"International Politics" as a concept is always interesting, polemical, ironic and hypocritical. It is also self serving.

China, Russia, America and other countries can have nuclear weapons, but North Korea cannot. I really don't understand the logic behind that concept. I do of course understand the fear.

Another strange situation is the recent Russian / Georgia conflict over South Ossetia. Just today at Jerusalem Post there was another article about the ongoing conflict. South Ossetia blast kills 7

• Tensions remain high in Georgia following the August war that erupted when Russia's military repelled a Georgian attack aimed to regain control over South Ossetia.

Wikipedia has this to say about South Ossetia

• The United Nations, European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Council of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and most other countries in the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia. However, the de facto republic governed by the secessionist government held a second independence referendum on 12 November 2006, after its first referendum in 1992 was not recognized by the international community as valid.

I wonder how many westerners oppose South Ossetian independence, which is to say, oppose Russian interference in the political problems of Georgia.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of those same people would support the independence of Tibet?

I'm sure there would be many logical reasons why one could oppose South Ossetian independence and yet support Tibetan Independence, but such a position surely is ironic, self serving or just plain hypocritical.

Anti-Communist (Chinese) sentiment would surely come into play in supporting Tibetan independence, and yet one must wonder why no-one came to the aid of Tibet at the time the Delai Lama fled. Surely that was the time to support Tibetan independence.

When I listen to or read various accusations made against the Communist Government of China, I can't help but wonder how it is that no one sees or knows that at the time of his escape from Tibet, the Delai Lama was an Autocrat / Theocrat / King and master of a feudal empire in which slavery was rife, and the wealth of the country was held in the hands of just a few.

Tibet is an ideological problem. But then, that is what international politics is all about.

It would be nice to think that governments the whole world over have as their first priority the peace, prosperity and security of not only their own people, but of every people on the earth.

In the end however, this cynic at least can only imagine that 'government' means nothing more than 'power for the few' at the expense of everyone else.

When we pontificate on an issue, do we ever look inside ourselves to see how hypocritical we are for not having taken the same stand in a similar but somewhat different circumstance?

Ideologues care for but one thing; the self esteem that is generated by adherence to an allegedly noble cause. In fact, they care nothing for anyone or anything but themselves.

 Wm. B. Fankboner  : The Failure of Civil Institutions

• Because we live in an age of scientific miracles and technological breakthrough, utopia always seems just around the corner. In an age of scientific enlightenment it is easy to forget that, despite his technological wizardry, man is essentially the same depraved animal he has always been, and that these wonders can be quickly transformed into nightmares of a magnitude undreamt of.

R.P.BenDedek

Emailrpbendedek@hotmail.com

BenDedek Social Commentaries at Magic City

"The King's Calendar" is a chronological study of the historical books of the Bible (Kings and Chronicles), Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah, and the (Essene) Damascus Document of The Dead Sea Scrolls.