The Instruments of the global political Process introduce the most Challenging and disputed Demands. Why? On some other Levels (concerning Issues like cultural Globalization) there are disposable and less disputed or challenging Globalization Instruments. The economic process is led by Institutions like the World Trade Organization and some other related economic and custom Unions, in which Membership has not been obligatory or challenging for the international Community. The WTO Decision Making system grant the Members equal rights, wherefore each has the right to Veto undesired Decision. Countries have been welcome and encouraged to join the WTO, but no Country dare to approach from the Security Council Meetings without being forwarded by the big Veto Whales. So the political Track is being the most challenging aspect of Globalization. On the other hand; Many Countries have liberalized their Economics, but remain politically illiberal, which make their political Life Structure contradictive and disharmonic.
(The assumption; that economic Liberalization is supposed to have a responsive effect upon Politics , make the third World liberals find in the WTO a Hope for political Freedom. Such equalizing Coupling ( Economic/Politics) has been supported by many Theorists world Wide. That is to say; when economic Situation changes or develops, the politics be correlatively at a similar Course. But many neglected to explain whether their Theory refers to a description of a natural social Process, or is it an "is-ought" conclusion. In practical Life, we exclude the possibility of real economic Freedom, without a related political freedom, where by we see a dialectics in the politics-economics relation.
I have been admiring the international trade and economic Development, but every try to find a responsive Harmony in the international Structure, has failed.
What is wrong with the global political process? Does the Error lie in the international organizational Structure? or in the local political Systems of undemocratic or illiberal Countries? Fact is; both ( international and local political Structures) are neither constructed nor tightened well. The Security Council was announced during the second World war, and has been authoritarian since its early emergence. Each of The traditional super Powers may block the Entire World Will, and impose own Strategy over Nonmembers Countries. (some believe that the Council could not be modified or democratized during the Cold War, because of a communistic World View being Part of the decision Making Mechanism). But since the fall of the soviet Communism, the Reform Demand grew stronger, and has become the effort of even some super Powers like the
1. The Structure of Globalization Institutions themselves ( which despite the defects act mostly in according to the liberal Principles declared by the UN and western or American Revolution "with some exceptions of course)
2. The Structures of the UN member States and Governments
3. The Structure of the states internal social Movements and political Cultures growing within the cultural social variety.
Considering the International Organizations as the leading Forces of the liberal and democratic Globalization makes the functional and structural Reforms of the Organizations prior to the concerned Members. But in dealing with State of the States, we stand practically before 4 possible Cases:
a. A dictatorial Government, ruling over people of liberal democratic Nature. The removal of Such a rule is usually a legitimate target from local and international point of View.
b. A Liberal and democratic Government, presiding authoritarian Culture. In such a Case; Globalization Effort would rather be supportive to the ruling Government. School Methods, Publicity, Internet, Televisions, Radio Stations and a strong and protective Security System of preserving and defending individual Freedom and rights would be needed. In other Words; the international and State Government would rely ( in Globalization) on cultural Process mainly. Such a model exists in Turkey, where Military and Security Forces initiate Alarm, when the democratic or liberal System be at Threat, which makes Turkish Liberalism less credible any way, (due to its lack for the relevant Education, the Army might not be the right political Judge). But internationally and locally better accepted than authoritarianism.
c. An Authoritarian Government, supported or likewise opposed (to some Extent) by an Authoritarian Culture ( whereby authoritarian in this contest means dictatorial). In such a case, either there exists a 1. considerable democratic Stream with enough Population to build a Government and make involvement in politics possible for every likewise democratic Movement ( a dictatorial Liberal, like approximately the mentioned Turkish exemplar ). Or
2. There exists no considerable democratic Stream, which makes it liberally legitimate for the international Community to marginalize, treat or combat the expansion of such a System. Similar to the local marginalization or ban on undemocratic Streams within some Countries, a marginalization and restriction of Authoritarianism on international Level cope with the Philosophy of Globalization emerging from the liberal Doctrines to create and develop a free World Institutions.
In his Nato Speech Today, Mr. Bush made a clear political Position to the Nato Membership, in which he said: NATO membership must remain open to all of Europe's democracies that seek it
That is to say: the US politics couple rather tie Democratization with Integration in the international political Process.
In the Case of
In social Theories, Time-Space dualism play a great role. For social development is being ( unlike the physical and Math theories invariance) variant in time and Space. Some conclude that kind of Constructivism. (read The Austrian Philosopher Gerhard Schurz).
In the Case of
Conclusion: The international Community should support a democratic
Question: Why do many Countries express Happiness over the US Casualties and difficulties there? Answer: It is about putting pressure upon the Americans to let others ( Plates lickers) benefit from the Project. Some Kings wish that the Project fail, so that their Thrones gain more international Sympathy. Those who oppose the Stability in
I know that it doesn't make sense to lose Time in dealing with the Opposing Arguments to the Democracy in
1. What was the factual role of the opposing Powers to the invasion? Were they really sincere Friends of the massacred Iraqis? And why didn't they do anything on the Ground? They were (as far as I am informed) discussing marginal deals with the Americans, but the Bargains were not very promising.
2. Now, after the Invasion happened. What is next? Every normally thinking Person would say; let them form a Government. A Government has been democratically elected, and this should decide whether the Americans remain in
3. What if the Americans Leave
Given the Circumstances in Iraq, IF THE AMERICANS LEAVE IRAQ, before a strong Government anchor stabile and strong roots there, the right shi'ite Wing will be flow out of Control, and the Saudis (as they have already announced) will support the Sunnites against them. The Aftermath would be a sever Civic War.
Conclusion: The American Presence in
If ( and only if) the Americans establish a strong Government in Iraq, and the free and democratic Iraqi Government demand the Departure or evacuation of the American Troops there, and America Refuses to, we will join the Iraqi Government and resistance Forces in their Liberation Actions. But would the contemporarily open big Mouths appear in that hypnotized War of Dignity really? Surely not. For they would be afraid, that the Thrones could get lost