It is the twilight of our time, that everybody is connected within a click away.

The recent internet sensation of Wen Jiabao’s Facebook profile proofed to be one unique phenomenon in this internet age. International Herald Tribune reported that Wen’s page was created on May 14 and last time I checked it, Wen has already gained 29.810 supporters in only two weeks! “Grandpa Wen”, as his people calling him now, gained this phenomenal popularity out of his recent visit to towns and villages that had been struck by earthquake lately.

The government of China has been long-known for its iron-feist approach to its people. But take a look at China now. People seems love their ‘grandpa Wen’ so much. Staggering economic success and his developmentalist approach make Wen as one of the most successful prime minister in China’s modern history. Read the rest of this entry »

Another catchy headline while I was cleaning my email struck me out. Just out of curiosity, I opened this article titled Is It Time to Invade Burma?

While the article mainly talks about how the government of Myanmar has been rejecting many foreign aid since the disaster struck out and therefore torturing their people by letting a humanitarian crisis continued, I found out that some parts of the article are interesting to comment on. Here it is.

….The trouble is that the Burmese haven’t shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone’s control……That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma…..

Wow, hey, take it easy there! What is it with American people and their minds?? Now if we have an authoritarian regime in one country and they can just show up and attack the country? Even the UN Charter does not give the Security Council authority to use force for humanitarian purposes.

Without any permission from the legitimate government of a state, even humanitarian intervention violates the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of a state. Armed intervention however justifiable in a strict interpretation only if the problem cannot likely to be contained, thus posing a threat to international peace and security.

….The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea (of commencing a humanitarian intervention in Myanmar)— “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday….

Can’t imagine going in without the permission of Myanmar government? What a polite statement coming from a state who has been doing “intervention” all the time, huh? At least his point was well delivered… Read the rest of this entry »

General Tan Shwe of Myanmar might received a celebrity-like publicity after Hollywood decided to make a human right campaign featuring him—although the campaign described him as a “living-Hitler”.

The video shows Ellen Page of “Juno” giving a short narration to raise peoples awareness for human right while holding a picture of the general. One of her line in the video says “Hitler is living in Burma”. Sounds like a tough strike for the general? Read the rest of this entry »

This post is a short version of my assignment given by Prof. Banyu for his Strategic Studies class.

“It has become cheaper to look for oil on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange than in the ground”

T. Boone Pickens, Jr.

U.S. Business Executive—oil speculator

“Nothing is older to man than his struggle for food.”

Quoted from TIME magazine article

Much of the world’s energy comes from nonrenewable resources and oil is now the main source for the world’s energy consumption. Petroleum industries believe that the world oil supply will peak around 80 million barrels per day between 2010 and 2020. But in 1998, many geologists challenge the recent statistic. An over-consumption behavior from industrial country has dramatically changed the calculation. Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner and lead us into a major energy crisis.

Read the rest of this entry »

I remember when I was surfing through my email in May 2003 when I saw the picture of President Bush, giving his victory speech over Iraq in the USS Abraham Lincoln. Displayed behind him was a huge, star-and-stripe banner saying “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”. Now it has been almost exactly five years since the picture was taken. Although the war was officially ended, conflict seems to be continued.

Fixing a shattered Iraq could be at least on the top three list of hardest-task-to-do in the history of US foreign policy; right after managing the cold war and handling Vietnam. 

First thing to do is to find, or create the most suitable system of government for Iraq. Requirement: can handle the long-rooted and highly violent conflicting groups of Shia, Sunni and Kurdis. Such system must be uniquely designed to reduce the seeds of conflicts and eliminate the chances for separatism among the conflicting groups. One proposed idea is to federalize Iraq.

Read the rest of this entry »

I can’t believe what I’m reading this morning….The controversial cartoon of the prophet Muhammad that sparked worldwide protests two years ago reprinted across Europe!! The act believed to be a reaction following the “terror-related assassination” of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

One of the newspapers involved in the republication said that the action was to “unambiguously back and support” the freedom of speech that newspaper always will defend. The action believed to be triggered by Danish authorities when they arrested three people allegedly plotting the “terror-related assassination”. Revelation of the assassination plan sparks a new fear among Europeans concerning “the radical Islam’s plan to suppress free-speech right”. The sad part comes from a Gallup poll for the World Economic Forum that says more and more Europeans feel that Islam is a threat to their way of life.

What I can’t understand most is that are they really understand about the term “free-of-speech” and the concept of “right” in its universally accepted term?? I mean, we *as the offended* also have the right to defend our value. Can it be justified to violate other’s right in the name of freedom?? Could the same claim be made around dialogue concerning the Jews and Nazi in German? How would the Europeans feel if ‘Mein Kampf’ reprinted in the name of Hitler’s right of free-speech??

I don’t think that people should glorify Nazis, ought to deny Holocaust or ought to publish cartoons that insulted revered figures of other religions. In fact, I think they should refrain from doing such things.

Within the context of free speech, there are at least four classes of expression. (1) those that outlawed and morally wrong, (2) those that legal and morally wrong, (3) those that legal and morally indifferent and (4) those that legal and morally called for. In response to the cartoon case, we should look number two carefully. Respect for truth or respect for people of other faiths should be taken as a moral consideration from act or expression that might offensive for certain people—even though it is legally written.

I remember reading an article about how a leading retailer in Singapore has withdrawn a cosmetics range with a Jesus theme after complaints from local Roman Catholics. The products included a “Virtuous vanilla” lip balm and a “Get tight with Christ” hand and body cream, featuring a picture of Christ flanked by two adoring women. *…daaa….?!?*

My point is that this is the same thing with what happen when Moslem community offended by the cartoons. Why would anyone use religious figures in a disrespectful way??