly have the rights unalienable as it is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but it is only a potential that means nothing if we don’t fight for it.
Jesus said that the meek would inherit the world. Why the meek? Why not the arrogant bullies? I think it's because arrogance is ignorance and only the intelligent, passionate and loving people can rule the world. Their reign doesn't come easy though. Brute power often resists intelligence or even plain common sense. And intelligent people often doubt their own capacities because doubt drives inquiry and knowledge. That's why to succeed the meek need faith to follow the yellow brick road. To stand in front of that fraud who sells himself as the powerful wizard and proudly declare: We are the week and the meek. And we will inherit the world because we know who we are and that there is no place like home.

Power, Democracy, Government and Sovereignty

2008-12-14T00:02:00.002+13:00

If politics is about power and power is the use of resources controlled by others to achieve our goals. It can be achieved through cooperation or coercion. Cooperation takes longer, is more difficult to achieve and may require some modification to the original goals or agenda but is ultimately cheaper and more stable. Coercion is easier and faster but unstable and resource hungry to the extent that it may defeat the meaning of the original goal.
Sovereignty is the justification of power. Although routinely connected with territory is universally accepted that it stems from the people and is expressed in a explicit or implicit social contract which can be unilaterally revoked by the people if the government doesn't deliver the protection of the basic human rights of the citizens.
A state is a country with its people, government, political system and territory (not only the government). Of these the people posses sovereignty over a territory with the government responsible for the protection of human rights with security, law and order, private property and equal opportunity among them. The government can legitimately represent the people internationally but only as long as it defends the people’s interests in the best possible way. Almost always that means avoiding war.

Sovereignty means that the people have the supreme right to govern themselves and conduct their domestic and external affairs. The state includes the people and if the government is oppressive and disrespects the will of the people that government cannot claim legitimacy. Following this logic we cannot speak of the state of North Korea as the government doesn't represent the people. North Korea can be discussed only in terms of the oppressive, illegitimate government on one side and the people about whose opinion unfortunately we don't know much on the other. (Ironically the official name of the country has the people mentioned three times as in "people's" "democratic" and "republic" but that doesn't change the fact that the people are not represented by that government.)
Democratic governments where minority rules are not respected also cannot claim sovereignty because they are forfeiting the right of the minority. Therefore the Civil War in the US did not curtail South's sovereignty but helped defend it because there couldn't be a valid claim to sovereignty in the South if the slave's rights weren't taken into account. Legitimacy can be based on the sovereignty of each and every person.
Similarly it is odd to impose economic sanctions against a totalitarian state as they only punish the people and not the governing tyrants responsible for the crime in question. If we assume that the term state means political organisation of the society in a particular country then that certainly is not the case in a country where there is no liberal democracy (meaning a government which is popular, accountable and respects human rights including the rights of minorities. This excludes popular nationalistic governments like Hitler's or Mussolini's and popular non-secular governments. States that are corrupt and failed cannot legitimately claim sovereignty. Also it is cynical to demand payment of debts incurred by a tyrant the fault for such bad debts lies with those who gave credit to a corrupt individual not the people who had no choice or say.
Sovereignty is of the people and for the people. The state can only exist legitimately to defend their right to life, property, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Does a bag of potatoes need philosophy?

2008-12-13T15:54:00.000+13:00

Who needs philosophy? Does a bag of potatoes need philosophy? My sons while learning how to drive noticed that it's much easier to drive if you know where you are going. Niki Lauda said that a sack of potatoes can drive very fast if you prop the accelerator with it but you’ll see the difference between a good driver and a sack of potatoes on first bend on the road.
Philosophy won’t help us find where we want to go and what we want to achieve but I believe that it can help us learn how to drive to get there.
Philosophy is not an art, religion, science, but it is the tool that we use when all these other tools don’t work. It’s not about what you want to eat or how to buy the ingredients but about how to cook and often that makes all the difference.
A bag of potatoes certainly doesn’t need philosophy, but an aspiring chef certainly does.

Tarzan and Politics

2008-12-11T13:45:00.003+13:00

I like history. I don't like war. Yet historians seem to be preoccupied with war. As if that's all people were doing and thinking of in (I’ll go back to that later with economics). That has somehow spilled into political analysis and international relations theory excessively focusing on power and by power usually understanding something related to violence an oppression which somehow become justified if they have the label of political or international attached to them.
To get things straight I strongly believe that oppression and violence are always wrong. Using force for self-defense though is legitimate.
Politics is not about power, much less about violence and oppression. If that was so then the Mafiosi are the best politicians.
Politics is about cooperation.
And cooperation and society is that what makes us human. Sure bees and wolfs cooperate and that’s their way to survive but wit us people it is a bit different. We can survive on our own. A healthy human can probably survive in the wild gathering fruit and hunting with sticks and stones but that will be a life, natural for sure, but not far removed from the monkeys.
Civilization implies cooperation. Not coercion. Violence shows failure of civilization it's not a prerequisite or even a by product of it.
If coercion civilization was about coercion Hitler's concentration camps would have been celebrated as the epitome of civilization.
Civilization is about cooperation and that's where polices comes in. We the people want a lot; we see our happiness as more than being fed and warm. We want more and that more is only possible in cooperation that makes the pursuit of happiness possible.

Personal Political Philosophy

2008-12-04T10:24:00.001+13:00

Political Philosophy can only be personal. To paraphrase the crook quotation Ask not what you can do for your country but ask what your country can do for you, because if your county doesn't do anything for you yet you are forced to do more and more for your country without getting anything in return then your country is probably called the Peopl'es Democratic Republic of North Korea or any other People's Democratic Republic which usually has nothing to do with the peoples or the demos or the public except trying to extract as much as possible and stash it away into foreign bank accounts away from harm. Also if you hear a politician asking you to sacrifice for society or the future they most probably equate society with themselves and have in mind the security of their future not yours. But if you live in a country which states that we the people ... and the people means you and me so let's paraphrase it more properly to: I have certain inalienable rights like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if the government is not up to its task of protecting and supporting my rights I have the right to denounce it. That's the basis of politics. It's not about power Its about finding a way to help each other protect and enhance our rights mostly by cooperation against those who think that politics is about power and exploitation. And if they succeed it's not their fault that they get their way its my fault that I let them encroach on my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
If knowledge is our most powerful and only tool to achieve happiness in fact knowledge and thinking as the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. (I know there are people who consider animals better than people and very often I can see why but still these people cling to our society instead of practicing what they preach and fade into the jungle to lead a life of Tarzan or Mowgli :-) So if knowledge is our most powerful weapon in the fight for freedom and good life and society is the most important amplifier of both our knowledge and efforts then politics should be the most important knowledge that we can ever have. Consequently as I proved that I am the most important subject and object of politics and politics is all about me then studying myself must be the starting point for studying politics.
Since philosophy is about creating good life then political philosophy should start and end with me: my needs, my desires, my aspirations and my plans to get there.
Ethics
Getting there must be moral. Because morality ensures the cooperation of society and society or simply said other people can be our greatest help or obstacle in achieving our goals following our dreams. That's why politics is important. You can always steal and get away with it but probably not for long and that's why it's not wise.
To finish.
You can't sign away your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are not yours because they the were in that well know declaration. It stated a fact, not a claim. You have them no matter what but to make them real you must fight for them, defend them enhance them. Without that they are like an empty bowl you have to work to put the soup in.

2008-11-30T12:56:00.000+13:00

Stupidity

There is an old Bulgarian saying: "Stupidity occurs to humans". Indeed it does. All to often. More often than we all would like to see. But what can we do. There is no stupid animal. Animals are just natural, so are trees. For people stupidity is natural too. In order to achieve something more than naturally occurring stupidity we need to make an effort and think. By making an effort I don't mean exert oneself. No, on the contrary, natural life is hard work and full of frustration and disappointments only the clever ones can leave a truly good lazy life in luxury or whatever you consider good life: might be devoting your life to yourself, your family, the advancement of humanity or science and invention. But alas good life doesn't come naturally. You must plan it, build it, and then enjoy it. And all that involves thinking. And thinking is a dangerous process always prone to stumble into the trap of stupidity especially if it is done in a stuck up self-conceited: ‘holier than you way’ .

We all now stupidity after the fact. Well most ot the time. That not a big feat. It's easy to notice when it hurts. It's harder to grasp it before the fact: Danger! Stupidity! Will get us into trouble! Will most possibly hurt! Probably a lot! Evade, prevent, desist, in one word: THINK!. Thinking may be painful and confusing and is not a sure antidote to stupidity actually stupidity is a one of the possible outcomes of thinking) still it is the only known remedy against the pains and frustration of stupidity.

2008-11-24T16:55:00.000+13:00

Social Theory

'Philosophy is written in this grand book, the Universe. But the book cannot be read unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the alphabet in which it is composed' GALILEO GALILEI

Introduction
Beliefs
We can only act upon what we believe is true. It is inevitable that our knowledge is imperfects as we ourselves are imperfect. That doesn't mean that we can't be successful even when we base our actions on this imperfect knowledge .The difference is that the more our subjective knowledge corresponds to objective reality the less our successes will be subject to chance instead of plan. That perfect knowledge is impossible to attain shouldn't stop us from trying. (see Ferrari)
Truth
We can have simple truths as 2+2=4 but unfortunately such obvious truths rarely are of much use and even if they are their discovery is easy. The problem is that the more complicates a concept is the more difficult it is to define, justify and prove yet often it's the most important and critical for making crucial decisions.

Values
Values as most important in any political inquiry for the following reasons:
Any politico-sociological inquiry must have a goal.
That goal must be justified by a value system.

Values often are the basis of defining interests and guiding choices.

Interests
In pursuing our interests we have two choices in relation to other people to help us achieve our goals to cooperate or coerce.
Cooperation or Coercion?
Both have advantages and disadvantages. Cooperation generates goodwill and possibility for future cooperation but may take time to negotiate and will require trade off in effort, resources and/or possible adjustment on one’s goals. Coercion may bring concrete payoff faster and easier but will generate resentment which will lead to retaliation and eventually make it more expensive in the end.
Additionally cooperation may benefit from the intellectual, emotional and spiritual input of other that could greatly enhance achievement while coercion will employ all invention, passion and prayer of our counterpart against us.
Structures and Institutions
Structural/institutional approaches to cooperation like rules, laws or principles, associations (including states), and markets arte the cheapest ones. Cheap as they may be they require periodic maintenance if we aspect them to serve us as intended being human creation they are neither perfect nor natural.

Cheap as they are structures are imperfect and need to be constantly modified to smooth out their own imperfect adaptation to reality and to accommodate changes in that same reality. That jeopardizes both their efficiency as resources need to be spent on changes and raises the resistance not only of those who are accustomed to the old system or reluctant to invest in its improvement but by those who profit for the imperfections that are to be straightened up.

What would I want from my structures/institutions? I would certainly want them to be able to archive their goals and to do it cheaply. No question I would want them to set these goal according to my wishes or as compatible with my wishes as possible and I would like to have some safeguard that my organization won’t turning against me. So simply said I want them to be democratic, accountable and respecting my rights.
Coercion
Can be protective and aggressive (intentionally, de facto or perceived) It is always bound to provoke violent reaction of the stronger if the threats or actions are perceived as aggressive.
Power
Power is the ability to achieve one's goals.
Society is people cooperating or competing in pursuit of their goals.
Politics is people cooperating or competing in the acquisition of power.
Power is the ability to make an independent choice???

Goals
Goals stem from interests based on wants, which in turn are perceived needs.

2008-11-19T13:17:00.000+13:00

Knowledge and Happiness
(Politics and Philsophy)
My starting point is the belief that knowledge is the basis of our well-being by helping us succeed in our pursuit of happiness and in our efforts to solve our problems. I believe in the ultimate sovereignty of everyone which cannot be ceded, transferred or divided. From it stems all political legitimacy on local, national. regional and world level.
That lead to the fact that respect for human rights is not an option but a must for every legitimate contemporary political entity. That democracy can only work where it is coupled with accountability and the above mentioned respect for rights including the rights of any minority. Dictatorship of the majority is no more acceptable that the dictatorship of an individual or an oligarchy.
Accountability means not only compliance with national and international standards of behavior but also all possible care to avoid harm to people, and support for criminal and terrorist setups or worse: corrupt, failed or oppressive regimes.

Please, feel welcome to share your thoughts, opinions and suggestions.

Cheers,
Alex

Related Feature

2007-01-19T02:11:00.002+13:00