On International Politics and World Peace

Back in the 90's when I was in school and the US imposed sanctions on India for its nuclear tests, we cried hypocrisy. How could the US punish India for building nuclear weapons when the US also stockpiles them? I've come a long way since then, but only after a lot of self-education, education which I unfortunately didn't receive in school. 

Self interest and game theory

The thing about international politics and diplomacy is, no political action is a result of principles, other than those associated with self-interest. This is a historical fact. Countries do not build alliances or rivalries based on principles, they do so based on what maximises their own self-interest. 

This can be modelled using game theory. Draw a checker box. Put one player on the x axis, and the other one on the y axis. On each player's axis, list the name of the interaction i.e. cooperating, trading, going to war, etc., with the the player. Now in each box on the checkerboard, enter the values of one players's action given the other players action. These could be positive, negative or zero values. For example, the value of player 1 going to war while player 2 is at peace might give player one a high payoff and player 2 a negative payoff. Whereas the payoff to the players if they both decide to trade with each other could result in each of them getting an even higher payoff compared to the payoff that one got by attacking the other. In this way, countries pick the box with the highest value for themselves. The cost-benefit equation is of course more complicated than this, as any political scientist or economist will tell you. Like a giant live chess board of life, each country has to look at the best way to maximise its own interests in real time. The main difference is that chess is a zero sum game, whereas in politics more than one country can win.

This is the real driver behind political policy and action. When you look at history afresh after having learned this, you find no reason to use infantile terms and phrases like "we're friends with this country", "these countries have always been friendly", "these countries are enemies", etc. Another thing you feel no need to do is to cry hypocrisy at the actions of other countries - "this country is being hypocritical". 

When the US imposes sanctions on other countries for conducting nuclear tests when they themselves own an arsenal of nuclear weapons, this might be technical hypocrisy, but that's missing the point. The US does it because it's in their interest to do so. When you have nuclear weapons, it makes sense to prevent countries that are not aligned to you from obtaining the same weapons. It's just good strategy. Countries are only allies because it's in their mutual benefit to be allies. Because it pays to be allies more than it does to be something else. Here's another example - when the US commits to religious tolerance but backs Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with military aid. This isn't hypocrisy in a political sense. You say what you need to for votes, to define your value system (all countries run on value systems) but your actions have to be concurrent with good strategy, with game theory. In the end, self-interest wins out. 

How countries evolved

If every country had to follow principle-based politics, the world would be a better place, as long as every country agreed to follow the same principles. But they don't. Countries that exist today didn't exist 10000 years ago. We started off as nomads and hunter gatherers. Over time, different groups of people came together because division of labour made sense. These different groups had different principles, but they all focused on maximising their payoffs, whatever they were. Groups with different resources decided to trade with others as they both needed resources that the other had. Some developed a trusting relationship based on reciprocal cooperation, they didn't need to safeguard themselves against each other militarily. 

But what if there's a change of leadership and policy? Now one civilisation grows stronger, and begins to conquer more land and people. The other civilisation has a choice, do they ignore the first one, join forces with it, let themselves be conquered and assimilated, or turn into conquerers themselves to avoid being taken over? Also, military might isn't the only tool to use in your defence. There's also religion, which makes cultural assimilation easier, and economic conquest, where countries subjugate each other economically. Trusting your neighbour explicitly means giving them a chance to exploit you, and you won't do that if you think there's a chance that they will. Replay this scene for different groups across thousands of years, and through numerous conflict and death, we have the world today, fragmented groups with different value systems and ideals, terrified of being exploited or losing out. Hence, there's not much trust.

Self interest and trust

Which is not to say that trust doesn't exist. It does, but it comes about when it's in the players' self interest. The US and Canada can have a porous border because there's very little risk of a war breaking out between them because they have been at peace for so long and have reached numerous lucrative trade agreements in the process. If this peace was broken by say, America invading Canada and taking even some of their land, it would hurt trade, and Canada might align itself with an enemy of USA. It pays to keep your neighbours as allies to act as buffers between your other enemies. What we call international trust is ultimately all about money and security. Self-interest wins.

Here's another example - the Nordic countries being at peace. Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway all have porous borders, as do other European countries. The likelihood of a country misusing this trust and upsetting the status quo is low because the consequences would be dire. Border security would be strengthened, relations would sour, money would be lost, everyone would suffer. The payoffs from committing such an action wouldn't justify the costs. This is why the Nordic countries are at peace. They weren't always at peace. A long time ago they were at each others throats. But back then, it paid to conquer and kill each other more than it did to trade and cooperate freely. This also explains why Russia recently annexed part of Ukraine. The payoff (in terms of access to resources and trade routes) exceeded the cost (meagre threats from NATO?). Self-interests wins.

The situation today

Look at the two major power blocks today - the US and China. It used to be the US and the USSR. Preceding World War 2, the US was just another country gaining affluence through trade and innovation. Following World War 2, it emerged as a dominant superpower and its alliances with a number of European partners was sealed. But competition emerged with the USSR, whose economic and social polices rivalled that of the US. Here we have a case where countries have an internal value system linked to their economic systems, so they become economic competitors to protect their social systems. The US was terrified of communism, and the USSR was intent on spreading it. So they both embarked on policies of expansion. The USSR annexed and funded countries that embraced communism, crushing any opposition. The US did the same, backing fascist murderous dictators worldwide as long as they rejected communism. The devastation this wrought was immense in terms of human life. But it was in both countries' interests not to stop their activities, because then the enemy would have an upper hand. 

You see this mirrored today with the US and China, with China funding infrastructure projects in a number of Asian and African countries in exchange for political support, while the US can only count on its bases like South Korea and Japan for leverage, in addition to NATO. China knows North Korea is a powder keg but continues to maintain friednyl relations with them because they can use North Korea as leverage against the US if they need to. It pays to keep them close as an ally. Which is why the US has a military presence in Taiwan and the Pacific. Self-interest always wins. 

You also see this mirrored today with nuclear weapons. No world leader truly believes that these weapons are good, but they can't help keeping an arsenal as long as their enemies have them too. It's only the smaller countries with no ambitions of power that don't need nuclear weapons, but they are either aligned to a power block (like Bhutan), or are not threatened by one (like Oman).

Books like Isaac Asimov's Foundation series really open your eyes to these sorts of situations and decisions. You begin to see beyond the values that you were raised on, the values that countries should be run on, and see the world for what it really is, a blank slate ready for exploitation by power-hungry people ready to exploit anything.

Which is not to say that values don't matter. Of course they do. But they keep changing, and we need to be mindful of this, and ensure they change in a way that's best for all of humanity (if we are to take a humanistic approach towards existence). The Mesopotamian civilisation used slavery because it made sense to do so, values be damned. This doesn't make it right, but it made economic sense at the time, and later for thousands for years, until we decided that slavery was wrong. This didn't happen overnight. It took time. it's the same for universal suffrage, or homosexuality. Values change. But change takes time.

Attaining world peace

So how do you reduce international conflict and attain world peace? Again, you can use game theory to figure this out. Prevent countries from warring with each other by making it too costly (relatively speaking) to do so. People will always strive for power and self-interest. You can't take this urge away. You can only develop a political ecosystem in which acting upon the urge is too costly given more attractive alternatives. An ecosystem is which countries are incentivised to trade and cooperate peacefully with each other.

One way to do this is to build trust between all the different countries that currently exist. One way to do this is by removing any perceived threat between two countries and increasing trade opportunities. And you do this by economically developing every country equally. Remove economic gaps, invest in education and healthcare, make all countries economically powerful so they can serve as trading partners with each other. This serves as a status quo, a deterrent to attacking each other. Over time, this becomes trust. 

Of course, this should work better if the countries have similar value systems, as differing value systems pose a threat. For example, the world's number one economy - China - is communist, while the US-NATO power block isn't. Both blocks trade profitably with each other, but mistrust exists. A common value system would probably remove this. Remember that power blocks are only formed as reactions against perceived threats from other blocks. The other way to attain world peace is of course to ensure that there is only one power block in existence - yours.

p.s.

This Crash Course World History series is extremely informative w.r.t observing patterns in group behaviour across human history. By watching a concise approximation of human cooperation and conflict across time, you begin to observe patterns in group behaviour. Watch if you have 20 hours to spare. 

World history Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9

World history Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNjasccl-WajpONGX3zoY4M

On International Politics and World Peace

Christopher Hitchens & Shashi Tharoor on Freedom of Speech, Plus my Views

An interesting discussion between Christopher Hitchens & Shashi Tharoor on freedom of expression. I'd say Tharoor wins the 'debate' on technical grounds, though for the most part they seem to be talking at cross purposes.


Hitchens especially seems intent on taking a hardline view on being intolerant towards people who are intolerant towards people like him. Tharoor, while agreeing with Hitchens for most of the time, looks at a more pragmatic means to get along with everyone.

In some ways, the discussion above is pointless, because there are only so many matter-of-fact options available to a person involved in a making a decision that might result in people being offended and violence being incited (i.e if you want to look at things purely from a practical perspective). 


On philosophical grounds, and as far as legal premises are concerned, there probably is no divergence between the views of the 2 men above. They actually agree on on the fact that freedom of expression shouldn't be curtailed, which is why this isn't much of a debate to begin with, only a space for 2 people to air their own angles on situations arising from freedom of expression. 


Tharoor, the diplomat, focuses on avoiding conflict within a conflicted society prone to violence, while Hitchens the writer, who has no one to fear or nothing to lose, obviously takes a hardline approach to extremists, expressing outrage at people who are intolerant and advocating a no-backing-down approach, independent of context, and calling out the religious for the hypocrites they are.


There are actually a couple of points during the discussion where you can see Tharoor saying things that you know Hitchens isn't going to like, and you know he's going to respond negatively, even though Tharoor's points, and his own rebuttals, aren't really relevant to the issue at hand to begin with.


I've already made my own views on the subject clear, and agree with both of the men above. A true democracy is one where fairness prevails, and who's citizens are treated like adults, not children. A true democracy provides an environment where everyone has the freedom to express their own views, through physically harmless speech or actions, without fear of prosecution, no matter how offensive they may be to the rest of the populace, even the majority.


Take the case of flag burning for example.


A large number of Indians, even so called 'well-to-do', 'educated', 'progressive', 'modern' Indians, will tell you that this government is justified in banning the burning of the country's national flag. Yup. A blanket ban. Just like that. Free of context. That's how ignorant and backward some people are.


Others will tell you that it's O.K to burn your national flag if your intention is Just. Yup. As if they have right to permit or forbid you from such an action, pending their assessment of your intent, or an assessment of your intent by a judge or judges. Ludicrous. Where do people get such fascist arrogance from?


The fact is, it's O.K to burn your county's national flag, just for fun. It's O.K to destroy a symbol of your country that people take great pride in, just for fun, and it's O.K to piss on that symbol, just for fun. Why? Because it's your life, and no one has a right to stop you from doing what you want with it, and doing what you want with your property, no matter your intentions, no matter how offensive your thoughts, words, or actions seem to them. Of course they can question your intentions, and of course they can be disgusted at what you do. But they can't stop you. That's the whole point of democracy.


The respect that you have for another person's right of expression, no matter how offensive it is to you, is what defines you as a civilized member of society. Anything less is fascism, plain and simple.

Christopher Hitchens & Shashi Tharoor on Freedom of Speech, Plus my Views

Funny Observation in Google Reader

This Google Reader screen shot that I took yesterday might tell more than it intends to.

Funny Observation in Google Reader

Jaywatching

Watched Christiane Amanpour on The Tonight Show last night. Noted that she made some interesting observations. When asked by host Jay Leno to give the audience some perspective on the Mumbai terror attacks, she was able to concisely describe the historical Kashmir conflict and how alleged elements within Pakistan carried out the attack. I was pleasantly surprised when, in the same breath, she also quickly stated that it was wrong for Americans to think that the attacks were all about foreign targets as most of those killed were Indians.

Other interesting observations were about the security at the Taj not being adequate enough at the time of the attacks, her belief about terrorists hitting softer targets, that the U.S celebrations after Obama won were reminiscent of a foreign country having it's first ever democratic election, Hillary Clinton being an instantly recognisable star around the world, about the ebbs and flows of Iran's' President Ahmadinejad's popularity and the politics behind it, Iran's anger at being included in the Axis of Evil, and about Iran and the U.S possibly having a close relationship in 30 years.

But getting back to the Mumbai attack thing, I'm glad she made that statement. I've noticed that a lot of people who aren't familiar with the region and it's politics and those who depend on CNN for their coverage tend to emphasise more on the international aspect of the attack i.e the foreign targets, possibly because the western media tends to do so as well, sometimes to the extent that they believe the whole point of the attack was to target foreigners in Mumbai, which is inaccurate. They tend to ignore the fact that out of the 10 locations attacked, only 3 constituted cases where foreigners were segregated, and even there, more Indians were killed. True, foreigners being targetted is an important part and a unique characteristic of this particular attack, but just a part nonetheless and not the beginning and end of the attack. It would do well for the Americans and British to understand this, and their media needs to play a larger role in facilitating this.

On another note, I hope all Americans aren't as dumb as those who appear on the 'Battle of the Jaywalk Allstars'. I mean, if they are, I fear for their country. I saw this movie recently called Idiocracy, directed by Mike Judge, and it spooked me tremendously.

To movie starts with an explanation about how dumb people outbreed smart people in the U.S, resulting in a population of more dumb than smart people over time. We then see an Average Joe (Luke Wilson) taking part in an experiment where he's put into a time capsule to be woken up in a year. Something goes wrong, and he's woken up after 500 years, only to realise he's now the smartest man in the U.S, and its only saviour.

Jaywatching

Rally

The big non cooperation rally at the Gateway was yesterday. I was sick so couldn't make it. Watched it on T.V though, and am heartened to see that other Mumbaikars are also not going to take this lying down, that they've also had enough of this. Some interesting suggestions to come out of the rally were not paying taxes anymore until we're assured of security and having a dry day for politicians i.e one day with no security for them.

In other news, the Maharashtra CM has resigned and a replacement is being found. That's the third head to roll so far. The bad news is that they're saying his successor will probably be S.K. Shinde or N. Rane, both of whom are equally bad.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister A.K Antony has warned of possible air attacks.

Pakistan rejected India's offer to deport 20 most wanted criminals yesterday, saying they'd be tried in Pakistani courts if found, not exactly a surprising response. You do have your country's honour to uphold and can't give in to any neighbouring country's orders. But from India's perspective, it looks like just another Pakistani backtrack, after the cancellation of the ISI chief's visit earlier. When Foreign Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was asked about the refusal, his response was "Ha?What?" Truly a lesson in eloquence. This man is a joke and needs to be fired!

I was watching the press conference with Mukherjee and C. Rice yesterday. She chose to tread a careful line, making it clear that Pakistan had a major role to play (Oh really?!?) and saying in not so clear tones that India had to be careful about jumping the gun and inviting unintended consequences as the long term goal was to prevent terrorism in the first place and not just to respond to it. Mukherjee just seemed to splutter all through the conference, and like Condy, didn't answer any question directly.

Rally

Enough is Enough - What you can do

I’ve written this post keeping in mind the fact that there’s a lot of anger and helplessness going around following the attacks in Mumbai this week and we need a place to channel this. These are the actions I suggest.

Since my posts are usually read by an average of 2 people (including me), I’d like to say that if anyone stumbles upon this blog, please do whatever you can to bring these actions to reality :-) I’m certainly going to.

And if you need a reason for my blog’s poor readership, well, this blog was set up to cater to me and not an audience. I write for myself, to keep a log of my life. This is in fact, my last guard against Alzheimer’s :-)

Seriously though, here goes…I've split my actions up into three main responsibilities.

My Actions:

1. The Letter

Read the letter below, edit it if you wish, and send it to the editors of all Indian newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc. using both email and snail mail urging them to re print it in their publications, be they paper or online.

Also, as media houses have contacts in the highest places, ask them to forward this letter to as many people as they can, especially the ones with influence. Forward this letter to your friends and any contacts you may have in the govt. as well. Let’s start a movement.

You may copy and paste this in your emails and are free to edit this as much as you want. The only rights I retain are bragging ones - I was the first to write this. Well, actually, my letter is an amalgamation of my and other blogger's and friend's thoughts :-)

The Letter:

Subject: Enough is Enough

We, the citizens of India, demand the following from our leaders:

a. Accountability

Ø Immediate:

· We demand to know how the attacks in Mumbai were allowed to happen. Wasn’t security strengthened after 7/11? Where was security at C.S.T?

· Where was the intelligence gathering network? Why didn’t they spot an operation this huge? Why weren’t any of the terrorist’s cell conversations tapped? What use is all the cellular and satellite technology we boast of if we can’t use it appropriately?

To quote Vir Sanghvi:

…it is utterly and completely bizarre that while we whine about the Home Ministry, the intelligence establishment gets off scot-free even as Indians are murdered on the streets.
It is impossible for the police to guard every building or check every passenger. All over the world, terrorism is fought through intelligence. A good security service penetrates terrorist cells, monitors radio traffic and picks up intelligence about terrorist activity.
The Bombay attacks prove that we have the worst intelligence service of any major power in the world. These attacks were meticulously planned, involved two dozen attackers, many more terrorists in back-up roles, vast quantities of arms and ammunition and, probably, crores in funding.
Yet, our intelligence services had no idea that such an attack was being planned. Clearly, intelligence is the last quality that we should associate with our spymasters.

· Why didn’t Mumbai have any commandos of it’s own to deal with the attacks?

· We demand that inquiries be launched against incompetence across the board. The ministers and babus found guilty get sacked, tried in court, sent to jail and have ALL their assets confiscated.

Ø Long Term

· We demand the withdrawal of all perks given to the bureaucracy and political class. Take away all the free stuff like phones, cars, flights, houses, etc. and let them live on fixed salaries to see how the common man lives, with car payments, EMI’s, phone bills, house rents, water bills, electricity bills, no free lunches, and yes, private security bills as well, etc.

· We demand that a process be put in place that monitors the performance of all babu’s and ministers, much like PA’s in the corporate world. Those who don’t perform, get penalized (with their salaries taken back), sacked, and have inquiries launched against them, with jail terms to follow.

b. Leadership

· We demand that real leaders step forward to take charge of not just difficult situations like these but all political and administrative governance from now on - we’re sick and tired of being ruled by a bunch of nose digging, paan-chewing, tired, lazy, fat, oily, pot belied, squabbling, middle-aged men with poor priorities.

· We demand that our leaders put the interests of the nation first, instead of being swayed by diplomatic messages and delegates from the U.S or Pakistan after every attack. They have their own people’s interests in mind and we should have our’s.

· We demand that every leader be secular, and that fellow citizens reject any politician who spews religious or casteist undertones.

· We demand a comprehensive communal violence bill.

· We demand that fellow citizens vote for sensible candidates who are willing to put their differences aside, and even sacrifice their pride for the people of India. If there are no good candidates, vote not to vote.

c. Infrastructure

· We demand that the govt. increase the budget for public transport. We are tired of being packed like sardines in trains and buses in most metros. If there’s a cash shortfall, money for this should be taken from politician’s pockets and from fines levied on smoking, drunk driving, spitting, etc.

· We are not happy with Rs. 1000 fines. The minimum fine for smoking in public, drunk driving, spitting or littering should be 1 lakh.

· We are not happy with simple jail terms. There have been cases where thieves have been arrested and jailed for the same crime 20 times. This is disgusting, unacceptable and indicates a failure in judicial reform. If a person is found guilty of the same type of crime twice, give him a life term in jail where he’s forced to learn a skill, be productive, and contribute to the economy. It’s time for draconian measures.

· We demand that the central govt. diverts more funds to Mumbai, as Mumbai is the govt’s cash cow.

d. Security

· We demand that the security budget be increased and police reforms put in place. The security forces and police need better weapons, equipment and training to deal with attacks.

· We demand that the heads of security and intelligence forces are replaced and headed with intelligent people who can improve coordination and sharing intelligence information.

· We demand that our leaders have the guts to target terrorists, even if they’re hiding out in a neighbouring country. That’s what satellite imagery and missiles are for.

· We demand the presence of a rapid action security force like the NSG and Navy seals in every metro.

· We demand that every fascist extremist militant organisation in the country is crushed once and for all, no matter what religion or noble creed they represent.


Regards,

The people of India

2. Sensitivity while blogging

Please refer to Gaurav Mishra's post on how to blog and comment appropriately and intelligently.

3. General actions for citizens

• Be more aware of your surroundings - report any suspicious behaviour immediately to the police.
• Crush corruption everywhere.

If anyone has anything to add to the 3 areas, I'd be grateful.

Enough is Enough - What you can do

RR Patil Resigns

If it was Shivraj Patil, our not so venerable Central Home Minister who faced the music yesterday (and was replaced by Finance Minister Chidambaram, the PM in turn taking over the Finance portfolio), the second head on the chopping block seems to be our Dy CM, RR Patil, who apparently says he quit today on his own and without any pressure. That is to say, no pressure other than the 200 dead bodies piled up on his conscience.

For my part, I'm still piecing together a set of actions that will let me and other people know what exactly they can do to avoid attacks like these in the future and increase accountability. I'm disappointed in the total lack of leadership in this situation. There seems to be a collective feeling of anger and a sense of being let down by our elected representatives, yet not one of them has come forward to offer an outlet for this anger, to let us know what exactly we can do or what role we ordinary citizens can play to improve the present situation.

RR Patil Resigns

Home Minister Resigns

Right, first off, I'm glad that our Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, is gone. What I'm not glad about is that he's off the hook so easily. There has to be some kind of accountability measure in place to ensure that he's done justice to his time in office, which I seriously doubt he has, and if that's the case, to ensure that he cools his heels in jail for a while due to incompetence. The same goes for all the others down the line who've failed in their duty to the nation. They need to have their belongings confiscated and sold off to pay off part of the damages from the terrorist attack. Also, I'm not happy that he's being turned into a scapegoat. Fingers need to be pointed in many directions, but right now, he's the only one in the blame limelight.

I have also found this blog, written by someone directly affected by the attack. Makes for interesting reading. I've been glued to a lot of blogs over the past few days. Blogs like John P Matthew, Gauravonomics, Desi Pundit, Death Ends Fun, Mumbai MetBlogs, and India Uncut have all kept me informed and opinionated.

Home Minister Resigns

Terror Strike Update

As of now most of the anti terror operations seem to have come to a close and most hostages have been rescued. Rediff.com reports as of 10.17 P.M that the operations at Nariman House are over, with 5 hostages and 2 terrorists found dead. I'll bet that the Jewish hostages Israel were concerned about were among those 5. 15 policemen and 2 NSG personnel have lost their lives so far in operations across all sites, and fighting is still continuing at the Taj. The Trident has been freed, though the overall death toll has now risen to over 150.

The rescue efforts have not however prevented criticism (from Israel) and criticism about the Home Minister (from the U.S). The Home Minister seems to have also taken a well deserved beating on Rakesh Jhunjhunwalas's blog. I fail to understand a few things: One, how did just a handful of terrorists get into what were supposed to be well guarded locations. Where was security? Two, why are we so lax on terrorism. If the U.S can launch attacks on Pakistani soil, why can't we destroy terrorist camps in PoK? We're being ruled by a bunch of spineless politicians I'm afraid.

Terror Strike Update