Who needs ideas?

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

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

Philosophy – a journey to the other world

(a quest for wisdom, love and freedom)

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

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

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

Questions on Greece, Strauss-Kahn, Libya and ignorance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is God always Happy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell me what you think?

In God's Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alah Akbar

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

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

Why Politics

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

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

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

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

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

Life, Freedom and Wealth are Private

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love Yourself!

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

Ethics, Rights, Identities and Interests

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

Who Needs the Pen to Be Mightier than the Sword

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interests and Rights

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

China US Economic Relations

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

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

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

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

2. What China expects from the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Love and Who Are You?

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

Sovereignty, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect

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

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

Confused and Dazzled

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

Allah Akbar, Death to the Dictator!

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

All Hands on Deck!

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

Foreign Policy Challenges for the Obama Admisitration and Possible Solutions

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

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

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

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.