Aung San Suu Kyi's party won the majority seats in the Burmese Parliament

 General elections were held in Myanmar also considered as the most important event after a long decade, on 8 November 2015 Voting occurred in all constituencies, excluding seats appointed by the military, to select Members of Assembly to seats in both the upper house (the House of Nationalities) and the lower house (the House of Representatives) of the Assembly of the Union, and State and Region Hluttaws. Their designated electorates also elected ethnic affair ministers on the same day, although only select ethnic minorities in particular states and regions were entitled to vote for them.

These polls are the first openly contested election held in the country since 1990, which was annulled by the military government after the National League for Democracy's (NLD) victory. The poll was preceded by the 2010 General Election, which was marred by a widespread boycott and allegations of systematic fraud by the victorious Union Solidarity and Development Party.

       

The NLD won an absolute majority of seats in the combined national parliament needed to ensure its preferred nominees will be elected president and first vice president in the Presidential Electoral College. It also won majorities in each respective chamber of parliament, which give it the control over the bill passage and national legislation. While NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi is constitutionally barred from the presidency (as both her husband and her children are foreign citizens), she has let it be known that she will hold the real power in any NLD-led government.

The general election in Myanmar is applying with the normative theory where we explain the reality; predict the future and also what should be the best for the future. According to the United National on Human Rights, the human rights are a universal doctrine where everyone must obtain these rights. However, the Myanmar case is completely different and what the worldview as politics complexity. The election is already occurred and NLD won the majority vote. However, that doesn’t mean that Myanmar will transform to democracy state because USDP will remain the backup to control the NLD. The fact that the leader Aung San Suu Kyi cannot become a president due to her private background is contradicted to the constitution. This indicated the limited of human rights in the country. Before, the election, there is a civil war where the government confrontation and many people died over the flight again the government troops.  

However, Myanmar case can also viewed as pluralist support. There are some positive and negative in this theory. First, Myanmar is trying to transform itself in this early stage, which believe that the world is able to contain the positive change. The USPD is able to leave their seat peacefully. When we look back to the past, we could see that Myanmar got sanctions from the powerful states due to its political. Second, currently, they start changing, so this means that Myanmar doesn’t want to be isolated. They want to be interdependence with other states. As a weak state, interdependence helps a lot for Myanmar to develop its condition. By interdependence, state can see the high opportunity to make their economic growth and more alliance. Third, the flow in of international organizations in Myanmar is a positive way to help Myanmar improve it country, as non-state actors are also an important entitles.  On the other hand, the negative is pluralist might not be worked if there is no amendment of the constitution. Because this will limit the scope of Aung San Suu Kyi works that pressure her from moving forward. 

Russian Jet was shot by Turkish

Turkish warplanes have shot down a Russian military aircraft on the border with Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin said air-to-air missiles fired by Turkish F-16s while it was flying over Syrian territory hit the Su-24. But Turkish military officials said the plane was engaged after being warned that it was violating Turkish airspace. It is the first time a Russian aircraft has crashed in Syria since Moscow launched air strikes against opponents of President Bashar al-Assad in late September.

Vladimir Putin accuses Turkey of "stabbing Russia in the back", as Turkish official says Ankara believes two pilots are alive despite reports.

Erdogan says Turkey does not want escalation with Russia over downed plane, adding: "we are only defending out own security and the rights of our brothers".

He also said that parts of the downed plane landed inside Turkey, injuring two Turkish citizens.

Russia would be prepared to "create a joint staff" to fight the Islamic State (Isil) in which Moscow would work with France, the United States and even Turkey, the Russian ambassador to France said Wednesday.

"We are prepared to... plan strikes on Daesh (IS) positions together and create a joint staff with France, the US, with all the countries who want to be in this coalition," said Alexander Orlov," adding: "If the Turks want to be in at as well, they are welcome" despite tensions after Turkey downed a Russian military jet.

One of the two Russian pilots who ejected from a jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday has been picked up by the Syrian army and is being taken to Russia's base there, Russia's ambassador to France said on Wednesday.

"One on board was wounded when he parachuted down and killed in a savage way on the ground by the jihadists in the area and the other managed to escape and, according to the latest information, has been picked up by the Syrian army and should be going back to the Russian airforce base," ambassador Alexandre Orlov told Europe 1 radio. The other pilot was killed.

This is exactly the kind of incident that many have feared since Russia launched its air operations in Syria. The dangers of operating near to the Turkish border have been all too apparent. Turkish planes have already shot down at least one Syrian air force jet and possibly a helicopter as well.

Russia insists that its warplane did not violate Turkish air space.

The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.

Turkey's military said the fighter was shot down by two of its F-16s after it violated Turkish airspace. A number of accounts suggest the SU-24 was in Turkish territory for 17 seconds before it was attacked, crashing once it had crossed back into Syria.

In this current affair, Pluralist theory is applied. Turkey is a member of NATO, which considers an attack on one of its members to e an attack on them all.  Pluralist believes on the corporation among states and the value of non-state actor. Interdependence gives Turkey an alliance to talk with Russia. Meaning that if Russia does something wrong, they have to admit the fact and solve the problem. 

Current World Affairs 2015

One of the most important events that occurred during the last month is the ISIS attack in Paris and other countries in Europe. France had been on high alert for terrorism since the Charlie Hebdo shooting and a series of related attacks in January by militants belonging to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A series of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis, on the night of 13 November 2015. The attackers killed around 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan theatre, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Around 368 people were injured, 80–99 are in a serious situation.Seven of the attackers also died, while authorities continued to search for accomplices.

Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and a music venue in Paris. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying it was in retaliation for the French airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq. The President of France, François Hollande, said the attacks were an act of war by ISIL planned in Syria, organised in Belgium, and perpetrated with French complicity.

In response, a state of emergency was declared, and temporary border checks were introduced. On 15 November, France launched the biggest airstrike of Opération Chammal, its contribution to the anti-ISIL bombing campaign, striking ISIL targets in Al-Raqqah. On 18 November, the suspected lead operative of the attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was killed in a police raid in Saint-Denis, along with at least two other people.

France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks in Paris that killed 17 people, including civilians and police officers. The November attacks were the deadliest on France since World War II, and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.

The reason why this happened is link to previous war in Syria that the powerful states attack Syria to get rid of President Assad in order to get their oil resources. Then now it comes to the Paris attacks by ISIS while because those countries are attacking them first which make them attack back. The attack becomes a cycle among Middle East, Europe, Russia, and the U.S.

The realist theory is much more suitable in explaining this event because it viewed that the world is anarchy and there is no international world government to control the world. People are egoist; they don’t care about other as long as its benefit them. Especially, only the powerful states would able to survive. According to the ISIS case, it is a war between individuals and states. It won’t be possible for states to combat terrorists in the world, even though they try to kill ISIS. The fact, that those who family were killed by the powerful states will decide to be part of ISIS and revenge, so the war won’t end.

Follow the realist theory gives us the real pictures that those powerful states are selfish try to use their power to dominate the other weak states. For example, Russia is a back support of President Assad in term of military, weapons, economic, and other technology. Yet, Russia is fighting against ISIS. However, look at the U.S side, they are strongly against President Assad because Syria is not on the U.S side. Therefore, the concept of realist on the balance of power is workable in this event. Syria, in order to flight with the U.S, they have to back by Russia. Furthermore, for ISIS, they have a lot of support from major countries around the world in order to attack back with the powerful states. ISIS sells their oil in the lower price in the trade of money, weapons, and other military equipment.

This is really difficult for realist to believe in change as long as human nature is selfish, yet only war is permanent solution. How can the world combat the used of arm force? It is impossible. In contract, if pluralist is workable, the world won’t be anarchy. If interdependence tends to be effective, ISIS won’t occur. For example, the international governmental organization is served only the powerful states as they receive big support from them. Therefore, the world starts to bias. States won’t help any other states if they don’t earn any benefits back. We can see the operating among the British, French, American, and more corporate on the war in Syria because they will get back the oil another natural resources. Thus, states won’t corporate each other for peace but for benefits. Indeed, realist theory appears right for the powerful states while pluralist isn’t seem to be effective especially during the war time.  

The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World

It is a wish of almost every statesman, particularly realist proponents, to have an autarky state which it means sufficient and self-independent from external faceted factors including political and non-political forces such as energy security. But that’s a bit ideal since today’s borderless issues prove different. According to Keohane and Nye, one is living under the interdependent world where one tiny problem in one corner of the globe may affect states, groups and individuals from the other part of the world. Not only political issues that owe importance to states but non-military issues do have greater influence to human races, too. Thus, such proponent of liberal as Keohane and Nye have strongly advocated for greater cooperation and extending bigger agenda to not just talk about high politics but also including other issues in the table.

The same thing does apply to energy security. As Nivola and Carter have elaborated, energy is global issue and needed to be dealt by global cooperation. A state, even though they are powerful or powerless, they can hardly survive and without any impacts from fluctuation of global energy price or unsafely transportation of energy supply. A state may diversify their sources of energy supply for they can’t stay away from buying or selling world’s oil or petroleum. Opting-out from depending on global energy supply might not help to stabilize the price of energy supply. Rather it may hurt both local and international business. The reason is because of energy hunger countries are in the row to grasp those opportunity to buy; one state opt-out from buying does not make any different change. Hence, from liberal point of view autarky(ism) is not the solution. One is living in an interconnected world or worldwide web. Most of the issues are transcendence of states’ boundary and that they are required beyond states to solve them.

However, how can cooperation between states regarding energy issue be achieved? It is pretty good idea to tell states not to self-isolation and to begin a greater integrated action internationally but it is quite utopian. The problems arise: who to talk to: groups, states or IOs and in which format: bilateral or trilateral or multilateral? What if the agreement is reached who to overlook and take care this treaty? States will not have to comply for internationals agreements and treaties that are accomplished with no enforcement power. Of course, one can see that there are very interactive diplomatic relations between states and between states and IOs. But does that translate that states are cooperating for greater solution regarding issues such as energy security? Or do they just intervene to keep their status-quo regardless other small states’ interests? Very often, states, large and small, are adapting themselves to the given reality of unequal power in the world rather than cooperating. They know (and everybody knows) for sure that relying on external sources will place themselves in high risk and that states most often prefer a self-sufficient status, as realist always claimed. If states could find a way to sustainably create and use energy without any interruption at home, they will definitely do it although they may import some from outsiders because this is the way to put them in secure place.   

 Questions that have to be resolved by global leaders are:

1.     Can a state at all be an autarky?

2.     Is cooperation between states & states and states & IOs a consequence of liberals or realists?

3.     Do we have to think from a state-centrism perspective by not depending on others so that states can be secured or from multi-factors by relying both local and international to implement one another so that people will enjoy greater benefit?

4.     Isn’t it always about the interests’ calculation whether to stick with the groups or stay apart? If states found out they are losing lots of profits because of cooperating behaviors, they may seek ways to withdraw. (For example, the UK is going to review whether they should continue to stay in the EU).

Energy War: How far energy security is a security issue?

Energy security has been a topic debated since the last four decades ago. The reason was mainly because of protectionist policy from OPEC member states. The world, particularly the U.S., cannot freely determine the oil price anymore. The newly created organization called OPEC collectively decide among its member states how much to produce to keep the price as high profitable as possible. The West did not happy with such behavior like this and they tried to find other possible ways to keep the price stable and as cheap as possible. However, the new century has come many emerging countries are hunger for energy the same thing like the West. From this time on, they are competing for energy, especially gas and oil, for their fast growing industry. This competition is not always peaceful but rather very violent. Each major industrial state has tried to bring resource-rich countries under their own influence by supporting both civilian and military assistance. However, increasing this friendship and cooperation rather makes those oil-rich states corrupt, abusive, aggressive and violent. Nigeria is a striking example to prove this case. Assistance either from the West or Chinese government rather pushes these countries into deep crisis, abusive among citizen and rebel groups.

Violent conflicts between proponents and opponents of government arose ever since. The international community can’t do anything to help improve the situation in those oil-rich countries but they rather intervene to increase division local groups. After all there are endless wars and conflicts between different groups, races, faith, identify and status etc. This has created further insecurity and instability in those energy producers’ countries, especially in the Middle East and North Africa region. From this complicated problem, energy issues was politicized or militarized and became a major concern of every state especially major powers in the world.

After all oil-price inflation, insufficient oil supply, fast demand of energy from major industrial states, instability and risks that usually interrupt the smooth flow of global oil from country to country have constituted a wider concern among states. From now on, many questions pose to thinkers, academic scholars and states on whether how to manage and transport it safely and peacefully? How to sustain it or should there alternative ways to oil?     

Various answers are provided for these issues by different theorists. From realist point of view, it is a matter of power and hegemony. States may do whatever to achieve this end. And that energy is one source of in increasing greater state’s power. That’s why states are fighting for it even requiring to use war in some extent. It’s true as argued in the text, mostly states possessing veto power in the UNSC are competing with one another for energy resources. They often block one another when those initiatives or policies involving oil-rich countries such as Syria’s civil war or Iran’s nuclear crisis. Some state even uses energy as weapon to bargain for better price or solution. Russia, for example, has used repeatedly this tactic towards the European Union in order show its superior power in the region and to threaten its former Soviet states from staying out of its influence. China, another example, has drawn 9 dash map in the South China Sea to grasp all of those areas so that it could extract those national resources which will help its growing industry move forwards steadily. But this outlaw behavior created contentious conflicts among countries in the region. However, realists would say energy issue is one of the states’ survival and that states will deadly fight for it. From this very reason, one can say energy security deserves an agenda in high politics.

On the other hand, some would say energy issue is part of political economy. Energy is a powerful tool for enhancing political power of a state. Abusing it will destroy one’s own economy; managing it well will bring prosperity to that state. Confronting with the shortage of energy, states and thinkers are in big trouble to find an alternative, sufficient energy supply. But, of course, in this contemporary world no other energy source is more efficient than oil. Consequently, states are competing for it regardless of hard means. This has constituted even more essential study of energy security. Energy issue is more and more relevant to healthy of a state and the world as a whole. No one can ignore it anymore.

Few concerns have been raised in the following paragraph: 

Energy (petroleum) is, of course, an inelastic product. Everybody, especially the energy hungers or advanced industrialized countries often fight for it. They may not fall into war directly but they may use third states to fight for. As one can see in the text illustrated by the author, China and the US diplomatically armed the oil-rich nations which finally create separatist groups, coups, insurgents, transnational crime, and civil war inside the host country. Is energy a driven factor for arms race or kind of the energy-cold-war?

Yet, not all influences or engagement of major powers in those states is because of energy but few other reasons may also involve – extended their ideological camp, increase trades or promoting human rights/humanitarian intervention since they may perceive it as a threat to international peace. And that crisis happening in those oil-rich nations broke out not always by energy aggregation but probably poor governance, unworking institution or highly corrupted society etc.  It would mean the availability of energy may be tremendous, to some extent, and energy is not that big concern but rather building those states to be peaceful and stable maybe is. Energy supply might be enough for every user but because of wrong notion of energy such as energy shortage, it may wrongly encourage states maximize its energy reservoir and that it has led other to do the same thing. Isn’t it kind of energy-security dilemma?  

As mentioned in the text, there are growing researches on how to find the alternative ways of producing and supplying energy in an efficient manner. If they would have found it, wouldn’t there be no more energy security?

Contested Concepts of Energy Security

Security studies have been a subject of research academically not long ago and so far its definition is still very arbitrary. For its traditional aspects, security mainly of a state fell in between safety and threats – the ability to increase greater safety and minimize upcoming threats from internal and external. From this point of views, security studies tended to be matched with realist areas of specialists. However, in reality security is not just of a concern of the states but different levels ranging from state leaders, bureaucracy, and societal groups. Then security from this ground is not anymore a subject to threats, peace or military force, security studies in a growing sense and of many factors has moved away from its traditional definition. Security studies in this modern time largely focus not only on military power, proliferation of arms but also about diplomacy, crisis management, poverty, and energy and many other nonmilitary issues etc. Today’s issues are mostly borderless. It may pose harm to any states at its effect.

Throughout the history, security aspects departed from just covering power superiority and military capability to failure of controlling weapon of mass destruction, arms trafficking and side-effects of nuclear weapons etc. In a failed or weak state, weapon is not serving to stabilize the country but would rather destabilize since very weak central government could cause corruptive actions and numerous irregularities which allow arm smugglers to trade arms easily. Hence, security studies was seen to incorporate more and more emerging issues of this global world. Its coverage simply expanded with the time since the end of WWII and even multiply enlarged right after the end of the Cold War.

There are possibly few reasons why security studies have been enlarged over time. Access to issues by greater freed of data sharing, the end of bipolar world which often drew attention on ideologies versus reemerging of powerful states in the regions such as the EU, India, China and Russia etc., the openness of scholarly studies which has led to various publication of different books, articles about security, and last but not least the full coverage of mass media.

In brief, the article was trying to argue that security studies have been getting more and more attention from all sectors. One should not undermine security studies as not important, especially after the end of the Cold War where any thinkers were welcoming the peace-dividend – no more worries about military power and just take time to focus more on social and economic aspects. But not all, the worse and complicated violent conflicts happens in Rwanda, Sudan, former Yugoslavia, and in the Middle East remind that security studies not just simply important but seriously vital and they must take more comprehensive, more holistic approach and even longer term visionary than ever before.

I, personally, mostly agree with the literature so as security ties to almost all issues including politics, economic, domestic, international & regional community, ideologies, identity and last but not least the power of each and every individual’s mind. The security focused is widely depended on the circumstance, times and space it is facing. During volatile time, military powers gains much higher attention while in stable time nonmilitary issues take place instead. Hence, the study of security is still relevant through time. And in fact, in our current world there are inflations of security studies since the academic sphere enjoys much higher encouragement and support both financial and technical from the public. For some reason, security studies may even go ahead of time since thinkers could foresee the future with their warning-system.

Security studies is crucial for both academic and strategist nationalist, but studying security does not always contribute to peace and stability. Unless we have a clear fact and fixed issues then we can have a precise solution to preserving security of a state or nation. But we are doing security studies versus social facts, the facts that always change and update their apparent, size, impacts in every second. Can we say with a clear-cut this is a security concern and that is not? Security studies for some time might lead to biases and miscalculation. The war in Iraq in 2003, for example, was the outcome of wrong security studies. The U.S was very selective in choosing factors and hypotheses in order show that it was threated to peace and required a necessary move to do pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein government in 2003.

To a certain extent, security studies becomes a hostage of the strong and powerful states. Of course, security is completely relevant to all humans and states of all types. Security studies should serve general human race’s interests, not just a particular group or nation. Hence, security studies should be conducted inclusively from inter-disciplinary and approaches. Security subject and real world must be closely studied in order to produce a theoretical basis that is applicable for a practical one.

Finally, few qestions have been born in my head and I would love to post this for answner from the public:

Is security studies universal for everyone or it just existed from the mid-1970s onwards?

What are most important issues deserving a subject of today’s security studies?

What make security misconception? How to deal with it?

Energy Security: Total or Banal Security

Energy Security: Total or Banal Security

FELIX CIUTA

The author tries to invoke the discussion of energy as one of the security issues. Given the description, traditional debates or theories did not include energy in the agenda. The primarily focusing went to state, war and peace and other higher hierarchical topic other than energy. According to Ciuta, energy is everything and everything is inter-linked to energy. Without energy, things seem under insecurity – economic growth, societal prosperity and political power would be highly likely down. Thus, the totality of energy has potential impact on security of states and international. It thus says ‘energy’ security should be the subject of discussion among high politics.

The author even goes to stress that energy (as sometime called oil) as a weapon or a tool to ignite a conflictual war between groups or states. Moreover, as superpowers is hunger for natural resources yet natural resources are scarce fighting for it is very likely especially between those energy-hunger countries such as the US, China, India, Russia and many EU members. Through whatever mean, the energy supplier states (especially among OPEC) are confronting hard decision whether how much to produce and how much to set price in international market. On the other hand, to certain extend the logic of war in the Middle East and in Ukraine lately is the result of energy barging or exploitation. Interests of greater powers in the region pose tricky political situation. For sometimes, because energy is one key to prosperity and hegemony states tend to grasp the chance to take full control or dominate energy-rich countries or regions and this often result instability and fragile atmosphere.

Thus, the author comes to say energy security is the security of everything and everywhere. It covers from production to consumption and from social to economic and from a tiny to powerful states and from politics to war etc.

However, above argument does not sound in total at all. Energy is not everything and everything is not always about energy. Energy is just something. Because to say energy is everything, it may lead to the problem of all and none which can be easily attacked by the opponents. Although energy is applicably used for almost all areas and that everywhere needs energy, that does not necessary to be security of everything. Perhaps it would apply to oil or petroleum supply but this does not mean oil is the only source of energy. There are countless sources of energy and one renewable, long-term energy resources is solar power. One does not need to fight for solar energy, for example, since they could get it everywhere with friendly tools and reasonable price. War or violent conflicts would exist in consequence of the petroleum-energy bargaining since oil is non-renewable resource. Yet, there are different types of energy resources and that can be extracted from everywhere. To some extent, (oil) energy is a security issue for major industrial countries such as the U.S, the EU, China, Japan, Russia, and India and only them. Oil demand in a small state tends to be fairly equilibrium with the ability it can produce. Energy is not a big concern in Nordic countries or in North America (if the U.S begins to extract energy resources in their own territory).

Energy, thus, is an issue for healthy growth of the country. It may account for smooth growth of production, the more energy the better. However, it is not necessary that energy determines wholly survival of states and people. Of course, it is one small part of development of states, yet it is a secondary issue in international relations. In the coming years, the world probably finds an alternative ways of effectively less consuming of energy and that energy will never be a major concern anymore.

Personally, energy security means different things to different states and people. Also, its essentials owe to states that are advance and very heavily industrialized since any disruption could lose billions of dollars and may lead to global market failure. But it may owe much little to less developing ones. Energy is therefore security of part of states, part of people, part of place and part of time. Historically, energy was not a major issue in international relations and even during 1970s oil crisis was a major problem to the U.S and some of its allies. Very recently, energy is not the big problem or it might be due to war in the Middle East. However, contemporary violent conflicts are not just about energy alone but it’s about identity, democratic spring (Arab Spring) or nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran.

Given history of war, what kinds of war were waged for purposively for energy security?

To what extent one state achieves so call assurance of energy supplies given definition in the text? When until a state’s national economy to fully realize and function?
Is energy security is a primary or secondary issue?

Don't give me money!

Dear donors,
I am begging from you. We are facing a long range of shortage of foods, fresh water, fresh air and kind person. In contrast, we are facing the rapidly increasing of greedy, jealousy, betrayal, in-trusted and egoist person. Long time ago, there is no motorbike, car, phone, computer, TV, internet, facebook or iphone but we live our lives freely. We are not sure to say thanks to these modern, technological devices but we are sure one thing: at the same time of the introduction of your always updated materials in our community we found a lot of unhappy heads. Those who are unhappy are the groups who are able to access all new materials. They could never stop their demands now. They need to do every single or sometime unmoral job in order to keep themselves up to date with your up to date stuffs. Even worse than that they are teaching the new born generation to increase more like they have been doing. Our community is now facing big and fragile issues: unlimited demands versus limited supply. Imagine, if this story also is happening at the other sides of the world, what would happen to our planet earth? "A planet which only has enough resources for human being who has enough."

I just want to tell you one thing before I end my paper. Please don't try to help me by giving me all of those materials. We know you want us to test/experience your stuffs and when we cannot stop using it we will keeping buying from you and, of course, be one of your toys. We do never agree to let you driving our destiny at all. You can help us one thing, if you wish and we are really happy, by not own extra thing which you don't really necessarily need it. If you can do this I will have my own basic need and the other could also access to.
Oh, I forgot to tell you one thing about 'Happiness'. It is not a religious point of view but it is a noble truth. Happiness is not defined by your way possessing more possessives but rather goes in the opposite way. If you want to live your life happily, try to decrease your greedy, desire to as low as possible because when you are not increasing meaning to say you are put yours relax and free. When you are free, there you'll feel happiness.

Oh, also one another thing I forgot reveal to you all. Most people, if not all, accepted that 'the desire of wanting more' is human nature. Sadly, it is not. It is human new invention. It is what you have agreed with because you was born and raise in the materialist and capitalist world. You hardly find having Iphone, Laptop, internet, big Villa, luxury cars, wife and children as not good and more or less your willingly acceptance influence your children. Thus they would perceive things in this world the same thing as you have been doing. In fact, we were born with bare hand like a white blank paper. We was raised and taught by family, friends, neighbors, society, intra-society and intra-nationals. Human nature is not about having more but about how live life accordingly nature.

Totally, I would say human's life is like a para-bowl. Sometimes it goes up and another time down and then up and then down. Anybody knows why? Because when there is something wrong we got to learn and repair it until it is perfectly work. You know what, when everything is perfectly functioned human being starts to careless about life. Why they need to take of life since though they made mistake there will be no problems to them. Thus more and more reducing their morality until a very low degree then they start to realize that having violate moral principle decreasing life thus they begin to act in a certain way and they made it. This process regularly works which we can a cycle.

Politics Without Principle - Gandhi's 7 Socially Deadly Sins

A son born in Kampong Speu believes studying is the best source of knowledge to approach reality. Just as he turned six years old, he went for the studying. Days and nights have passed, finalizing one grade to another he moved upward. He once decided to become a Buddhist monk and sought the best of time and opportunity to study everything Lord Buddha has taught. At first, no one paid attention to him. His villagers and the public had suspicious mind if he could bring any significant success back home. Years later a little kid, which many did not believe he could not achieve anything, bring such an incredible trophy to his homeland and the entire nation. He was able to speak many languages; He could read, write, and translate Pali and Sangskrit into Khmer, and he could do many more. He was one of the influential monks in his time. He wrote many books, one of the most famous is Khmer Dictionary. Every Khmer must know him since his achievement to the nation is unforgettable, priceless gift. His name is Samdech Prah Maha Somethea Tibadhi Choun Nath សម្តេចព្រះមហាសុមេធាធិបតី ជួន ណាត គណមហានិកាយ (សុវណ្ណនិ ២០១២).

Many people questioned why he could turn from such hopeless and struggle situation into a possible one since he was in a poor family from a very remote rural? The confession to this question simply says that ‘guided principle is the timeless tool to realize any goal’. One unanimous quote once says ‘Committing to principle that has been set could even move the Mount Everest’.  

Just in the field of studying principles very much matter to walk the talk and everything, what about in the political sphere? Do they need also principles for political leaders? If leaders do not stick to any principles, what would his society and nation he is leading be like? Presumably, just as the successful life requires principles to overcome one’s own hindrances and to lifetime inspire in order to constantly move upward, one also needs principled-politicians in order to build a great, harmonious nation.

Why politics without principle matter is the topic the paper will have a strong focus on. As everyone has notice that when politicians indulge in power games, they tend act without principles and want to remain in power at all cost. They may bribe, manipulate or monopolize power to make sure that they are standstill in the top position. Such dirty politics happen, particularly in today’s world; everyone has witnessed this.

To get to know what politics with principle is, they must first know what politics without principles is. Just as a person of laziness, dull, sensual desire, ill will and doubt cannot succeed anything but leads him/herself towards unproductive life and upheaval politics without principle is identically the same thing. They play no rules, respect no regulations and abiding no guidance. They work not with the heart and head but only a body of emotion. They may not care of morality when conducting an activity. What this kind of people really focusing on is to increase wealth, authoritative power and alliance and that the mean to achieve all of these objectives is by ‘end determines means’, following an infamous wrote of Niccolo Machiavelli (Machiavelli 1532).

Such misconduct of a person (especially in position of authority) exercising wrongful duties can be called unprincipled worker because he or she fulfilling service without moral ethics, wisdom and social responsibility. In his interpretation that he claims it is one of the Seven Social Deadly Sins, Gandhi implies that the “Evil” of politics comes about because of the lack of ethics.

Who and what make individuals become less principle? Reiko Uchida says in her handbook ‘Path to World Peace’ through life of lecturing and experiencing across Japan and the world that each single individual were reflecting their parent’s state of mind. If they left home with anger, grievances and hatred, they would do the same everywhere latter in life. They hate others; they hit others and they increase hatred, after all. She continues to stress that because badness was taught at home then unprincipled personnel also began at home. However, because education starts in families peaceful and character education which contributes to a community of value, principle people or world peace also begins at home (Uchida 2010).

In fact, there are multiple causes to aggressiveness or unprincipled individuals (politicians). Some claim because of biological heritage, others believe it is because of death and life instinct, and to many they hold in frustration-aggression theory, conditioning, self-fulfilling prophecy, and maybe self-alienation (Barash 2002).

Authoritative personality might appear because of genetic heritage meaning to say from blood line. If their ancestors were violent minded people it is transferred to the generation that follows. It may true for some community regarding this case. The same thing happens to psychologist because of human fears of death and wants life, when surrounding environment is full of violence, conflict and fight they may seek to set prior-attack on others for their safety reason. For those who believe that anger and hatred come because of deprived society, they see that people have expectation from the wellbeing of society and when they do not meet their expectation, they started to feel excluded, out of the group, and were discriminated. What they can do is to form a state of mind of heartedness, aggressiveness and self-isolations.

In the teaching of Lord Buddha says the very source of any violence, aggressiveness, and anger are hatred, greed, aversion and delusion and that the root causes of unprincipled people is not anything else but these certain mental factors. Every activity is backed by one’s own intention. If an action is intended to bring harm to oneself, harm to others or harm to both oneself and others, the output of those intention will definitely bad and harmful. In contrast, if the intention behind the action is good then consequences of those activities are going to be completely good as well. Hence, to get rid of aggressiveness, greed and grievance is by purifying one’s own state of mind to a mental discipline.

In sum, politics without principles is something to do with decision-making or activities that are harmful to others. They could be using violence to gain power, control, wealth and popularity. The form of human rights violation may exist in the society where is there is unprincipled people or leaders.

Education without Character - Gandhi's 7 Social Deadly Sins

      I.        

In the world, most countries try to find the ways how to make their country peace. They always find differences ways to make their country peace and develop. Some countries tried to use violent to find peace some countries tried to use non-violent to make their countries peace. Those are the social work that they think about their countries, but for individual greedy, anger and delusion are the defilement that made people can do everything that they want to do. Nowadays, we have a lot of wises but we do not know how many those wises people save the world? How they use their knowledge to create the peace for the world?  

On October 22, 1925, Mahatma Gandhi listed Seven Deadly Social Sins that he considered to be most spiritually damaging to humanity. Sometimes, they eventually came to be known as the Seven Blunders of the world. His list is relevant for all times, but it is not original with him. It is at the core of many of the sorrows and sins of our time.  The Seven Social Sins are: Politic without principles, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Education without Character, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience and last is worship without sacrifice. We don’t rise up all the seven our group just take only the “Education without Character” to show in this report. Before we discuss about the quote we want to make some questions that related to it. Why Gandhi said, Education without Character can make social sin? What country become when we use this quote? How can we solve this problem if one country uses this word to control the country? Before we start we show some literature review to make this report effectively for reading.

Education is the most important for all human being that they really need it so much, but the ways of using their knowledge or education is extremely important for human being. We will give some meaning of education and character and then will show the meaning of “Education without Character”. Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world (Nelson Mandela). As our Buddha’s taught the wisdom is the weapon that can be cut all obstacles in life. But some persons that they educated and they try to use their education to destroy the world by using wrong ways, that is not the purpose of education. Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom (George Washington Carver).  Education is the movement from darkness to light (Allan Bloom). 

Education is simply the soul of society as it passes from one generation to another Gilbert K. Chesterton). All of these meaning that given by popular scholars in the world are very meaningful for all people that wish to learn to get the knowledge. I think that, the purposes of all quotes are good intention for using. But why some of people try to use their in the wrong ways? Character is the life of right conduct in relation to other persons and in relation to oneself (Aristotle). Character is a distinctive mark or sign, and individual pattern or behavior, and one’s moral constitution (Ryan and Bohlin, 1999).  Character is a tree and reputation is like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; and the tree is real thing (Abraham Lincoln). 

Character is both developed and revealed by test, and all of life is a test (Rich Warren). If we want to know clearly about man’s character, test it by associating with them. Character is for testing that someone has to consider ours. With our raised some quotes from scholars between Education and Character make us conclude that Education without Character is a person who has educated but do not use his/her knowledge or skills in the right ways. They try to use their knowledge to steal, to lie, to make weapon, and something else; especially they broke from five precepts.

    

The most of spiritual leaders like Buddhas, Dalai Lama, Samdech Chhun Nat, Abraham Lincoln, Samdech Maha Ghosananda and Mahatma Gandhi etc… They tried to make theories and teaching for human eliminates defilements like greedy, anger and delusion. The world has problems because some leaders have those three defilements like Khmer Rouge leaders, World War II and so on. In the comprehensive character education was addressed to many tough issues in education while developing positive in school climate. Character education it can be effective in any school setting, like Pannasastra University has the class of Education Character Building class to make the students clear about the moral of conduct. Education from this diverse array of school have transformed the school culture, reduced discipline referrals, increased academic achievement for all learners, developed global citizens, and improved job satisfaction and retention among teachers. 

One reaps what one sow (Buddha). It means, people have to know clear what they acted, it is their own. If we do bad the bad will come to, if we do good the good will come to. We have to do the good actions today, who know the death will come tomorrow? Won others, it is not name the win but your won yourself is better than win others. Character education includes and complements a broad range of educational approaches such as whole child education, service leaning, social-emotional learning and civic education. All share a commitment to helping young people become responsible, caring, and contributing citizens. It is good ways that teach young people by using the moral imagination, while we teach we should have to take examples with the most role models in the world that have been acted as a good character. This way can make them to imagine to become like them.  

Worship Without Sacrifice - Gandhi's 7 Social Deadly Sins

According to the general meaning and Mahatma Gandhi’s meaning of worship without sacrifice, we can realize that this sin is happening everywhere in the world due to unwilling or fake sacrifice in worship of humankind in society and religious services, for example, Today robbing others has become a tradition in the name of religion, social and political duties or family duties. All our ills are created by and continue through our ignorance, which is shaped in our educational, religious, political, social, and commercial institutions. While all other institutions, except religious institutions, do not claim to serve others but openly serve their own interest against the Law, religious institutions and teachers are often the greatest hypocrites for they claim to serve God and the creatures when they really are serving themselves, their own lust, greed, ego, pride, and vanity due to their total ignorance of God. Those are the problem in worship in present time.

Gandhi wanted people to be honest with their worship because he saw that a lot of threats to religion and society are not from the atheists but from the dogmatists. Lots of social insecurities come from dogmatists that have their own religions, but they do not follow their religious principles or they misunderstand. Gandhi was a religious man that advocated the concept of Ethical Religion, and he conducted religion in its original concept. He always walked his worship out. He believed that there is no Religion higher than Truth and Righteousness. Gandhi viewed life in the wholesome activities.

As we have known that worship without sacrifice is one in the list of the 7 deadly social sins thought by Mahatma Gandhi, and it is happening everywhere in the world due to unwholesome activities in worship of humankind. Stephen Covey in his book Principle Centered Leadership says about this sin, “Without sacrifice we may become active in the church but remain inactive in its gospel. In other words, we go for the social façade of religion and the piety of religious practices. There is no real walking with people or going the second mile or trying to deal with our social problems that may eventually undo our economic system. It takes sacrifice to serve the needs of other people – the sacrifice of our own pride and prejudice, among other things. 

Whether we like to believe in God or not, it is important and mandatory that we believe in morality, in nature, in ourselves, and in peace, love, and joy. No one will deny this even in their ignorance, and yet we are hardly taught this in churches, families, educational institutions, or social or cultural institutions. Religious organizations have become empires replacing old kingdoms according to their wealth, power and followings. God is subordinated to their religious leaders, whose pictures, statues, or glory is sung in delusion. Humility, love, and faith hardly exist in religious orders though outward pomp is everywhere. 

Worship is just like a principle. To obey a principle or rule, sometimes we have to make sacrifice aiming to fulfill one’s purpose or God’s purpose to bring harmony or seek the truth or else. That's what the natural man can do to takes self-control; it takes a mind that is on God, to worship God in an acceptable way, and that requires SACRIFICE. 

Worship is not just showing others what we do in appearance, nor merely about how many times a day we say our prayers or read our religious book or sing the songs, but in how we integrate the life of our religion, belief into our own and live out our lives on the streets, and in our homes, and in our workplaces, in our classrooms, in board rooms, and in our daily interaction with others. Like what Mahatma Gandhi once responded to Christian missionaries “When you stop standing on the street corners and merely talking about how good Christianity is and start living it among the “untouchables”, you will have more converts that you can cope with.” 

True religion is based on spirituality, love, compassion, understanding, and appreciation of each other whatever our beliefs may be — Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or whatever; therefore it is worthwhile to worship with sacrifice aiming to get good results. Gandhi believed whatever labels we put on our faith; ultimately all of us worship Truth because Truth is God. Superficially we may be very devout believers and make a tremendous public show of our worship, but if that belief, understanding, compassion, love and appreciation is not translated into our lives, prayers will have no meaning. True worship demands sacrifice not just in terms of the number of times a day we say our prayers but in how sincere we are in translating those prayers into life styles. There is infinite love, joy, and peace. There are sufficient material things, clothes, food, and shelter if we will stop misusing or overusing it out of our love for the body, flesh, wealth, and perishable objects. God has created everything sufficiently for all of us to meet our every need only if we learn to live, and thus worship, through sacrifice. 

Unfortunately, nowadays most people worship without sacrifice because they do not understand or misunderstand the nature of worship. These would bring them to unpleasing situation or violence. As we can see some people don’t value God. People are forced to worship God. They worship God because everyone else does that. For example, in Cambodia, many young people go to pagoda because their parents do that. Some people pretend to worship God because they want to take benefit from religion. The consequence of not obeying is not obvious in their concept. Of course, there is no legal punishment in society for worshipping without sacrifice, but a social sin, and it will be considered as sin as religion too and people will receive spiritual punishment according to each religion. 

If we choose to worship, worship with sacrifice, sacrifice of love and selfless services.