June 26, 2008 should be marked as a historic date for world peace and North Korea’s move to destroy the cooling tower of it’s main nuclear reactor in Yongbon should be truly momentous and eventful and the world should have a good cause for celebration, a very good one in fact.

It should be remembered that just about a couple of years ago, North Korea had exhibited enormous malice by testing a massive underground nuclear explosion, parading to the world how capable it is in igniting widespread nuclear strike. North Korea’s penchant to sow fear among it’s nearest neighbor was so rampant and notorious in the past years, its act of rocketing devious Tae Po Dong intercontinental missiles over Japan and towards the Pacific every now and then was simply atrocious and malevolent.

But now, North Korea has suddenly made a 360 degree turnaround by declaring so patently its intention to absolutely abandon it’s nuclear ambition on Thursday. Immediately after that, U.S. President George W. Bush had ordered the taking out of North Korea from the list of “rogue” states and allowed the instantaneous withdrawal of economic and trade sanctions against it. All’s well that ends well. And it sounds so much like a good fairytale ending — and I don’t mind this at all. Every development in favor of world peace and against nuclear proliferation is most welcome of all.

I’ve been too busy these days with classes opening very soon now and I’ve been serving our college in the enrolment processing.

But I was always deep into the news most of the time and wasn’t one to miss one eventful episode in American history and world history for that matter. Senator Barack Obama has finally garnered official nomination of the Democratic Party, after a very tedious and drawn-out race against early front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton.

It’s the closest primary race in decades and I have a feeling that it could be more memorable than the succeeding 2008 U.S. Presidential race that has just got started, whether or not Sen. Obama would win it against handsdown Republican candidate Senator John McCain.

The issue that is pressing now is whether Sen. Clinton would agree to become Sen. Obama’s running mate specially that the members of teh Democratic Party in America had become so divided that if the animosity amongst them would remain as heightened as it is right now, then their party should just forget about the White House come November.

By the way, there’s this Senator Obama picture that I had downloaded some months ago and had wanted to use it in one of my earlier postings but hadn’t been able for some reason. But now I am reminded about it and would definitely use it now. This picture shows Senator Obama and his wife, along with their daughter, standing before a crowd, waving and smiling so widely. I just thought then how perfect the picture could be if Sen. Obama would be the one to win the democratic primary as the joyous aura in that picture evokes great feeling of celebration and gloriousness, like it’s one moment in American history that should be captured and be told and retold for years and decades to come, like the hill scene in Iwojima or the Philadelphia declaration of independence.

That joyous moment could now be more glorious as Senator Barck Obama becomes the first African-American to become a presidential nominee, just about fifty years after the African-Americans have gained and were allowed civil rights in America. Truly historic and glorious.

THE SUPERDELEGATES— any of you who have been closely watching the rollercoaster of a Democratic Party primary elections have surely heard about them already. I for one hasn’t had heard of them except for now; despite that I have had great interest in U.S. pre-election contests for many years now.

Of course — contrary to the way they are termed — they aren’t newly-invented superheroes with flowing capes and glinting gloves fitted to their hands, but real people who are designated to hold distinguished positions in the Democratic Party organizations and has superior voting preferences in the primaries, that in the Democratic Party convention this coming August, they might just be the ones to put finality as to the person of the party standard bearer, whether Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton.

As of now, Sen. Obama had gained more pledge votes by performing well in a number of primaries and caucuses held earlier in the year, more than what Sen. Clinton had gained that right now, Sen. Obama merely needs 176 pledged votes in the remaining primaries for him to finally clinch the nomination.

But as of now, and despite the magic number 176 of Obama, the contest is still seen by many as tight and could still run wide open as the next state to vote, which is West Virginia, is expected to go largely in favor of Sen. Clinton.

The latest news is that Sen. Obama had finally overtaken Sen. Clinton in the number of superdelegates that are expected to vote in August. Observers have suggested that in order for Sen. Clinton to overturn the overall lead of Sen. Obama throughout the primaries, she needs to win big among the superdelegates in August. A slight margin of win for her among the superdelegates would not matter as much.

There were some early criticisms in fact about how the Democratic Party nomination system could become undemocratic in a certain way, where the superdelegates could decide to set aside the results of the primaries, after hundreds of thousands of Democratic Party members throughout America from East Coast to West Coast, have exerted efforts to voice out their nomination choices, only to be overturned by the superdelegates, who are party stalwarts designated to their position or stature merely because they are party officials and elected officials. They are called PLEO’s.

There is no stopping the superdelegates from going against the will of the majority or results of the numerous primaries; they could vote irrespective of the primary results, especially in a very tight contest like this. That, even if Sen. Obama garnered the most votes in the primaries, the superdelegates could still overturn this and push Sen. Clinton as the party standard bearer by largely voting for her. “So much for democracy”, I have heard one party member quipped over CNN.

So the race they say between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton would most possibly go down the wire, even towards August during the party convention where the superdelegates would finally vote, and this despite many observers had already advised Sen. Clinton to withdraw from the race as the lead of Sen. Obama in the primaries is nearly insurmountable, merely a mathematical possibility.

But because superdelegates could still matter in August, Sen. Clinton is pushing on.

It was a major news event on BBC last night when the three remaining U.S. presidential election hopefuls attended and participated in the Senate Committee Foreign Relations hearing on the war in Iraq, centering on the progress and status of the military campaign being waged by America over there.

Senator John McCain, the Republican’s official nominee courageously contended against any form of troops withdrawal, citing extreme sectarian tensions that could boil over towards a bloody civil war if America lets go of control over Iraq. A ‘precipitous withdrawal’, as they term it nowadays, by U.S. troops would endanger not only the Iraqis but also open up hazards for America.

Both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party maintained their call for gradual troops withdrawal despite the plea of Gen. David Petraius, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, to have a moratorium in troops withdrawal at the soonest time possible.

Senator Obama is batting for a form or level of “success” in the U.S. campaign in Iraq where troops withdrawal could be well justified but he and General Petraeus could not seem to agree on this.

Senator Clinton’s approval of the war in Iraq, when it was put for affirmation by U.S. President George W, Bush years ago, had become once ominous, thanks to Senator Obama’s rhetoric, and for that, she could possibly take a middle ground as to whether or not there should be troops reduction in the soonest possible time.

Of major note is the so-called recent “surge” in U.S. military operations where it is shown through recent data that the military campaign in Iraq had gained some progress as violence have abated somehow, as compared to last year. This is the “surge” that General Petraeus wants to sustain that he now calls for a temporary stop in troops withdrawal for the moment.

To be sure, if either of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton wins this November, he or she would be in direct confrontation with the present military officials handling Iraq where a McCain presidency would be in the opposite direction.

This now becomes a very grave concern for the U.S. electorate. A lot of Americans want the war in Iraq to end. But the generals want to pursue it to the very end, even if the end means 20 years or 50 years from now, even if everyone agrees that U.S. military resource, as well as the economic whole, is “finite” and not “infinite”. And somehow, John McCain makes sense when he says that a pullout now would throw Iraq into bloody disarray. And to complicate the matter, the Democrats may actually win the presidency.

To stay the course or not to stay the course?

This is one of the main questions that the American people have to consider in their decision as to the next president of America this coming November.

On the ballot sheet, it would be the simple question of whether to choose the Republican way or the Democratic way. But in the whole of things, the fate of the Iraq War as well as that of the Iraqi people (and global stability for that matter), becomes a very complicated question that no amount of hearings could resolve.

SO IT’S NOW A CERTAINTY—if the Democrat’s win the U.S. Presidential Election this coming November, it would be the downside for global economy as both Democratic Party nominee aspirants have voiced out their disillusionment with free trade. Some months ago, Barack Obama had to apologize publicly for announcing his intention of cutting back down or tightening trade stipulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) America it has with Canada, and thereon with it’s southern neighbor Mexico. While I thought that Mr. Obama was merely alone in this precept, I found out lately, while updating myself with the latest developments in the presidential race over there, that Ms. Hillary Clinton holds the same sentiment.

This becomes now a vital issue not merely in the coming polls in America, but subsequently throughout the four corners of the world, that if the Democrat’s win in November, the global thrust of freeing trade from tariff restrictions and other economic barriers would be broughgt back a great number of years, parlaying the substantial gains it had in the Doha Round.

Not that we could entirely blame Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton for their perspectives on free trade for America have been losing jobs and economic advantage over the recent years in very dramatic fashion, where every major American multinational have locations in China or elsewhere in Asia. And if the this trend goes on and on unabated, the U.S. economy would surely go towards a steep downward spiral, when in fact as of the present, a dragging slowdown is biting the economy over there like a giant leech that couldn’t be taken out even through the smartest financial surgery.

But are they doing the right thing?

It couldn’t be helped to assume that both Obama and Clinton is merely taking advantage of the gaining disillusionment of the Americans over the negative results of intense globalization and loosening of trade barriers to their country, losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands as every major American products is now either manufactured or assembled in China or Vietnam. And if they pander on this sentiments, their party would surely amassed most of the votes this coming November in a huge way, and along with the Americans well-rooted dissuasion with the Iraq War that President George W. Bush had started, one could say that the Democratic presidential nominee—either Obama or Clinton—has a monkey-wrench hold of the presidential victory later this year.

I have a feeling that despite the seemingly reasonable concerns of both Obama and Clinton on free trade, America may not really be able to untangle itself from the overly mature growth of liberalization of trade all over the world, where every nation today have already committed themselves towards free trade and free flow of goods and labor in the coming years or decades. At this point, not even America could hold it back or reverse the flood of global intention to make trade free and fair among every trading nation all over the world. It’s like perhaps Al Gore’s well-publicized intention to bring America towards the Kyoto Protocol and agreement to steep industrial gas reduction where for example that he had won the presidential election years ago and once he was already in the top position, he wouldn’t still be able to carry this intention anyway—at least not wholly as he had intended it—for such action would greatly bring damage to the American economy to the extent that a radical reduction in industrial fumes would mean stifling and paralyzing the U.S. economy. He wouldn’t have done it in the end.

And so as with the nascent Democrat’s battlecry of pulling America away from free trade and towards economic isolationism because the moment it disengages itself from the ever-persistent call for global trade liberalization, there might be disastrous economic impact on America where China becomes continually and slowly indestructible as an alternative trading partner, along with the European Union and countries in South America as well as ASEAN where the Philippines is a member. What America should better do in the process is not to dispel free trade entirely but find ways instead on how to buffer or adjust to an entirely new environment that global free trade connotes, like for example re-examining high labor cost in America and uncompetitive pricing of American manufacture.

America has to go with the flow of trade liberalization or be left behind. You might think that this could be the most incredible thing to happen to the biggest nation in the world, but you know, it could happen.

There’s violence in Tibet in most recent days and they are not merely trifling. In fact, deaths were reported in the capital city of Lhasa just about a week ago and just hours ago, the ceremonial lighting of the Olympic torch in Athens was so untowardly blighted by a man that had suddenly appeared with a banner in hand, seen on live TV worldwide, in protest of the recent violent crackdown of the Chinese government troops of protesters in Tibet. To be sure, the fast-approaching Summer Olympics in Beijing becomes now an all too ominous stage for Tibet protest and this has gotten the extreme ire of the Chinese government, especially China Premier Wen Jiabao.

Now, this latest spark of conflict in Central Asia had intuited a number of why’s and how’s in my mind. Such question as to why Tibet had gone into absolute territorial control of China and how a reasonably distinct nation—with an auspiciously unique culture and ways of life—becomes subject to the sovereignty of a neighbor country.

As a matter of fact, Tibet is one location that is wider than Western Europe and had in fact been once an empire by itself, encroaching towards India and western part of mainland China. In my mind, Tibet had always been a separate existence form China where Tibet is not China or China is not Tibet. It’s like Mongolia. Mongolia was never part of China even if for once it had ruled the whole of China thru the Manchu Dynasty.

Nepal and Bhutan are fully sovereign countries even though they are small in size and despite that they are similarly situated near China. Yet Tibet had been incorporated into the territorial delineation of China ever since troops from the People’s Liberation of China had marched into Lhasa in 1959, with guns and munnitions, starting an occupation that had seemingly ripened into full annexation when in 2007, the Dalai Lama himself—the spiritual and known leader-in-exile of Tibet—had publicly renounced his desire for a the grant of sovereignty to Tibet but merely greater autonomy in terms of cultural and religious practices. This renunciation had of course caused so much surprise and amazement from the international scene and many Tibetans in exile in many parts of the world had not taken such declaration with approval.

But perhaps, to fulfill the core Buddhist faith of peaceful means, the Dalai Lama had actually accepted China’s sovereignty over Tibet. Or perhaps, it might have been just a simple act of desperation on his part at that time.

Despite of that, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had most recently lambasted the Dalai Lama and accusing him of inciting the recent uprising and protest action in Lhasa, unduly sullying the spirit of the Summer Olympics that Beijing would host this coming August.

Now finally, one very interesting question is on why does China becomes so interested in a land that is almost bare such as Tibet, where arable lands are scarce and there are no known mineral deposit there like oil or gold?

This urgent desire for clasp in Tibet by China might be reasonably pointed out towards security concerns, where a disruptive Tibetan population, one that is hugely characterized by serfdom and almost nil economic activity, could pose numerous hazards to the integrity of the China sovereignty. But upon being aware that the relatively small Tibetan population could in no way harm the Chinese state, security reasons, as one main cause for annexation, could not thereon be fully justified.

So now there remains a hugely unresolved Tibetan question.