The learnability of states

Perhaps there is a useful concept around the 'learnability' of states. This refers per my thesis, to the ability of countries to 1.) come to terms with ground realities and not live in a state of wishful thinking 2.) recognize the legitimate (and perhaps not so legitimate) and persistent aspirations of groups of people and do something even if reluctantly, about it 3.) to correct the mainstream view of history regarding an event or events when the party line is wrong or distorted 3.) and to do this in a reasonable timeframe

The Irish 'troubles' are a classic example of lack of learning of a state. It took a huge amount of time (after the initial formation of the independent country of Ireland in the southern part ; a surprisingly forward-thinking decision for colonialist Great Britain) for the UK to come to terms with the conflict in northern Ireland and agree to the final solution that worked there. Simliarly, the Israeli state is learning at a glacial pace in the Palestinian conflict.

In India, the thinking on Kashmir. 60 years after independence, the discussion on Kashmir has pretty much not budged an inch - anything other than Kashmir as a integral part of India is not up for discussion. This is astounding given the dubious nature of the accession of Kashmir to India in the first place, and the incredible amount of conflict, displacement and death over the years. One would expect minimally some form of autonomy to be actively on the discussion agenda, but nope.
And going by this article, perhaps the conventional understanding on China and border issues with them, also needs a significant shift: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/night-of-november-19/729644/0

The relatively sudden shift of China towards capitalism and financial liberalization in India in the nineties are examples of good learning in states perhaps.

Kissinger jokes

Henry Kissinger's work has many examples of what decent people would find enormous inversions of justice. Like, for example, that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing an end to the Vietnam war, when he was in actuality responsible for things like the massive bombing of Cambodia as part of that war. Giving him the Nobel was appropriately labeled 'the death of satire' when it happened.

Chomsky is not usually given to humor, and one of the few examples I've seen is in relation to Kissinger, whose guts he really hates.  Debunking one of Kissinger's arguments where he says that that Western civilisation has a culture of 'toleration' (never mind a couple of World Wars and decades of colonial cruelty), Chomsky comments with an undertone of frustration and bitterness: "One can always count on K for some comic relief, though in reality, he is not alone" ( http://www.iran-bulletin.org/history/chomsky3.html)

And finally one from that fantastic commentator on US political affairs, Gary Trudeau author of the Doonesbury cartoons. In a series of strips, Kissinger is visiting faculty at a Washington DC university and leading a course while doing his stuff as Secretary of State. While he tries to use the seminar to talk about realpolitik and world domination and such, there are one or two idealists in the class who keep bringing up useless questions about truth, justice and the suffering of the common man. Finally Kissinger in frustration bursts out "Human rights! Human rights! I'm sick and tired of human rights!"

Touche. Sometimes I feel a similiar sentiment : "Climate change! Climate change! I'm sick and tired of climate change!"

For perhaps a more rounded portrayal of Kissinger, see the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger