Financial Chaos: Vegas at Large

Gambling Made Legal Everywhere

Our global financial system is seriously flawed. Flawed is not the right word, it is fundamentally screwed up. Simply because it is built on rewarding speculation not hard work. People are encouraged to borrow and spend beyond their means. Banks lend money and they know that the borrower can not pay back. Banks think, or pretend to think, that their loan is guaranteed because they have the house as a collateral. But the house price is 10 times inflated. The higher the price, the bigger the loan, or mortgage, the higher the interest revenues earned, the happier the bank!


But what happens when people can not pay back their loans and banks end up putting their hands on thousands of houses? What happens when banks need money to pay their bills and they can not give employees salaries in "living room", "stairway" or "basement" tokens? Banks then have to sell. But when everyone is selling, prices plunge. And when prices plunge the collateral's selling price becomes 50%, 25% or less of the original loan value. Trillions of dollars, value which never existed in the first place, evaporate in thin air.

In our global financial system, brokers, rather than producers or service providers, are rewarded by making the big bucks. This is good in a gambling casino for a weekend in Vegas or so, but can not be the basis of a solid financial system to govern the lives of 6 billion people and many trillions of dollars.


Speculators make their profits not from "dividends", which represent a variable percentage of the profits earned by the economic enterprise they had invested in. No. They make their profits from capital gains, achieved by inflating stock prices rather than earnings or dividends coming from actual operations, on P/E ratios in the hundreds or thousands when they should be in the range of 5, 10, 20 or even 30. These capital gains happen as a result of stock appreciation, created by demand being more than supply, again as a result of the growing market of speculation, as everyone seems to enjoy gambling. The stock market has thus become the biggest legal "Get-Rich-Quick Scheme" on Earth.

The stock market is no longer a place where companies wishing to erect plants or expand operations can raise capital to finance purchase of assets, fund new production lines, spend on research and development of new products or technologies, marketing or distribution channels. The stock market is and has been for a very long time Vegas at Large. Where everyone can gamble, win and eventually lose, legally, all year round and often at tax-payers' expense.

The kind of correction needed, requires major change of mind. I do not think that it is even going to happen this time ... but it is going to be painful as hell.

Before America Votes

Telegraph.co.uk

US presidential debate:

Early polls give

Barack Obama

slender victory

Barack Obama appears to have won a slender victory over John McCain in the first presidential debate, a vital test for both candidates in America's knife-edge election campaign.

By Philip Sherwell in Oxford, Mississippi Last Updated: 7:58AM BST 28 Sep 2008

Two instant television polls and a focus group showed Barack Obama ahead Photo: EPA

Two instant television polls and a focus group conducted by top consultant Frank Luntz gave the Democratic senator a lead over his Republican rival among the all-important undecided voters.
His apparent victory was not clear cut, however, with some pundits declaring Sen McCain the winner on points just five weeks before Americans cast their ballots.

Although the party nomination battles began 20 months ago and the election has already cost more than $1 billion, this was the first time that many Americans will have focused closely on the performance of the two candidates to replace President George W Bush.

With two more debates due before the Nov 4 voting, neither candidate landed a knock-out punch or committed the sort of disastrous gaffe that can determine an election.

Instead, they both tried to impress on viewers a negative image of the other candidate: Mr McCain kept insinuating that his younger rival lacked the experience for high office.

"There are some advantages to experience and knowledge and judgement," he said. He then taunted Mr Obama by quoting a remark used in the primaries by Joe Biden, who subsequently became the Democratic senator's running mater. "I don't need to do any on-the-job training," he said.

In turn, Mr Obama repeatedly linked the Arizona senator to the failed policies of the Bush administration, saying Mr McCain had agreed with the president "90 per cent of the time".
When pressed to answer the most important question in America today, however, neither candidate was willing to risk a clear response: they both dodged questions on the $700 billion plan to rescue Wall Street.

Mr McCain cited his battle against wasteful federal expenditure, the first of many references during the evening to his "record" - drawing an implicit contrast with his rival's inexperience on the national stage.

Mr Obama countered by seeking to tie Mr McCain to the economic policies of the Bush White House and its "orgy of spending" and argued that he was out of touch with the needs of American workers.

During the exchanges on economics, Mr McCain accused Mr Obama of having "the most liberal voting record in the Senate" and then added: "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."

Mr Obama responded: "John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly, that's just me opposing George Bush's wrongheaded policies since I've been in Congress."

In these televised debates, as much attention is paid to style as substance. Mr Obama still came across as cool and slightly detached at times - although not as aloof or professorial as during the primaries. And he came to life during the more lively clashes over foreign policy.

But Mr McCain also sometimes reinforced negative impressions of himself as a "cranky old man" as he repeatedly put his young foe down with the words "he doesn't understand" and refused to look him in the eye.

Just hours before the debate began it was unclear whether it would happen at all. Mr McCain had stunned Americans by announcing he would not take part in order to help push the financial bail-out through Congress.

But at the last minute he changed his mind and flew to the small college town of Oxford where the debate was being held on the campus of the University of Mississippi.

While the financial crisis dominated headlines, it was foreign affairs that provoked the sharpest exchanges in Friday night's showdown.

On Iraq, Mr McCain assailed Mr Obama for opposing the recent troop "surge", refusing to acknowledge its success, insisting on a timetable for withdrawal and not visiting the country for more than 900 days.

But Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain, reminding the audience that he had opposed the war from the start and then attacking his rival's judgment on a series of key issues.

"You said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between the Shia and Sunni. You were wrong."

Mr McCain took the harshest digs at Mr Obama over his assertion during the primary battle with former First Lady Hillary Clinton that he would be willing to meet the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without setting conditions.

"Sen Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse', and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimise those comments," he said witheringly. "This is dangerous. It isn't just naive, it's dangerous."

Mr McCain also slammed Mr Obama for allegedly saying he would attack Pakistan. That brought a stinging riposte. "Coming from you, who in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know how credible that is," said Mr Obama.

The Democrat repeatedly said that Mr McCain had backed Mr Bush in making Iraq a priority when Osama bin Laden remained free somewhere on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Although the debate was originally scheduled to cover foreign affairs and national security, the first 40 of the 90 minutes were eventually allotted to the economic crisis.

Mr McCain's sometimes patronising attitude cost him support among a panel of 27 undecided voters assembled in the swing state of Nevada by Mr Luntz, a Republican polling guru.
Using hand-held dials, they indicated their reactions throughout the debate. Thirteen had supported Democrat John Kerry four years ago and 12 were for Mr Bush, with two voting for neither. By the end of Friday's debate, 17 said they felt more favourable about Mr Obama and 10 about Mr McCain.

"They felt that McCain was too negative and they didn't see the validity of some of his attacks," Mr Luntz told The Sunday Telegraph. "They felt he had the experience ut they wanted to hear him talk about the future not the past. And they felt he had been playing politics when he threatened not to turn up for the debate.

"Obama came across as more passionate and more eager. He seemed to have more life to him.

"It was an ok night for John McCain and a good one for Barack Obama. The trouble for McCain is that he's the one behind in the polls. He now only has two debates left to score."

In a so-called "insta-poll" of 524 uncommitted voters for CNN, Mr Obama won the debate by 51 per cent to 38 per cent. CBS conducted a similar survey with a victory for Mr Obama by a 39 to 24 per cent margin, with 36 per cent declaring it a draw.

Advisors to the two candidates sought to spin the debate result afterwards. "John McCain had Obama on the defensive throughout for his naïve statements and bad judgement," said Charlie Black, a senior aide to the Republican candidate.

Mr McCain's campaign senior strategist Steve Schmidt stuck to similar talking points, arguing:

"McCain showed his mastery of the issues tonight and Obama was on the back foot. Sen Obama is a gifted speaker but he doesn't have a record of bringing about change."

David Axelrod, Mr Obama's top strategist, responded:

"Only one candidate was presenting a vigorous case for change and standing up for real America. That was Barack Obama. McCain is mistaking his long resume for evidence of wisdom and judgement."

Sad Friday: Cairo Fire in Small Installments

Egyptians React to Cairo "Fires"

in their Facebook Status Lines!

A month has barely passed since the Shura Council (Upper House of the Egyptian Parliament)fire. You could still sense the heat, if not in the ashes on site, you would so in the debates which are sweeping the Egyptian society.

And now, the Egyptian National Theater, Ataba Square, is also on fire. What is going on?

At six o'clock, the time of breaking Ramadan fast, on the "Sad Friday", or the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan, the National Theater of Ataba square came under fire.

Why is it a "Sad Friday"? It is probably sad because Ramadan is about to end. But it is also sad because this theater is one of the oldest in Cairo and witnessed quite a number of great performances specially in the sixties. Because that Theater was a government-owned entity, a non-commercial theater, many had regarded it as the last resort for serious theatrical works. But that was in the past. The theater like everything else related to the regime in Egypt, had also been plagued by corruption and beaurarcy and the the laws of "inverted selection", or "natural deselection", where the "good would die young" and mostly, with a few exceptions, hypocrits and mediocre artists of proven loyalty to a corrupt regime would survive and stand a chance.

Enough opinions for now. The Egyptian Community on Facebook reaction to the fire was quite interesting but largely consistent:

Amira Mekkawy said in her status: "Cairo Fire on Installments"! This witty comment refers to 1952 huge fire in Cairo which devoured many theaters, cinemas and buildings, and compares it to events of 2008, 56 years later, where the fire is also devouring important and ancient buildings of Cairo, but now one at a time.

Manal Fahmy asked, also in her status line: "our heritage on fire ... is it a coincidence?" and got a comment from one of her friends saying that "Our Heritage is the target!"

Sameh Abu El Dahab an activist and a blogger was one of the first to alert the Facebook community to news of the fire in a factual, neutral manner.

Bahaa Mohamed, suggested that the fires are a part of a zionist conspiracy and a cultural war against Egypt!

Ahmed Milad, an activist and a blogger asks: Why none of these fires come even close to Presidential Palaces?

Eman Hashem sees that this is "Business is usual, in fact, less than the usual" !

Walid Fouad makes an observation, that the Fire took place on the "Eve of the Decree" or "Lilat El Qadr", which, with a little twist, could be translated as "Eve of Fate", and wonders if there is a hidden meaning for this connection!

Samir Saad describes the fire as "Episode number 10,000 of Egyptian Disaster Series, and is sadened as Egypt's cultural heritage burns".

Hany El Khayat wonders "Who is burning Cairo? "

Moataz Emam provided a link to a BBC video clip of the fire and asks for Gods Support, Grace and Mercy.

There are about 900,000 Egyptians on Facebook, and thus Facebook is the largest connected community in Egypt, online or otherwise.

The reactions to the Shura Council fire of last month were less sympathetic. In fact, in trying to understand the reactions, we ran a small survey asking if "The Egyptian Parliament truly Represented the People", and 89% of the respondents said "No. Almost never!" while 8% said, "Yes. Sometimes!"

The reactions this time are much more concerned, probably because the Theater is more of cultural, rather than a political, symbol, unlike the Shura council, which people saw as a part of a corrupt regime.

Hypocrisy of Egyptian NeoCons

Liberals ...

Damaging the Liberal Cause

Recently, we have witnessed a commendable campaign to bring President Bashir of Sudan to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes committed against humanity in Darfur ...

Honorable Judge Bastawisi, wrote an important article in Al Masry Al Youm in support of this measure, and explained that the REAL GUARANTY against having heads of states tried before the court, is to INSTALL INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY on a National Level, where fair trial is guaranteed of every one and for every credible claim ...

What amazes me, is that so called, self-proclaimed, Egyptian NeoCons, were very much SUPPORTIVE of bringing President Bashir to trial ... what I do not understand is, how can they do that, when they know that that the United States under NeoCon administration tried everything possible to undermine the court including pressuring other states to refrain from cooperation with the court.

Under Clinton Administration (Democrat), the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.

But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC"تصريح بغزو لا هاي (!!) by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

When I see "Egyptian" NeoCons Supporting, in fact promoting, Trial of President Bashir of Sudan before ICC, when the NeoCons passed a Law allowing INVASION of another Sovereign State to illegally extradite possible US offenders tried before the very same court, ICC ... when I see that ...




I say that this is Hypocrisy of the highest proportions ...

And for the avoidance of doubt, I am with and whole-heartedly for, the fair Trial of Bashir before ICC, and I am for fair trial of every person who is suspected of commiting crimes against humanity but may go unpunished under the inadequacy of national or local laws, also before ICC.

But I am asking self-proclaimed "Liberals" to stop their systematic use of double standards which has in fact damaged the Liberal cause and has given "Liberalism" a bad name, a bad name which it does not deserve.

I say to those claiming to be liberals and freedom fighters, who insist that "Islamic Extremism" is a threat to our country and to our world, I tell them, that the only chance that liberals have in reaching out to the people and gaining their trust and votes, thus curbing "Extremists" from climbing the seats of power, is for Liberals to WALK the TALK, to embrace Liberal values and principles and APPLY them equally on friends and adversaries alike, without DISCTINCTION between those we like and those who are unpopular.

The real test of our integrity is NOT when we fight for the the freedoms of those whom we like. The Real Test of our Integrity is not when we defend our friends. The real test of our integrity is when we fight for the freedoms of those who are unpopular. Those whom we do not particularly like. The real test of our integrity, is when we tell friends that we believe they are WRONG.

Please stop your double-standards and hypocrisy, for they have damaged the Liberal Cause a great deal.






*************************



Read HJ Bastawisi's Article in Al Masry Al Youm


المستشار هشام البسطويسي يكتب: نعم
يجب أن يحاكم البشير دوليا ولو اعتصم بحصانة مغتصبة

٢٢/٧/٢٠٠٨

http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=114295

Post-Realism Demystified

Post-Realism:

What does it Mean?

By
Wael Nawara

In simple and short words, Post-Realism refers to a new "realization", that force and military might alone have not managed to provide security for the "strong".

Political Romanticism
In the fifties and sixties, many politicians, specially in the "Third World Countries", relied on rhetoric using terms such as "Justice", "Equality", "International Law", etc., to demand what they believed to be their nations' rightful dues. After a long era of colonialism, Third World Countries were demanding self-determination and natural justice.

The Heroes of this period of "Political Romanticism", were leaders like Nasser and Nehru. Their argument amounted to the proposition that "stronger" and "richer" states should adhere to such concepts on moral grounds. Third World countries, suddenly made a majority in the U.N. General Assembly! All kinds of UN resolutions sponsored by "Third World Countries" and "Non-Aligned Movement" were passed in the UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly had no "Veto Powers" for any member state, big or small and its resolutions of course were non-binding !

Nasser was promoting the end of colonialism and imperialism and insisting that "Peace" can only be built on "Justice". He even sought to promote what he thought as "social justice" at home, through successive waves of land re-distribution, nationalization, fixing of the prices of food, basic commodities, and housing rents, expanding government employment to accommodate every graduate of a free education system, and a package of socialist laws and measures which practically ruined and crippled the Egyptian Economy for decades to come. But these populist measures and the sort of romantic rhetoric which characterized that period, fueled the passions of hundreds of millions of dreamers around the world.

So, in summary, during the era or age of Political Romanticism, politicians just referred to terms and concepts like Justice, Equality and Peace, as principles all states should adhere to, on moral grounds!

An Era of Realism
Egypt's humiliating defeat in 1967 proved the romantic dreams which Nasser had promoted, in fact ended as dreadful nightmares, at least for Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese and other Arabs. Romanticists were awakened by a sobering reality, that "force", and not "justice", wins land and redraws national borders. Sadat, who became President after Nasser's death in 1970, was the champion of the new period. An age of "Realism" started.

This "Realism" had started to show itself in Egypt's foreign policy as early as November 1967, when Nasser formally accepted UN Security Council resolution. In the summer of 1972, Sadat asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops and military experts from Egypt. The Americans were surprised that he never consulted with them before making such a decision. He never asked for a price or attempted to draft even a memo of understanding with the Americans of the arrangements which would follow such an evacuation. Kicking out the Soviets, I believe, was an early turning point in the cold war. A point which signified perhaps a small victory for the West, but it was a small victory of far-reaching consequences as it started to permanently upset the power balance favoring the United States and the West. That turning point sent the curve of the Cold War on a one-way route which ended some 17 years later when Berlin Wall was demolished by the People of East and West Germany in 1989.

Egypt has seen this before. The British and French Empires signed their own death warrants in Portsaid, Egypt in 1956, when they attacked Egypt, employing Israel as their Bullying Agent, and were forced to withdraw primarily as a result of American pressure but also Soviet displeasure that the weaker allies of the Second World War would double-cross them and continue to act as a Great world powers without consulting the new world powers countries which really decided the fate of World War II, the USA and the USSR.

In November 1973, immediately after the seize fire was affected on the wake of the 1973 October War, Yum Kippur War, Sadat took yet another step into the "Age of Reason", the "Age of Realism", when he consorted with Kissinger in November 1973, and gave him his vision of the peace in the region and of the power shift in the cold-war world. Sadat, acknowledged the Arab defeat and wanted to create peace and prosperity based on new power balance. He realized that Egypt and the Arabs would be unable to defeat Israel either by their own weakness or because the world powers simply would not allow it. So, he became a "Realist".

What is "Realism"?

Realism is that we ask Palestinians to negotiate with Israelis under gun-point and demand that they (the Palestinians) be content with the outcome of such negotiations despite the power parity. Imagine a thug who stops you in the street, points a gun to your head and strips you off your wallet. You go to the police to file a report and the police tells you to go and negotiate with the robber to get back your wallet, some of your money, credit cards and ID cards. "But the robber is armed, officer?"

Realism is that we ask the Tibetans to calm down because China is a Superpower. Realism is that we ask Kuwait to accept the invasion of its strong neighbor, Iraq, gracefully!

In short, politicians of the Age of "Realism" adopted the approach that "force" and immediate "self-interest" alone govern foreign policy and the behavior states towards one another. Realism is the opposite of the rule of law, it is to accept that we shall be ruled by the law of the jungle. Force and might alone can protect you and yours. But even a bully goes to sleep. Even the strongest of us blinks. Even the strongest has weak children?

Post Realism
In 1978, Egypt formally made peace with Israel. But we must ask ourselves today, has this peace paid dividends? The state of War between Egypt and Israel ended. Egypt regained Sinai. But the problem was neither Egypt nor Sinai. The problem was, is, always has been and will remain for many years to come, Palestine.

Hundreds of millions of Palestinians, Arabs, Israelis, Citizens of New York, London, Madrid, & even Visitors of Bali have had to pay for the Palestinian problem until this very day.

We have learned from bitter experience the same lessons which made individuals, our ancestors, devise and submit to local laws thousands of years ago. Osiris, or Aser, it is said, gave Egyptians Laws of Maat and took them out of their savagery. Now, we see that "security" (in relation to, and against, terrorist attacks) has become the highest item on every nation's "interest", specially the "strong" and "rich" who have much more to lose. What sadly happened on the morning of 9/11 and the chain of events which followed, have proved that "the strong" is vulnerable to terrorism and terrorism is fueled by injustice.

The battle against terrorism, unlike traditional warfare, can not be won through armies or hi-tech weaponry alone. As knowledge of simple yet devastating technologies became available to everyone, it became easy to breach security if one is disgruntled enough to be so determined to trade his or her own life with the lives of "targets", civilians or otherwise, but usually civilians who are most vulnerable at their workplace, during traveling, in the streets, in the tube, in a supermarket or a shopping mall, in a restaurant, in a bus or even sitting at home minding their own business.

This experience suggests that the war against terror can only be won though re-establishing and re-instatement of the principles of justice, this time not as a moral necessity, but as security prerequisite!

Anyone of us can fall a victim to terror. There is no guaranty. No insurance. The only insurance, which does not eliminate, but considerably reduces the risk, is to erect an effective and efficient "International Justice System".

We learned to install "Justice Systems" on local and national levels. This was the basis of civilization. For civilization is built on accumulation. Such accumulation would not have been possible unless stability, security, safety and property are protected. Why would anyone work or build or farm, if he or she knows that their hard-earned fortunes can be taken away by some robber who will go unpunished, with no law, no enforcement to deter the perpetrators?
The League of Nations and its upgrade version, The United Nations and its institutions such as The International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as other Independent International Institutions affiliated with the United Nations, such as International Criminal Court (ICC) were meant to play that role, but unfortunately, as we have pointed out in a previous article, the United States, being the "strong", has consistently worked towards undermining the United Nations and any attempt to install or develop an effective system for International Justice.

Good News?

The good news is, even inside the United States, more and more people are now realizing the necessity of reforming the United Nations. Senator Obama, who is the Democratic Party Nominee in the Presidential Elections due in a few weeks' time, has showed "some" support to the concept of working towards reforming the United Nations.
،،

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

…

In addition, we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the major powers -- including such newly emerging ones as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. We need to give all of them a stake in upholding the international order. To that end, the United Nations requires far-reaching reform.

In fact, President Bush, in his farewell speech to the United Nations also called on the UN to

،،

open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose.

But as you may guess, the reform which Bush seeks for the United Nations is slightly a wee bit different from that which is required to truly minimize injustices, conflict and terror.

Conclusion

Post-Realism is a new realization, that the principles of Justice are not just words or moral rhetoric, they represent "behavioral solutions" which the evolution of our civilization and cultures have provided us with for "survival". In business terms, accepting to submit to a "Justice System", local or international, is like an insurance policy which reduces the "risk" of being victimized, both to the strong and the weak alike. Should we decide now to neglect these principles and resort to "might" and "strength" alone, we might just as well stop complaining about terrorism, violence or international conflicts, demand that beauty pageant contestants stop babbling about "world peace" and accept the world as dangerous as it is, can and will become.

،،

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

—Matthew 26:52, King James Version

Post Realism 4

Renewing American Leadership

Article By: Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Summary:

After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the U.S. Presidential Elections 2008.

COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

As Roosevelt built the most formidable military the world had ever seen, his Four Freedoms gave purpose to our struggle against fascism. Truman championed a bold new architecture to respond to the Soviet threat -- one that paired military strength with the Marshall Plan and helped secure the peace and well-being of nations around the world. As colonialism crumbled and the Soviet Union achieved effective nuclear parity, Kennedy modernized our military doctrine, strengthened our conventional forces, and created the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress. They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership. This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.

To recognize the number and complexity of these threats is not to give way to pessimism. Rather, it is a call to action. These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking. The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged. In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

MOVING BEYOND IRAQ

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.

Continue to Read This Article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Post Realism 2

A Quest for International Law:
UN Version 3.0



Realists tell you it does not exist. That there is no such a thing as International Law. And even if there was, there was no way of enforcing it. Their arguments make a lot of sense. Their logic is pure Realism at its finest :

• There is no International Law.
• Laws are made by the stronger.
• the UN is Useless, can not & should not have a role in resolving conflicts or promoting justice
• Because there are dictators who might sign international treaties we should not have treaties

Realism is great. But Guess what. It did not work. It did not protect the strong. The minute that the strong decided to break the spirit of International Law, which it did not really acknowledge as a concept, the strong became weak, exposed and vulnerable ... we all become vulnerable in absence of the law ... because the law, JUSTICE, is an insurance policy for all of us ...

So. Realism did not quite seem to work.

Hence, comes this notion of Post-Realism. A Search for International Law. A Pursuit of Happiness, not just for the Americans, Europeans or Japanese but for every nation. A Quest for Justice not just for Egyptians, Palestinians & Syrians but for Israelis, Tibetans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Cubans, Russians, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., ... justice for all ... justice for everyone. For we have learned that no Nation can be happy alone ... while the rest of the world suffers.

Realism talks about what's possible in terms of our own past experience of how things used to happen.

At one moment of Man's journey ... there were no states ... there was no law, there was no electricity or telephones.

When one man, possibly code name Osiris, or Azer, but he really represents the civilizing spirit in every society, had the idea, that Man should not kill another man for food ... that a concept of "property" exists ... at that precise moment ... the concept of LAW was Born:

"
And Aser gave his fellow men (probably Egyptians :) Laws, taught them how to farm and how to make wine ... and taught them how to honor the gods (do good really) .. he took them out of their savagery.

If MAN insisted on being realist all along that journey of civilization ... we would never have LAWS or States ... or Electricity ... or wine ... :)



الواقعية تشبه إلى حد بعيد المنهج السلفي
أن نفعل
كما رأينا آباءنا يفعلون

والمحافظون ما هم إلا نوع مودرن شوية من السلفيين
سلفيين ببدل وكرافتات يعني



But luckily, Man has never given up the gift of "Dreaming" ... for he was endowed with imagination and vision , the ability to see things ... not only as they are ... or as they used to be ... but as they COULD BE.

This is the power of Vision my friends ... we should never lose sight of that ... and we should never let anyone tell us that things can't get better on the grounds that things are indeed dire ... for when things are bad ... this is the best time when Man can install something better ... only when it is bad ... that traditionalists and conservatives will accept a new solution which may allow things to be less bad ... or simply better ...




But most of all, we should never fall victims of Realism at bad times, because when things are bad ... Realism really becomes another word for pessimism.



Now, we have to ask ourselves: is this the best Man can do?

International Justice: is it really "No-can-do"?

I am not talking here about Palestine or Israel, I am talking about everything ... about Kyoto and the Ozone Layer ... I am talking about kids starving in Africa and conflicts breaking in Georgia. I am talking about it all. Wouldn't be nice to have something, an international institution, which can actually provide a framework for International Law, including arbitration, letigation and enforcement?

Guess what. Such an institution exists. In fact, version 2.0 of that institution does exist. It is called the United Nations. Version 1.0 (the League of Nations, rest-in-peace) was full of bugs, and because it was so buggy it did not manage to prevent the horrors of World War 2. World Peace "Crashed" and 40 million people died. So in 1945, the warring nations, after the war, developed version 2.0, and sat on its Security Council. And it did manage to prevent War again between the five.

But guess what. It had no room for the weak. It did not listen to the poor. So, the weak decided, to take the Law in its own hand, launching a "Parallel War", using terror and killing civilians instead of engaging in a formal conventional war for which the weak had no capacity to handle or chance to win.

Isn't this always the case? When the Law fails to deliver justice, people resort to violence, hire thugs and take the law in their own hands?


So,I say that now, it is time for UN version 3.0

And please, this time, we need the weak to sit on the table with the strong.

The poor with the rich.

This is how we can rid ourselves of this Bad Karma which seems to be haunting us. Catching up with us where we least expect it.

Let us work on UN Version 3.0 and improve our Karma a little. Shall we?

:)