one more thing on singapore before I indulge on toher questions posed by you: Given that Lee Kuan Yew was quasi-authoritarian, when doing case studies, it is also very important to look at the numbers. For ONE success of an authoritarian rule, of which there are extremely few, how many more examples can you look at that has had similar, if not bette,r success through democracy? Given this fact, I still would bet my last dime on democracy than autocracy. Now, a brief note on Wilsonian idealism. Not only Wilson, ISO, I questioned and challenged hard the concepts of Monroe Doctrine (which can be considered a basis for Wilson's 14 points) as well when I was at an early stages of studying international affairs. Coming to study in the US from a third world country, carrying a jest of rebellious nationalism with me, I challenged hard the basis of US foreign policy, which I saw as neo-imperialism. I still do question US motives overseas -- you might have noticed my stance on Iraq and elsewhere -- and vehemently oppose some of Western policies around the world. However, there is a difference between what some of profound doctrines stand for, and what they are USED as. Therefore, I have come to realize that Monrovian/Wilsonian concepts, as it stands free and pure of US governments' motives, cannot be challenegd. At least in words they are so genuine and they are so powerfuly pertinent, that I would be axing the very chords of ideology that I believe in so dearly -- democracy and the freeedom -- if I began to question their very existence. On Banjul Declaration, well, I must admit no matter how much I learn, there are always surprises awaiting at every corner in terms of new things to learn. Thanks to you, I have now heard of Banjul, and I am studying the documents now. It's implications vis-a-vis subsistence rights vs. political rights are questions that cannot be answered easily. I have been formulating a theory in my mind, and will post a well-articulated response to you a bit later, perhaps after the weekend.