--- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > *The terms such as "China's interests" or "US > interests" could use some more critical analysis. Well yes, but as few nuclear weapons as possible and avoiding global recession for example is in general interest. > *I don't know either, but one problem with these > global institutions is that they are undemocratic. > What democracy and self-goverance exists today > exists on local and national levels, not in the UN, > WTO, IMF etc. UN, WTO, IMF and so on are run by mostly democraticly elected governments. With the exception of UN, these are organizations with very specific tasks. Pace George Soros, that WTO ignores labor or environmental standards is by design, and is not the problem. The problem is that there is no WTO equivalent in those other fields. That global trade rules leave a lot to desire is not in dispute, however it is unclear how handling trade treaties bilaterally would lead to fairer results. In general, if international institutions are bad, what exactly would be better? > The global order in which China is invited to > participate, and in which it participates if > anything more responsibly than the other great > powers, may be structurally corrupted. > Corruption is inevitable in any kind of organization and needs to be minimized. Corruption howerver is not a reason to prefer anarchy. And "more responsibly"? I guess you mean that the Chinese goverment doesn't usually take an active role in anything outside its borders, which is good considering that when they have done so the results are horrible. (North Korea, Tibet, Pakistan, Cambodia...) Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html