The first question that comes to mind is who is going to make that decision?
The "Bush Doctrine" precludes anyone from reaching military parity with the USA and thereby I think assumes that this country is now the predominate power of the world. So does that also assume that the USA should decide international boundaries? Are we to become the "police department?" I hear claims made all the time that we already are the police but I don't see that we police anything but our own interests.
Tribalism and ethnicity are very divisive forces, but when those forces battle within an "accepted" boundary they are not usually considered international problems. So to some degree we could argue that it is not human rights, or ethnicity that matters but Nationalism. The Bush Doctrine as it is being applied right now seems to suggest that certain states that foster "Terrorism" aimed against the interests of the USA need to be "democratized." It is not concerned with ethnicity, human rights, or a political agenda except in those places where the interests of the USA are involved.
I don't think tribalism or ethnicity should be the governing principal of nationalism. Nor for that matter do I think religion should be the guiding principle of Statehood. Some other legal structure needs to be imposed. Traditionally the founding "Patriarch", for want of a better word, has almost universally been the Law Giver. The person who sits down and codifies the rules.
Well that's a start anyway.
Ergo Sum
PS Sly has the right to free speech, in my opinion.
PPS I was reading this book on Roman Family life yesterday. A child in Rome was not born but was taken, raised up (Tollere). After birth it was laid on the ground and the decision was made as to who if any would take it up. If no one did it was left to die of exposure. Kind of like Moses I think.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
