It is not surprising that George Soros therefore opposes an administration that uses secrecy, firmly believes they are right, and works toward imperialistic ends. He got in trouble, btw, for denying he made the Nazi comparison in connection to Bush -- one must be careful with the so called "Godwin's Law." All the same, he's fighting the good fight, including putting his money where his mouth is and supporting his principles in nations struggling to adapt to open society ideals. Soros also notes that we need to reform international assistance so the targets have a bigger role in its distribution and to improve its administration.

Many are troubled that the so called neocon philosophy that appears to be driving this administration was not truly addressed during the election campaign. Some, however, suggest neocons (they are new, but it's debatable how conservative they are) really don't have much influence. On the other hand, I made some notes of Soros' discussion of the doctrine that leading neocons support.

Sure, no important administration officials there! Soros also notes the troubling nature of the "war" on terror and the path of our current foreign policy. Unfortuantely, it seems to follow the "victims turning perpetrators" principle, seen in part in those abused (abusers become role models of sort, and they grow up to become abusers). Also, he quotes Michael Howard's Foreign Affairs article on the term. See also, Philip B. Heyman's book, "Terror Freedom and Security: Winning Without War."

Soros has an internationalist vision in which the common interest is protected, not just the national interest. Multinational institutions (and blocks in the U.N.) are important to this vision. He notes that the ideal should be that sovereignty should lie in the people themselves, which is in theory the principle in this country. When a nation is not or is unable to protect the people's interest (as an aside, he has a chapter on the importance of national resources, including how they tend not to be fairly distributed, resulting in unrest), international action would be justified.

This is "The Responsibility to Protect." I would compare this to Article IV of our Constitution in which Congress has a role in protecting the republican nature of state governments and defend against domestic violence. It also, clearly, is addressed in the Declaration of Independence in which governments are created to secure the protection of the rights of the people, and they can be overturned (but not for mild or transient causes and by action of "the people" or those who clearly can be shown to be their representatives) once they fail to do so. [This document in fact arguably refutes Soros' "radical fallibility" principle in that it speaks of "self-evident truths." He owns up to this issue, in part suggesting neocons are inspired by it. He would put a caveat in about how things aren't so obvious.]

Soros quotes a document put out by the U.N. setting forth these principles, the various steps to be taken before military action, and the responsibilities of states that do take such action. The summary of the "right authority" to control such action is interesting given some discussions in the debate over the current war in Iraq. The authorities include the Security Council, General Assembly in Emergency Special Session under "Uniting for Peace" procedure, and regional or sub-regional organizations under Chapter VIII of UN Charter, subject to subsequent Security Council authorization.

This latter authority in quite arguably what happened in the NATO intervention in the Balkans. Suggestions this was a precedent for surpassing the UN in Iraq therefore are misleading. The statement of principles also notes that the Security Council should take into consideration that if it appears to ignore to react in "conscience-shocking situations crying for actions," concerned states might react, and the standing of the UN would drop in response.

George Soros argues that currently the misguided and misinformed policies of the Bush Administration is a sort of "bubble" that is ready to burst. Or, in his own words, he draws a "comparison between stock market bubbles and the -- let`s say, America getting off the rails under the Bush administration after the terrorist attack on September 11." [The opening quote along with this one came from a "Booknotes" interview linked with this page's title.] Thus, the name of his book is "The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power." True or not, it's a good book, quick reading, with a lot of interesting and challenging ideas. It has a few rough spots where his musings get us a bit off track, but on the whole, I'd found it rewarding reading.

* Irshad Manji's words in "The Trouble With Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" seems to match his vision: "Lord I love this society. I love that it seemed perpetually unfinished, the final answers not yet known -- if ever they would be. I loved that, in a world under constant renovation, the contributions of individuals mattered."