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.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Why Love and Who Are You?
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).
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sovereignty, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect
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
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
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Confused and Dazzled
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
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
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Allah Akbar, Death to the Dictator!
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
All Hands on Deck!
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.
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.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Foreign Policy Challenges for the Obama Admisitration and Possible Solutions
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Expect Great Things Attempt Great Things
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.
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.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
To Give and Take: The Art of Love
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.
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.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Henry Kissinger sent to Russia by Obama: what to expect?
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:)
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:)
Saturday, February 07, 2009
If I Was God
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!
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!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Personal Interests, Politics and Philosophy
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.
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.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Master of Reality
“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.
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.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Choice of Freedom
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 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.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Triangular Personality and Honesty
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.
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.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Desires and Beliefs on the Path to the Truth
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)