Indian Foreign Policy

[Philip]

What BRICS represents is the repudiation of the sole-superpower rationale and Pax Americana that the US has tried to assert over the last two decades.It is in full retreat in the MEast,barring a few sparks of action,with the occasional pinprick bombing of ISIS . The BRICS nations by banding together and setting up their own bank,have abundantly made it clear that we live in a multi-polar world.The Greek crisis has also shown that Europe,like the vision of the prophet Daniel, has "feet of clay".
(Read Patrick Coburn's piece in the EU-Greece td.)

With both the US and Europe in retreat,the nations of Asia are bestirring themselves realising that their time has come.

BRICS and the SCO hold an opportunity for the Asian powers to resolve their differences amicably,by cooperating more on the eco front,where,making money by trade with each other brings rewards for all concerned. But until the aggro and mentality of the Chinese changes,India has to keep its powder dry. There are no illusions that by mere membership of BRICS or the SCO our differecnes are going to melt like Himalyan glaciers in the summer! Nevertheless,regardless of the differences that still exist between India,China,Pak,etc.,there is a coalescing of Asian powers on many fronts.Who would've thought it possible even 5 years ago that an Indian would head an international dev. bank headquartered in China!
We've even invited the PLAN to next year's Naval Review at Vizag,something unthinkable a few years ago.

China will ultimately realise that India is no pushover unlike the days when the UPA/Cong ruled,which took its eyes off the north.We have a new dispensation and enough education of the nation as to the grave threat posed by a Sino_Pak JV.The pieces on the chessboard are being moved very rapidly. If we keep our powder dry and continue our accelerated defence modernization coupled with a robust foreign policy,not one of eunuchs,China will realise at the end game,that it cannot win and settle for a draw and that it is better to cooperate with India,bury the hatchet and have us "p*ssing outside rather than inside ."

India has demonstrated its unique relationship with Russia enough by sending our Pres there at the V-Day celebs,and sending our marching contingent taking part as well. The suggestion that we snubbed Russia by Mr.Modi not being there is simply hilarious! We showed the West which asininely boycotted the event,forgetting that it was the Soviets with over 21million dead in WW2 who suffered most and stopped Hitler's conquest at Stalingrad and Moscow,capturing Berlin ending the European part of WW2.By this India has clearly spelt out that it has an independent for. policy under the new dispensation. Mr.Modi just visited Russia and is visiting it again in the annual meeting of the two countries in Nov. he has met Pres. Putin several times already at various forums. There is no need to "gild the lily"! If you want to understand the deep relationship on defence and security that exists,I suggest you read Dr.PIllai's excellent book on Brahmos.

[Viv S]

What BRICS represents is the repudiation of the sole-superpower rationale and Pax Americana that the US has tried to assert over the last two decades.It is in full retreat in the MEast,barring a few sparks of action,with the occasional pinprick bombing of ISIS . The BRICS nations by banding together and setting up their own bank,have abundantly made it clear that we live in a multi-polar world. The Greek crisis has also shown that Europe,like the vision of the prophet Daniel, has "feet of clay".
(Read Patrick Coburn's piece in the EU-Greece td.)

See now this is the sort of talk one is used hearing from Russian nationalists. It sounds jarring when it comes from an Indian because it espouses this kumbaya idea that, were it in the US' shoes, China would have been a lot more magnanimous towards the smaller nations of the world.

Fact is, the BRICS were supposed to be the emerging world's analogue to the G8. Having being expelled from the G8 (now G7), its not surprising that the Russians now take succour in the BRICS & SCO. Indians, in contrast, face no such dilemmas.

On economic & developmental matters we're more than happy to collaborate with China & Brazil (eg. WTO negotiations) without needing the BRICS forum for interaction. But when it comes to strategic issues, India's primary challenge comes from China not from the West.

With both the US and Europe in retreat,the nations of Asia are bestirring themselves realising that their time has come.

Yeah that's right. 'Their time has come', not 'our time has come'. Asians nations don't consist a single super-state, and at least the SE & East Asians are concerned about China not the US.

BRICS and the SCO hold an opportunity for the Asian powers to resolve their differences amicably,by cooperating more on the eco front,where,making money by trade with each other brings rewards for all concerned.

Because all that held India and Pakistan back from 'resolving their differences amicably' was the benevolent mediation of Father China and Mother Russia?

But until the aggro and mentality of the Chinese changes,India has to keep its powder dry. There are no illusions that by mere membership of BRICS or the SCO our differecnes are going to melt like Himalyan glaciers in the summer! Nevertheless,regardless of the differences that still exist between India,China,Pak,etc.,there is a coalescing of Asian powers on many fronts.

Well, I know of two Asian powers that have been coalescing against us for a long time. Only question is, how deeply will the third one join with them.

Who would've thought it possible even 5 years ago that an Indian would head an international dev. bank headquartered in China!
We've even invited the PLAN to next year's Naval Review at Vizag,something unthinkable a few years ago.

- Plenty of people thought that possible. At least the ones that didn't confuse an economic grouping with a geopolitical one.
- China was also invited to take in RIMPAC. No one is foolish enough to interpret that as an impending change in Asia's political equations.

India has demonstrated its unique relationship with Russia enough by sending our Pres there at the V-Day celebs,and sending our marching contingent taking part as well. The suggestion that we snubbed Russia by Mr.Modi not being there is simply hilarious!

I didn't say anything about India 'snubbing' Russia. That's entirely a product of your imagination. What I did imply was that that it was a glimpse into the future of the Indo-Russian relations versus Sino-Russian relations.

And significance of Modi's abstaining from the event was simple - we are not willing to even give the impression of siding with Russia against the West. China on the other hand, has no similar apprehensions.

We showed the West which asininely boycotted the event,forgetting that it was the Soviets with over 21million dead in WW2 who suffered most and stopped Hitler's conquest at Stalingrad and Moscow,capturing Berlin ending the European part of WW2.

1. Preceded by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

2. Succeeded by 45 years of ruthless domination over the countries of Eastern Europe.

[ShauryaT]

The Iran-US Nuclear deal and its promise to Iran, does it serve Indian interests or vice-versa? How? Also, does it not rattle anyone that India had NO role to play in this deal, with a country in our neighborhood. Points to our power projection capabilities or the lack thereof. We have to change this.

[JE Menon]

^^Boss, if this question was asked of China, it would be said that Beijing was "fighting with the shadow sword" or some shite like that...

When it comes to India of course, it is lack of our power projection capabilities. Frankly, if we can get an outcome like the opening up of access to Central Asia, the dilution of both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's relative weight in the region, and some prospects for business which is up for us to win or lose - without lifting a finger, then I'd say sit back and take the freebies. Of course, it comes with some negatives: Iran will start feeling "Persian" over time, i.e. imperial, because of the simple fact that they are the TFTAest of the lot in the area, but Turkey is right next door to sort those impulses out. The Pakisatan will be itching with jealousy of various sorts though.

[Philip]

It was the snubbing of Japan at Versailles and ignoring Italy's piece of the winning cake of WW1-when it was on the winning side,that helped sow the seeds of WW2. A similar hypocritical attitude of the West today against Russia and China over the UKR and forming military alliances clearly meant to encircle China is seeing both these countries getting closer in some manner.Both India and China sent their marching contingents to Russia's V-Day parade,hypocritically boycotted by the US/West. If that was not a demonstration that they are not obliged to the West in any way --at the very least,then I don't know what it is! It is only a fossilized Pax Americana mentality that would read it otherwise,as a gesture or reassurance to the US/West that we're not ganging up on it!

Western economic institutions have helped keep most of the developing world in a state of economic servility,forming rules that have helped mainly western interests and shred precious little with the have-nots ,hence the emergence of BRICS,etc. This is not the simplistic argument that all this is Russian propaganda but the reality that exists today.Why would India,Brazil and S.Africa join in ? None of these countries are in either Russian or Chinese thrall at all! Why is the EU and Germany of all countries are rushing towards BRICS?

http://sitsshow.blogspot.in/2015/03/eu- ... rance.html
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
EU Joins BRICS in Defiance of U.S. | France & Germany to join China-led $50bn infrastructure bank, along with Italy

The following 2 articles both discuss the recent developments in the restructuring of the world financial system; the BRICS Development Bank and the China led Infrastructure Bank.

The BRICS Bank Signals the End of the American Financial Empire and U.S. Dollar Hegemony
Posted: 21/07/2014 20:10 IST
Establishing the BRICS Bank is a momentous event
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-nasser ... verride=in

The July 2014 BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) Summit was a momentous event, more important than the World Cup that also took place in Brazil. The BRICS sealed the deal towards the creation of the BRICS development bank and a US$ 100 billion reserve fund, labelled a "Contingency Reserve Arrangement" that promises to help developing nations avoid "short-term liquidity pressures, promote further BRICS cooperation, strengthen the global financial safety net and complement existing international arrangements." The BRICS bank is expected to strengthen economic and financial relations and cooperation between the members of the BRICS group, promote mutual investments in addition to providing development funding in the BRICS group and in developing countries, with a likely focus on the African region. The BRICS bank will provide loans, guarantees, long-term credits and make equity investments. A major focus will be on infrastructure, aiming to address a yawning gap in infrastructure finance for the emerging economies. To illustrate, the ADB estimates that Asia will need some US$ 800bn a year of infrastructure investment between now and 2020 -- but, it lends only US$ 10bn a year for infrastructure. The MENA region countries face a similar infrastructure financing gap of some US$ 60bn per year, not to mention over US$1 trillion for reconstruction following wars and violence. Ironically the BRICS bank mission is similar to the original mission of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development alias the World Bank, but which went awry. As founders, the BRICS agreed at the Summit that the capital for the bank would be split equally among the five nations, giving equal voting power. The bank will have its headquarters in Shanghai, and the first president for the bank will come from India, while the board will mainly come from Brazil.

Shifting 'soft power' to the BRICS and emerging economies

The establishment of the BRICS bank marks the delayed shift of 'soft power' from the 'West', from the US and Europe to Asia and to emerging economies, confirming the shift in economic and financial weight. The centre of global economic and financial geography has been progressively shifting "East" for the past three decades, with the epicentre now lying East of Mumbai. Measured at PPP rates, China will have surpassed the US by 2017 as the world's largest economy, while India has already surpassed Japan to become the world's third largest economy. This tectonic shift in economic fortunes and transformation of the global economy is already evident in changed patterns of production, trade, investment and capital markets: emerging markets already account for 48% of world trade, with Asia's share alone at 31.5%. In line with positive growth prospects and higher returns to investment, some 52% of global FDI flows into emerging markets, with 30% into Asia. Non-OECD economies now account for 65% of energy markets, with demand from China dominant.

But global institutions have yet to reflect the economic and financial power of the BRICS. The shift in soft power will unfurl in three main developments over the coming decade: a change in the governance of the international monetary and financial architecture, the growth of 'Renminbisation' and the emergence of local currency markets in emerging economies.

Changing governance of international monetary and financial architecture

Today, the BRICS account for about 25% of global GDP, 35% of total international reserves (with China at over US$4 trillion), 25% of total land area and around 42% of the world's population. However, despite their economic weight, the BRICS have a major power gap in global economic governance. Their representation, voting power, participation in management and staff in the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO, and IFC) and others like the BIS, displays a major deficit of 'voice' and influence. The tectonic shift in world economic geography has not reflected itself in the governance and management, let alone the staff of IFIs. The BRICS and emerging countries do not set the agenda but they must bow to the diktats! Voting power at the IMF disproportionately favours the US 16.75%, Japan 6.23%, Germany, France and the UK votes add up to 14.39% compared to a total for the 11% for BRICS, of which China: 3.8%. Despite the BRICS endeavouring to increase their influence of global financial decision-making, the US and the Europeans have thwarted attempts at IFI reform. The IMF's voting reforms approved in 2010, ratified by more than three-quarters of the Fund's member governments are still missing ratification by the US. The new BRICS bank and international reserves facility are the first building block of a new international monetary and financial architecture with new institutions and greater 'voice' for the new economic and financial powers of the XXI century, with a focus on issues relevant to emerging economies. The next global agreement will be Shanghai I not Bretton Woods II.

Germany looking to join the BRICS
July 25, 2014
Financial analyst Jim Willie sensationally claims that Germany is preparing to ditch the unipolar system backed by NATO and the U.S. in favour of joining the BRICS nations, and that this is why the NSA was caught spying on Angela Merkel and other German leaders.[/quote]

[NRao]

NSA, very well may be.

But Germany and BRIC (not BRICS) has been in the rumor mill since late 2010. Very old stuffed news.

[Philip]

What about this? Not old or stuffed!

Tuesday, March 17, 2015
EU Joins BRICS in Defiance of U.S. | France & Germany to join China-led $50bn infrastructure bank, along with Italy

In June 2014 China proposed doubling the registered capital of the bank from $50 billion to $100 billion and invited India to participate in the founding of the bank.[15][16] On 24 October 2014, twenty-one countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the AIIB in Beijing, China: Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.[17] Indonesia's joining was slightly delayed due to their new presidential administration not being able to review the membership in time.[18] Indonesia signed the MOU on 25 November 2014.

The U.S. allegedly tried to keep Australia and South Korea from becoming prospective founding members, after they expressed an interest in it.[19] However, both Australia and South Korea applied to join the bank in March 2015.[20][21][22]

Hong Kong's Financial Secretary John Tsang announced in his budget speech in February 2015 that the territory would join the AIIB.[23] It did however not become one of the prospective founding members and negotiated as part of the Chinese delegation.

In early March 2015, the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that the UK had decided to apply to join the Bank, becoming the first major Western country to do so. The announcement was criticised by the U.S. Obama Administration. A US government official told Financial Times, "We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power." The official further stated that the British decision was taken after "no consultation with the US."[24] In response, the UK indicated that the subject had been discussed between Chancellor Osborne and US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew for several months preceding the decision. It was further stated that joining the bank as a founding member would allow the UK to influence the development of the institution. By encouraging Chinese investments in the next generations of nuclear power plants, Osborne announced that "the City of London would become the base for the first clearing house for the yuan outside Asia."[25]

Following the criticism, the White House National Security Council, in a statement to The Guardian, declared, "Our position on the AIIB remains clear and consistent. The United States and many major global economies all agree there is a pressing need to enhance infrastructure investment around the world. We believe any new multilateral institution should incorporate the high standards of the World Bank and the regional development banks. Based on many discussions, we have concerns about whether the AIIB will meet these high standards, particularly related to governance, and environmental and social safeguards … The international community has a stake in seeing the AIIB complement the existing architecture, and to work effectively alongside the World Bank and Asian Development Bank."[26]

Three other European states: Germany, France and Italy – followed the UK's decision to join the AIIB in March. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble stated, "We want to contribute our long-standing experience with international financial institutions to the creation of the new bank by setting high standards and helping the bank to get a high international reputation."[27] In March 2015, the South Korean Ministry of Strategy and Finance announced that it, too, is planning to join the AIIB, citing its potential in benefiting South Korean companies win deals in infrastructural projects as well expanding South Korea's influence in international banking as a founding member.[28] States could indicate their interest in becoming a Prospective Founding Member until 31 March 2015.

Negotiations took place in the framework of 5 Chief Negotiators Meetings (CNMs) which took place between November 2014 and May 2015. The Articles of Agreement, the legal framework of the proposed bank, were concluded in the fifth CNM. It was signed on 29 June 2015 by 50 of the named 57 prospective founding members in Beijing.

wik.

http://wn.com/brics_bank
Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz Hails New BRICS Bank Challenging U.S.-Dominated World Bank & IMF

[Neshant]

BRICS is a weak economic alliance mainly borne out of fear of the US & EU hegemony in global economic affairs.

The BRICS bank blunts the age old scheme of creating financial panics to impoverish nations which up till now has been successfully used on non-NATO states... with the IMF rolling in thereafter to buy up state assets on the cheap.

BRICS is not a military alliance like NATO so the comparison is apples to oranges.

I seriously doubt Germany would ever leave NATO with Russia "expanding" its borders.

[Philip]

BRICS is not as you rightly said a "mil alliance" against the West. But remember how a humble ECM (European Common Market) led to the formation of the EU and the Euro,a common currency.

Economics is the fundamental base for all human activity.The mediaeval slights of kings and emperors which led to wars,like WW1,led to the collapse of the western empires.WW! finished them off. What BRICS and the SCO could achieve,is not a mil alliance,but an accommodation of the security interests of the Indo-Asia-Pacific powers and region,whereby mutual eco interest prevent conflict within the region.This is exactly how Europe after WW2 stuck together to avoid the resurgence of nationalism reviving conflict. However,it was NATO and the West which engineered the break-up of Yugoslavia and the horrendous conflict in the Balkans out of Cold War spite,instigating the revival of ancient nationalist and ethnic divisions that Tito had melded together to expand the borders of NATO.

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=nato+e ... p4tL5_IMgk

Balkans: Staging Ground For NATO's Post-Cold War Order
Posted on February 25, 2009 by autor
Xcpt:
balkans2bThe world hasn’t begun to recover from the events of 1991, a true annus terribilis whose watershed nature was insufficiently appreciated at the time and has been practically ignored since.

The year initiated the first attempt in history to enforce worldwide military, political, economic and cultural unipolarity; the advent in earnest of neoliberalism with all the devastating economic and social consequences it has wrought since then; the genesis of US-led and Western-supported air, ground, counterinsurgency and proxy wars against defenseless targets from the Middle East to the Balkans, South Asia to Africa.

Helsinki Final Act of 1975, torn to shreds.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki) Final Act of August 1, 1975 states in its section on Inviolability of frontiers that:

“The participating States regard as inviolable all one another’s frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.

“Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State.”

In its statement on Territorial integrity of States the Final Act adds:

“The participating States will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating States.

“Accordingly, they will refrain from any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations against the territorial integrity, political independence or the unity of any participating State, and in particular from any such action constituting a threat or use of force.”

Strongly implicit in the above principles is the acknowledgment that national borders in Europe as decided upon at the 1945 Yalta and Potsdam conferences and confirmed in the United Nations at its founding in 1945, however imperfect in various respects, were inviolable and all the signatories to the Helsinki Final Act – including the US and all its NATO allies – committed themselves to the irrefragable territorial integrity of all European nations as constituted after the end of the world’s most deadly and devastating war, one caused by the last attempt to redraw borders in Europe and Asia.

There are now nineteen nations in Europe (including the South Caucasus) that could not be found on a map at the time of the Helsinki Final Act: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Germany (united), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine, and one aborted pseudo-state, Kosovo.

All but reunified Germany (itself only two years old at the time) didn’t exist until 1991 and many are nations that never were independent countries until that year.

[NRao]

What about this? Not old or stuffed!

Tuesday, March 17, 2015
EU Joins BRICS in Defiance of U.S. | France & Germany to join China-led $50bn infrastructure bank, along with Italy

What about it?

More FUD, as usual.

First of all they joined the AIIB, as far as I know it has to do with China and nothing with BRICS.

And if at all , even in BRICS, Russia has a secondary role, after China and india.

Nothing wrong in pumping Russia. But she really is a spent power trying to revive. China will never let her. Cannot happen.

And India cannot afford to either. Just the way this game is played. Nothing against anyone.

[NRao]

CIrbs.

What about this? Not old or stuffed!

Point being the news about Germany and BRIC is old. Nothing really has happened even if they wanted to join.

[Viv S]

A similar hypocritical attitude of the West today against Russia and China over the UKR and forming military alliances clearly meant to encircle China is seeing both these countries getting closer in some manner.

And any Russian nationalist worth his salt would be outraged. Aren't you Indian?

Both India and China sent their marching contingents to Russia's V-Day parade,hypocritically boycotted by the US/West. If that was not a demonstration that they are not obliged to the West in any way --at the very least,then I don't know what it is! It is only a fossilized Pax Americana mentality that would read it otherwise,as a gesture or reassurance to the US/West that we're not ganging up on it!

Here you back to your kumbaya idea of China and India marching hand-in-hand. An idea that would warm the cockles of Russian hearts everywhere ('down with decadent West!').

I'm sure you'll respond with a "but see once in a while, I say this-and-that on the threat from China", but no dice. Your concern about 'Pax Americana' and obvious pride in the Russia-China strategic partnership doesn't gel with India's security interests. Simply put, it reflects a Russian viewpoint.

Western economic institutions have helped keep most of the developing world in a state of economic servility,forming rules that have helped mainly western interests and shred precious little with the have-nots ,hence the emergence of BRICS,etc. This is not the simplistic argument that all this is Russian propaganda but the reality that exists today.Why would India,Brazil and S.Africa join in ?

Why shouldn't they join in? Its a forum for people to get together and talk. It doesn't change the geopolitical realities such as these -


China objects to India entry into Nuclear Suppliers Group - Jan 27, 2015

China links India's Nuclear Suppliers Group bid to Pakistan's - June 4, 2015

China cool on LAC clarification, wants border code of conduct - June 4, 2015

None of these countries are in either Russian or Chinese thrall at all! Why is the EU and Germany of all countries are rushing towards BRICS?

EU and Germany are on the path to membership join the BRICS huh?

[Viv S]

But Germany and BRIC (not BRICS) has been in the rumor mill since late 2010. Very old stuffed news.

Oh the whole German membership idea is utterly delusional. Especially since the BRICS for some is merely to a tool in their tussle with the EU & US.


Russia seeks to 'sow division in EU' by inviting Greece to BRICS bank

Russia has invited Greece to become the sixth member of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) in an attempt to sow further division between EU members as the country struggles to make its debt repayments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), say analysts.

The invitation to join the $100 billion (€89.6 billion) bank, set up last July to compete with the mainstream financial bodies of the IMF and the World Bank, was offered to the Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras yesterday by the Russian deputy finance minister Sergey Storchak in a telephone conversation.

The Syriza party, in a report published on its website, confirmed that Tsipras was interested in the offer and would consider it thoroughly before discussing the proposal at the 2015 International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg on 18th June, with the leaders of the BRICS bloc of emerging nations.

"The prime minister thanked Storchak and said he was pleasantly surprised by the invitation for Greece to be the sixth member of the BRICS Development Bank. Tsipras said Greece is interested in the offer, and promised to thoroughly examine it. He will have a chance to discuss the invitation with the other BRICS leader during the 2015 International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg," the report read.

Of course after the other BRICS members had a word, that invite was rescinded -

Russia hasn't offered Greece BRICS bank membership: finance minister


Now its just BRICS' money that's being offered to Greece, making it no better than the IMF -

Russia’s Deputy Finance Minister says Greece can easily receive financing from BRICS

Greece Can Easily Get Funding From BRICS Bank: Russia

[Philip]

Read this rather long piece about the Chinese drive to usurp the Indo-China Sea (SC Sea).
X-posted in full in the Intl.Naval td. Some interesting observations relevant to our debate.

What’s behind Beijing’s drive to control the South China Sea?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... sea-Hainan
Xcpt:

From declaring that it will not abide by any Unclos ruling against it, it would not be such a large step for China to depart from Unclos altogether – particularly since the US has never joined – and insist that its new positions in the South China Sea be given a wide berth by others, in the surrounding waters and in the skies overhead. Such a decision would be risky for China in terms of the image it would like to project as a peaceable and constructive rising power, but challenging it would be risky for others, not least the US.

On the eve of a recent tour of the region, where he attended an annual Asian security conference in Singapore, the US defence secretary Ashton Carter vowed to frustrate any Chinese efforts to limit the movements of American vessels in the South China Sea. “The United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world,” Carter declared in Pearl Harbor. And to this, he joined another vow. “We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come,” he said.

Unsurprisingly, in China, people have begun to take a different view of the future. “In 10 years, our GDP will be bigger than the US, in 20 years our military spending will be equal to the US,” said Shen Dingli, one of China’s most prominent international relations scholars, who I met in Washington. “Thirty to 40 years from now, our armed forces will be better than the US. Why would the US defend those rocks? When you have power, the world has to accept. The US is a superpower today, and it can do whatever it wants. When China is a superpower, the world will also have to accept.”

[Aditya_V]

Nothing wrong in that report, have military power, i.e best weapons with a motivated miltary, only then you can grow economically too.

Diplomacy is nothing unless it is underlined by economic and miltary power. That is why our media is paid soo much to disrespect and demoralise our military.

[Paul]

China is the Germany of the 21st century!

[Yagnasri]

China is the Germany of the 21st century!

Hope we are not going to be French of 21st Century.

[Paul]

Could be worse, wanna try Poland or Czechoslovakia?

[nandakumar]

NSA, very well may be.

But Germany and BRIC (not BRICS) has been in the rumor mill since late 2010. Very old stuffed news.

It is BRICS. The S stands for South Africa.

[Shreeman]

The passing of a different kind of dear leader has gone as-good-as unreported by the whorld mhedia. And that is just plain wrong. And its a shining example of non-existent foreign policy/strengths/influence.

[Philip]

A few western papers have mentioned it,but the propaganda channels like the "Beeb" have scarcely reported it.

Maj.Gen.Bakshi has written an excellent piece in a recent IMR on our foreign policy from the strategic viewpoint. He traces the CWar history when the West denied us everything,so Russia stepped in,starting with the MIG-21s. The US is now waiting for its own "MIG moment"! The problem he says is that on both sides there is mistrust and the US still denies us "everything" unlike the Russians,dependable friends,even now ,the only ones willing to give us N-subs,etc

Western/US policies are driving Russia and China together.He says that India must not get trapped in a "worst case" scenario,joining a US led mil. alliance where we will face a joint Russia-China-Pak front.
The problem with Indo-US relations is that they will never sacrifice their relationship with Pak,continuing to provide it with arms and aid to be used against India (India has just protested to the US about recent arms sales). The US also wants us primarily to be an anti-China mil. force,looking after its own interests,not that of India's.

Therefore ,in his assessment,we should aim to strengthen a multi-polar world,not a dual-superpower world where the US aims to strike a deal with China. In this multi-polar world,India should be a strong force of its own,where it can choose its friends depending upon the circumstances,keeping tis options open.

PS:Read Kaplan's "Monsoon",which looks at the IOR and Indo-China Sea primarily and myopically from a US perspective.He has these stunning conclusions,that India/IPKF failed to defat the LTTE in Lanka,when actually we marginalised it to such an extent that elections were held in the NEast,and a pro-Indian CM was elected. It was VP Singh who called back the IPKF before the political job was completed. In the book,there are several references to China's maritime history,which claimed that it ruled over Lanka for a short time,(which even the Lankans have forgotten!),the Chinese in Gujarat,and many other pro-Chinese viewpoints,completely ignoring the ancient ties of India to the whole ASEAN region,China and Japan,where even the region encompassing Vietnam,Laos,Cambodia,etc. is called "Indo-China"! Why I maintain that the so-called "South China Sea" be rightfully called by Indians as the "Indo-China Sea".In his maps,he has also forgotten Lakshadweep,relegated to just a few tiny dots in the ocean,though the A&N islands are mentioned.

How Kaplan can ignore Bali,Borubdur,Angkor Wat,to name just a few of the world's greatest archaeo- sites,resplendent of Hinduism,Buddhism,which originated in India and the spread of Indian religions and culture into the ASEAN region and the Far East ,demonstrates his biased and slanted attitude towards India.In fact,it is the US's great envy of India,possessing an ancient history and culture spanning over ten thousand years that dwarfs its own,just a couple of hundreds (if you forget about the native American "Indians"),the fact that we're also the world's largest democracy,that makes the US fear India. Fear of its religious heritage,its moral stature,its democracy,its human resources,knowledge power,and finally eco-military capability,which threatens in the long run to surpass it ,makes it seek out alliances and deals with nations like Pak and China,encourging nations to remain inimical of each other,with the sole purpose of perpetuating its global eco- and mil. dominance. The global shift away from the US/Western scheme of things has begun.BRICS is the first step in the drifting away of the West by the nations of the East and developing world.

As S.Gurumurthy in his tribute to APJAK (in the same td.) has said,the West only respects "power".Eco success without mil. power is an invitation to invade.Invasions today can be both through cyberspace (economic slavery to Western financial institutions) and physical (Chinese agro in Ar.Pr.). Indian foreign policy should be like a double-edged sword,or a cojn with two sides. Strong economically and strong militarily. Moreover,India foreign policy should be fearless and forthright.No genuflecting and prostrating before certain powers as we've slavishly done even after Independence.A pro-active foreign policy that keeps Indian interests first,second and last is the need for the nation in the 21st century,if we are to survive as an independent ,sovereign nation.

[Paul]

IFS sour grapes on Doval

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150729/j ... bj8lfmqqkp

Dangerous shortcoming

- None of Modi's advisers on Pakistan is competent enough
Diplomacy - K.P. Nayar

The lesson from Gurdaspur is that a comprehensive review of the Narendra Modi government's Pakistan policy involving the broadest possible consultations can no longer be put off. The aim of such consultations should be to reach a national consensus on dealing with Pakistan: in broad terms, such a consensus existed until not very long ago. A starting point for any such review ought to focus on the Ufa meeting between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan earlier this month.

Why did the meeting between Modi and Nawaz Sharif on July 10 raise expectations sky high, only to degenerate into a farce even before Modi returned home from that meeting? The answer is plain as day to practitioners of foreign policy who understand Pakistan. Unfortunately, in the present environment in New Delhi, those in government who could have predicted the descent from the euphoric heights of Ufa to the anger and frustration in Gurdaspur will not speak up.

They will not speak up because the fundamental flaw in contemporary dealings with Pakistan is in the composition of Modi's administration itself. And it is beyond the pay grade of those who can administer correctives to point out this fatal flaw although it is serious enough to constitute a threat to the nation's security and well-being. It is not as if the previous United Progressive Alliance government did appreciably better in dealing with Pakistan - especially in its second five-year term in power. But the UPA was able to 'manage' relations with Pakistan: there were no memorable successes, but the Manmohan Singh government did not go to war. Nor did it lower India-Pakistan relations to its nadir.



The reason why Singh was able to manage relations with the country's most troublesome neighbour of all was because he had two persons in his inner circle who were so thorough with everything to do with Pakistan that he could entrust the UPA government's dealings with Islamabad to these two men. Between them they knew how to maintain a modicum of engagement with Pakistan, at multiple levels, that the darkest clouds on Wagah's horizon inevitably had the tiniest of silver linings. Any such silver lining was an insurance against another war in the sub-continent, which would set back India's development goals and hopes of emerging as a responsible global power.

Satinder Lambah was unflappable even during the most challenging moments on his watch when he was high commissioner in Islamabad. And he was so sure-footed that he did not hesitate to tell off his boss. The foreign secretary, at that time, was totally bereft of any first-hand knowledge of Pakistan other than what he gained from playing golf with Islamabad's then envoy in New Delhi, against the advice of the security chief in the ministry of external affairs.

It was after a flaming row with the foreign secretary that Lambah one day decided that he had had enough. He picked up the phone, talked directly to P.V. Narasimha Rao, then prime minister, and told Rao that he could not continue in Islamabad. Rao shifted him as ambassador to Bonn forthwith, a posting that signalled appreciation of his contribution to Pakistan policy. It was to Lambah that Singh turned when the UPA government needed a special envoy for Pakistan and, by extension, to Afghanistan.

Equally, Singh relied on Shivshankar Menon, his national security adviser, who earlier served as high commissioner in Islamabad before being appointed foreign secretary. For many Indian diplomats, intelligence personnel and others involved in crafting New Delhi's approach to Islamabad, a major difficulty is to come to terms with changes in the psyche of Pakistan and its effects on policy-making in Islamabad.

Hardliners tend to live and die as hardliners. Those who are optimists on Pakistan never give up on their expectation that it is possible to do normal business with Islamabad. Menon's great asset was that he cut himself loose from a dogmatic approach when he was posted as high commissioner: some say he applied a lifetime of experience in China and looked at Islamabad with an open mind. Lambah and Menon provided most of the inputs for the UPA's policy towards Pakistan.

Modi is disadvantaged by the complete absence of a competent source of advice on Pakistan at an institutional level. This lacuna is unprecedented for any previous prime minister. Beyond institutional support, there is no one with ready and regular access to Modi who has his confidence, who can look him in the eye and tell him plain truths about Pakistan or the fallout of geopolitics on Kashmir the way Lambah could do with Manmohan Singh.

Since becoming prime minister, Modi has enjoyed the benefit of advice from two successive foreign secretaries. They have both been competent in their own ways, but Pakistan has not been their strength. Neither Subrahmanyam Jaishankar nor Sujatha Singh dealt with Pakistan in any depth until they were chosen to head the diplomatic service. In their short time as foreign secretaries, neither of them has had the opportunity to reflect on the complexities of this aspect of neighbourhood diplomacy, the kind of competence that someone like J.N. Dixit acquired after decades of dealing with Pakistan.

To make up for this dangerous shortcoming in 'Modiplomacy' the news leakers in Modi's government have woven fanciful tales about Ajit Doval, the national security adviser, and dressed him up as an expert on Pakistan. It is true that he had an unusually long posting in Islamabad, but the stories which have been appearing in the media about his undercover activities in Pakistan during those years would have made Ian Fleming dedicate some of his James Bond books to those in New Delhi whose spin has sadly made Doval the last word on Pakistan in Modi's officialdom.

Doval's job at the Indian mission in Pakistan was primarily to manage the high commission's large contingent of India-based security guards. In volatile neighbouring capitals like Colombo and Islamabad, among others, the security of the high commissioner's residence, the mission compound and other Indian properties is not entrusted to local people for obvious reasons. That meant Doval prepared the shift-duty rosters of policemen and paramilitary personnel sent from India for such work, made sure that they did not fall into honey traps or take bribes - from the Inter-Services Intelligence, in Pakistan's case - to plant a listening device in the deputy high commissioner's drawing room or sell their quota of duty-free liquor from the commissary to well-heeled, but alcohol-starved, Pakistanis.

This is not to disrespect Doval's widely-acclaimed capabilities as an operations sleuth and a counter-intelligence expert, but he did not acquire or practice these skills in Islamabad. That was the job of other officers from the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing who were posted in Islamabad then. This is being written from intimate knowledge of the working of Indian diplomatic missions across the world gained from this columnist's stay abroad for 26 years as a foreign correspondent. Among those in New Delhi who served with Doval in Islamabad, the current media spin about Doval's cloak-and-dagger activities from that time is now the subject of great mirth.

Sadly, Modi has bought into his own government's spin about Doval, which was meant for the public, so that Doval can easily slip into the shoes of his illustrious predecessors like Brajesh Mishra and J.N. Dixit. Someone like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh or Yashwant Sinha would not have been taken in by these fanciful tales about the present national security adviser. As an outsider in Delhi, who has held no elected or administrative job other than Gujarat's chief ministership, Modi is unfamiliar with such matters.

Anyone who has dealt with intelligence officers of Doval's seniority also knows that they gain their clout in the system by making their bosses vulnerable. His predecessor, M.K. Narayanan, could do that as an IB veteran to Rajiv Gandhi, another outsider to the system in 1985. As an operations man who cannot scale strategic heights, Doval now compensates himself by making ill-advised threats against not only Pakistan but also China. And the prime minister in good faith, goes along. Predictably, the upcoming meeting of Indian and Pakistani NSAs is, therefore, likely to be unproductive, although there will be more of Ufa-style spin. Doval hopes to pin down his counterpart, Sartaj Aziz, on terrorism, and Aziz is preparing to do the same to Doval, but with his characteristic finesse and erudition. If that happens, more Pandora's boxes in South Asia may be opened where none was necessary if only the government had a Lambah or Dixit by the prime minister's side.

[JE Menon]

^^He forgot Sushma and Jaishankar? And which meeting with Pakistan did not end in a farce? Fellow needs to comb his hair and smile in the mirror before starting another sharticle. At least if he's trying to do a hack job, he should be competent at it. At a minimum exhibit the "characteristic finesse and erudition" of Sartaj Aziz - after 26 years as a foreign correspondent....

[sum]

Doval's job at the Indian mission in Pakistan was primarily to manage the high commission's large contingent of India-based security guards. In volatile neighbouring capitals like Colombo and Islamabad, among others, the security of the high commissioner's residence, the mission compound and other Indian properties is not entrusted to local people for obvious reasons. That meant Doval prepared the shift-duty rosters of policemen and paramilitary personnel sent from India for such work, made sure that they did not fall into honey traps or take bribes - from the Inter-Services Intelligence, in Pakistan's case - to plant a listening device in the deputy high commissioner's drawing room or sell their quota of duty-free liquor from the commissary to well-heeled, but alcohol-starved, Pakistanis.

This is not to disrespect Doval's widely-acclaimed capabilities as an operations sleuth and a counter-intelligence expert, but he did not acquire or practice these skills in Islamabad. That was the job of other officers from the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing who were posted in Islamabad then. This is being written from intimate knowledge of the working of Indian diplomatic missions across the world gained from this columnist's stay abroad for 26 years as a foreign correspondent. Among those in New Delhi who served with Doval in Islamabad, the current media spin about Doval's cloak-and-dagger activities from that time is now the subject of great mirth.

We dont need Pakis to crudely run down our highest folks when we can do it ourselves!

[svinayak]

We dont need Pakis to crudely run down our highest folks when we can do it ourselves!

This is classic case of mental subversion. We need to remove the author from circulation.

[svinayak]

We need to remove the author from media circulation.

[Philip]

NO! The author is a fine example of the best of Indian journos who have had unmatched experience of our MEA,missions abroad and have a wealth of knowledge about Pakistan,which is priceless (zero)!

All that these blatherting scribes have produced is a big zero when it comes to dealing with Pak. Since Independence we've been tearing our hair out as to how to get Pak to behave like a civilised nation.The stark truth is that Pak's DNA is "hatred of India" and every successive Paki govt.,both political and military has looked at winning a war with India. What it could not achieve on the battlefield in conventional wars,it has now tried for a couple of decades+ to wrest J&K from us using terrorism and insurgency.Both tactics have also failed. It then expanded its terror campaign to the whole country,to cause as much mayhem as possible,murdering innocent civilians as in the 26/11 attacks,hoping to cause large scale communal riots across the whole country,in an attempt to swing the Muslims of India to collaborating with it in destabilising the nation, and sending India several steps/dercades backwards in socio-economic progress. The puppet-master behind Pak is China,which for decades blind-sided us while it covertly built up its mil. machine in Tibet especially,now claiming for itself Ar.Pradesh!

There are enough "experts" on foreign and strat. affairs whom Mr.Modi can call upon. India has a wealth of talent and genius. But it is true,we need a wider debate so that the GOI gets a fuller picture of the situation which is constantly in a state of flux,options available and strategy and tactics to adopt.What GOIs in the past have lacked is the formulation of India's "Grand Strategy",as a quote from a western mag once said,India is a superpowrer,but does not know what it wants to be".

A former Army Chief said famously that "Pak is an irritant,but China is the threat".That was well over a decade ago. Only a blinkered ignoramus will tell you that China's massive mil build up,esp. that of its navy and its atoll-grabbing in the Indo-China Sea is harmless and poses no threat to India. Its Gwadar naval base ambitions are nothing,its attempts to establish base /logistic facilities in Sri Lanka,the Maldives,Burma,and other littoral nations in the IOR are also harmless! Our strategy should be to send Pak into proverbial diplomatic "Coventry" ,treat it like a "contagious disease","quarabtine it",waste little money and time in engaging wiht it,and concentrate on dealing with the larger threat of China,checkmating it in its own backyard,the "Indo-China Sea",by first engaging with Vietnam as our "all-weather friend",our equiv of what Pak is to China. Simultaneously, BRICS offers much eco potential,where China can weigh the options of mutual eco-benefit instead of pursuing its military super-power ambitions with greater zeal.The problem lies in the Chinese "Middle Kingdom" mentality ,espoused by many of its analysts,who expect the rest of Asia to be lesser servile nations kowtowing to Beijing.

The scribe quoted is looking in the opposite direction!

[ShauryaT]

All form, little substance

The real test of a foreign policy is coherence of design, consistency in execution and efficacy in outcomes. A comparison of the outcomes secured by this government with those achieved since the late 1990s shows that the current foreign policy looks ordinary.

So far, the real constraint on such ambitions has been weak state capacity. This affects both our ability to grasp the big strategic picture and our ability to get the nuts and bolts right. On the former, we only need to look closely into the Ministry of External Affairs’ flawed assessment of the prospects of a nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States. Equally striking is the absence of any coherent response by the government to the major changes sweeping the global economic landscape: the mega-regional trade deals driven by the U.S. and the ‘One-Belt One-Road’ envisioned by China. On the latter, think only of our inability to deliver on any number of regional promises of cooperation and connectivity. Instead of focussing on flaky “soft power” initiatives such as Yoga or Buddhism, the government should aim to get its institutional muscle into shape. Otherwise, our partners may come to see us not as a “leading” power but as a misleading power.

(Srinath Raghavan is Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)

[ShauryaT]

Some more for an Indian perspective on the Iran deal.
Making Sense of the Iran Nuclear Deal

The nuclear deal between Iran and the Western powers could lead to some major changes in the geopolitics of West Asia. Even though there remains fairly strong domestic opposition to the deal in both camps, the historically important strategic location of Iran makes this deal eminently justifiable for all parties. However, the consequences for India could be mixed, as it neglected strengthening its relations with Iran when the window of opportunity was open the widest.

Missed Opportunities

What about the implications of this deal for India? At one level, it will certainly work to India’s advantage. The removal of sanctions could enable India to once again emerge as a major importer of Iranian oil. In the past few years, the American and European Union sanctions had made it rather difficult to finance oil purchases from Iran. The closure of the Asian Clearing Union forced Iran to agree to a rupee payment mechanism for 45% of its oil exports to India. The refusal of shipping insurers to underwrite tankers carrying Iranian oil was another major problem. Above all, there was pressure from the US to scale down Indian imports from Iran. Concomitantly, there was a concern in New Delhi that violating American sanctions on Iran, which India did not officially adhere to, might attract indirect sanctions on Indian companies as well. The removal of these multiple constraints should naturally be welcome to India.

At another level, though, Iran might not be interested in according much priority to economic or strategic overtures from India. For a start, there is India’srecord of voting against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of course, New Delhi did this in order to stay on the right side of theUS and secure its own entry into the international nuclear order. But Iran could hardly be expected to look upon this positively. Further, the nuclear deal opens up Iran to the West. European companies, in particular, are drooling at the prospect of resumingbusiness with Iran. Tehran will have many more, and more attractive options, for building economic ties than India.

Finally, India may not find Iran very cooperative on issues such as access to Central Asia or Afghanistan. Why should Iran facilitate the projection of Indian influence in Central Asia when it can expand its own influence to those parts? Similarly, with the rise of the Islamic State and mounting turbulence in Iraq and Syria, Iran will want to keep its north-eastern frontiers stable. So, Tehran is likely to take a more positive viewthan India of the ongoing talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, facilitated by Pakistan and supported by theUS, China and Russia. Let us also not forget that in the past the Iranians have themselves worked with the Taliban.

In fact, the years of Iran’s isolation were best suited for New Delhi to build a strategic relationship with Tehran. This was admittedly rather difficult during the tenure of the former Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But part of the problem was also on the Indian side. Various parts of the Government of India seemed to pull in differentdirections when it came to Iran. The finance ministry slowed down the plans for development of Chabahar port, apparently insisting that there had to be a certain assured return on investment for the project. They were oblivious to the strategic import of the project, especially by way of providing access to Afghanistan.

The Ministry of External Affairs also seems to have misjudged the situation. It worked on the assumption that the nuclear negotiations were merely a tactical ploy on the part of Tehran owing to immediate economic difficulties posed by the sanctions. The clerical system under the supreme leader was deemed to be implacably opposed to theUS and unwilling to give up the nuclear option. The fact that Iran might be engaging in these negotiations to regain its legitimate place and role in the region appears to have been discounted. In any event, India’s foreign ministry chose to wait and watch. This stance, reportedly, came under criticism from the then national security adviser, who was said to have pointed out that unless India moved quickly, the opportunity with Iran might close once theUS and other Western countries came in after a nuclear deal.

This is exactly the situation now confronting India. It remains to be seen if the government can make the best of the bad hand that it has been dealt.

[ramana]

And the MEA guys are backstabbing Sushma Swaraj, Jaishankar and NaMo with motivated leaks to deluded has been journalists.
KP Nayar has back stabbed Doval.

Same MEA idiots were backstabbing their own Brajesh Mishra.


As for SSM of 'dafting' error' fame less said the better.

And ask Washington DC desis about Lambah's skills.
Quite short.

[ShauryaT]

N-Iran only postponed

From India’s perspective, we had a winning hand all these years but lost an opportunity to forge a strong relationship. Had India been there to give a helping hand — rather than joining the Western bandwagon — this country would have earned enormous political capital with mounting interest with Tehran. We’d have had a mountain of IOUs. Tehran would have remembered that India was with it when it was down, and we’d have benefited from it all along, and especially now. Iranians are good at paying off their debts. In the past decade and more Delhi sought US approval when what India should have done was invest in Chahbahar and get going on the connectivity rail-road grid radiating outwards from that Gulf base northwards and via the Zaranj-Delaram highway connect to Afghanistan and Central Asia to the East and to Russia;s northern transportation network. Instead, Delhi twiddled its thumbs and did Tehran no favours, worrying only of how to pay for imported Iranian oil with the banking channels closed. We are no mean baazaris ourselves, and we could have settled on a barter system or some other means of putting our trade and commercial relations on a firm footing. Iran is central to India’s strategic outreach and consolidation in the Gulf-Caspian region — helping us bypass the Pakistan transit option. GOI acted as if entirely innocent of the geostrategic imperatives, perhaps, because it indeed knows little and cares even less about missed geopolitical opportunities.

[ramana]

True that.

[Philip]

An interesting viewpoint of China's EurASian strategy.Much food for though for India. Where do we position ourselves in the changing face of EurAsia?

China's Eurasia strategy to counter US naval power

In past writings, I have described the Eurasian landmass as having shaped world history for some 5,000 years before its role was steadily marginalised from the 18th century onwards.

The gist of my views on Eurasia's responses to global naval power may be found in the book,The Eurasian Core And Its Edges: Dialogues With Wang Gungwu On The History Of The World, by Ooi Kee Beng.

In that book, through a series of dialogues with Kee Beng, I laid out my ideas on the development of world history. I argued that there has been a shift in the centre of power, from the Eurasian land mass core to its fringes in the east and west. Geopolitical powers that were always continental in nature have in modern times become more maritime in nature.

Maritime powers helped expand continental powers' dominance. As even China is realising now, the global is maritime.

But what we are seeing, in the last decade or so, is a pushback from the Eurasian core. What is happening today with seemingly unconnected events suggests that, with the rise of China and India, Eurasia might be finding ways to push back.

It is intriguing to look at China's recent "One Road, One Belt" proposals in that historical context.

The "Silk Road Economic Belt" is a plan to establish new trade and transport links across the Central Asian landmass, between China, Central Asia and Europe.

The "21st century Maritime Silk Road" plan is to form economic links in the South China Sea, the South Pacific and Indian Ocean.

Together, they are known as "One Belt, One Road". The maritime "Road" combined with the continental "Belt" might be expected to help resuscitate Old World commonalities.

What do I mean?

By Old World I am referring to the era of history before the 18th century, when political power was vested in continental states.

In the last 200 years, the world has changed dramatically. That was the result of a combination of industrial capitalism, and revolutionary developments in the realms of science and finance that were enabled by the rise of global trade and naval power during the 17th-18th centuries.

Following that, the peoples of Atlantic Europe led the world to erect the pillars of modern civilisation that the rest have had to cope with ever since.

Take, for example, the way the British, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish seafaring adventurers set up trading posts and colonies across the Americas and Asia. Their overwhelming dominance led to increasing defensiveness among the Eurasian continental polities.

There have been earlier attempts to push back against the new power structure, such as by the German and the Slavic empires in the 19th and 20th centuries, but none was successful.

UNITED STATES GOES NAVAL

On the contrary, the end of World War II made it possible for New World power to dictate new principles of progress to at least half the states of the West European continent.

That development had begun with the empowerment of the New World when the leaders of the American Revolution called for a turning away from the Old World. The young rebels offered a vision of manifest destiny that made it possible for them to create something that their ancestors from the European Atlantic had not been able to achieve.

Within a century of the country's independence, the largely maritime peoples who had first crossed the Atlantic to America as maritime settlers since the 17th century had constructed a new kind of continental power.

What distinguished this nation-building task in America was the determination to avoid the mistakes of the Old World. Among the worst of those were the religious wars that eventually led feudal rulers to establish dozens of narrowly conceived nation-states.

The greatest triumph of the New World state was to win a bitter Civil War that kept the United States united. Having thus secured a rich continent for itself, this revolutionary state could by the second half of the 20th century harness all its resources to make it the most powerful global naval power the world has ever seen.

That advantage ensured that the US and its allies could win the Cold War of 1947-1991.

Their success confirmed the supremacy of the maritime global economy, one that could remain free from the constraints of sovereign land borders.

It persuaded the new post-imperial states in Asia to reappraise what could be done in response to superpower dominance. Some that had roots in the historic Indic and Sinic civilisations of South and East Asia began to realise that they needed to adapt their economies to maritime security and freedom in order to be free from the fear of continental enemies.

The countries with that background noted the example of Japan, especially the strategies used to help the country recover after its defeat in 1945.

The "flying geese model" since the 1960s inspired the growth of a number of Asian economies. Japan, at the tip of the V-shaped formation of flying geese, developed first, passing on its technological advantages to other countries flying behind: the second-tier Newly Industrialising Economies of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore; and then ASEAN. China followed suit after 1978 when Deng Xiaoping opened the country up to economic reforms, and India after 1992 when it introduced sweeping economic liberalisation following an economic crisis.

NEW MASTERS OF THE SEA?

Changes in these Asian economies are now moving the world's economic centre to the east of Suez. If this trend continues, the countries around the Indo-Pacific oceans would in the 21st century be able to do what the Anglo-Saxon empires did for the Atlantic and Pacific oceans two centuries earlier, and become masters of their neighbouring seas.

The US awoke to this growing challenge and ostentatiously "pivoted" back to the Indo-Pacific and revived the alliances they had made during the days of the Cold War. To safeguard what they call the "status quo", they have belatedly identified the progress made by China to be the only serious threat to their predominance in the region.

It would appear that both American and Chinese leaders know that the Chinese are not seeking to replace the US as a global superpower. That would require total control of the world's oceans that no power facing concurrent potential continental enmity (China shares a land border with Russia and India, and have territorial disputes with both) can hope to attain.

Thus, short of unlikely internal disasters within, the US has no reason to fear global maritime rivalry from China.

In that context, China and ultimately India, and even Russia, would each need different ways to stand up to a dominant US. In conventional analyses by international relations experts, they might consider developing their own slates of alliances to counter what the Americans have. But, if alliances are not feasible, what can be done to safeguard the influence they expect their developmental successes to bring?

CHINA TURNS TO EURASIA

China's answer to being hemmed in by a maritime arc of US allies seems to depend on financial, economic and technological responses that could draw the states of Eurasia closer together.

Recent examples are the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and other measures that reach further through the Maritime Silk Road and the Silk Road Economic Belt.

The core of these strategies will depend on the revival and relevance of key Old World values and institutions of the Eurasian continent that the American New World had sought to replace.

Seen together, the new linkages represent a call for the reawakening of multiple features of ancient Eurasian connectivity, that could make economies and societies vibrant, and enrich cultures through extended networks of trade and transportation.

If it is successful, it could be an answer to the claims of universalism that the US New World believes it can offer the Old World. If this is a credible understanding of China's longer- term thinking and aspirations it hopes to share with its neighbours, we can expect to see a new kind of defensive interstate Great Wall that uses interconnected economic clout along the Indo-Pacific coasts, as well as overland, to ensure that the Eurasian continent remains inviolate.

•Wang Gungwu is University Professor, National University of Singapore (NUS), and chairman of the East Asian Institute and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/asian-opin ... MyFBW.dpuf

[ramana]

Link to India perspectives journal from MEA

http://www.mea.gov.in/india-perspective ... rspectives

[ShauryaT]

A sulking Iran is bad news for India: Modi govt needs to soothe Tehran’s ruffled feathers

In contrast, today bilateral ties are so strained that Iran recently revoked visas on arrival for Indians. The highly significant move is essentially Tehran’s retaliation against India bracketing a proven friend like Iran with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Nigeria when it comes to granting Indian visas. Despite protests, Iran still figures on what’s called the Prior Reference Category, or PRC list from which China was recently removed when the facility of e-visa was extended to it.

To be sure, PRC is not the sole sticking point. An official Iranian communication to India’s National Security Advisor cites nine Government of India circulars and notices imposing “restrictions over Iranian citizens and companies in different spheres like purchase of property for opening branches, offices, and bank accounts and transfer of money” which are “hampering the expansion of relations in the field of economy and commerce”.

The communication firmly states that India’s “attitude towards Iran should be changed” and places on record Iran’s expectation “that its name is deleted from circulars and orders and all restrictions imposed are removed” as they are “not in conformity with the historical and cordial ties between the two countries”.

To please Washington-Tel Aviv, Manmohan Singh’s government which was then negotiating the controversial civil nuclear deal with USA, voted three times in four years against Iran at IAEA. India’s vote against Iran in 2005, 2006 and 2009 were rightly condemned by Left parties as a sell-out to USA-Israel.

Tehran quietly mended its fences with Washington culminating in the historic nuclear accord between Iran and the international community unveiled in Vienna on 14 July. But Israel still remains Iran’s enemy. And Israel’s growing clout in New Delhi (thanks to Modi’s fondness for the Jewish nation) does impact India’s treatment of Iran.

The ball, as they say, is now in India’s court. Let’s see whether Modi, who warmly shook hands with Rouhani on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit at Ufa in Russia, takes a leaf out of the first BJP Prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s book and genuinely reaches out to Iran to reset ties in India’s national interest.

Foreign Minister and chief architect of the nuclear accord Javad Zarif’s visit to New Delhi on August 14 provides India a perfect opportunity to make a new beginning with an old friend.

[ramana]

Above is nonsense. Even US acknowledged it was India's help that sealed the Iran deal. Sulking story is put out by Bhadrakumar type RNIs.

[ramana]

http://www.pardaphash.com/news/indias-n ... 68604.html
"India's New Zealand High Commissioner's wife alleged of slavery"

Wellington: India's New Zealand ambassador, Ravi Thapar is returning back to the Nation (India) after his wife has been accused of assaulting her home staff member.

The alleged victim is said to be a chef, who walked 20 kms from the High Commission to Wellington and eventually was found in agony by a local.

However, the Indian envoy is denying the allegation of returning back to India to escape the situation and the accusation over his wife as well. Rather, he claims that the reason behind his return to the Nation is that he wants to be will his mother, following his father’s death last year.

“I’m going but to take care of my mum because my dad passed away last year. I can’t keep up 13,000 km away just talking to her on the phone.” he says.

Following the same, a spokesperson of the External Affairs Ministry, Vikas Swarup says, “Though no charges were pressed by the service staff member, the Ministry will investigate the matter further. The High Commissioner has been posted back to headquarters.”

“The External Affairs ministry is seized of this matter. It was first brought to the notice of the ministry on May 10, 2015 when one of the service staff members of the high commission in New Zealand was found missing.” he adds.

As per the police officials, the chef has claimed that he has been physically assaulted by the Ravi's wife, Sharmila Thapar and also he was treated as a 'slave'. However, he fears to file a formal complaint.

A team has been sent overseas for further investigation.

The alleged victim has returned back to India.

Thapar has been serving in New Zealand since December 2013.

After a proper review if found guilty the person should be dismissed from service.

A diplomat is supposed to protect interests of Indians abroad.

When his own wife is accused of beating domestic help he is not working for India or Indians.

[SSridhar]

India bid for permanent seat suffers blow as US, Russia, China oppose UNSC reform talks - PTI

In a setback to India's bid for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, the US, along with Russia and China, has opposed negotiations to reform the powerful UN body, refusing to contribute to a text that will form the basis for the long-drawn reform process.

UN General Assembly President Sam Kutesa achieved a breakthrough of sorts by circulating a text to UN members that will form the basis for the negotiations on the reform of the Security Council. Kutesa had appointed Jamaica's Permanent Representative Courtenay Rattray to chair on his behalf the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform.

Kutesa, in a letter dated July 31 to all UN members, said he is also circulating letters containing the positions of groups and Member States that indicated they did not wish their proposals to be included in the body of the negotiating text. These countries include US, Russia and China.

American Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said in her letter to Kutesa that the US is "open in principle" to a "modest" expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members but the condition that "any consideration of an expansion of permanent members must take into account the ability and willingness of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the United Nations."

Power added that "we believe that consideration of new permanent members must be country-specific in nature."

She also reiterated that the US remains opposed to "any alteration or expansion of the veto".

Sources told PTI that the US opposition to aspects of the reform process can be perceived as a "duplicity" since President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for a reformed UN Security Council with India as a permanent member.
{He may say that he supports India as a full member in UNSC but not with the same powers as the P-5}
Russia, which has also supported India's candidacy as permanent member, said in its letter to Kutesa that the "prerogatives of the current Permanent Members of the Security Council, including the use of the veto, should remain intact under any variant of the Council reform".

"The intergovernmental negotiations on the UN Security Council reform should proceed in a calm, transparent and inclusive atmosphere free from artificial deadlines," it said.

India has maintained that the process to expand the powerful UN body "cannot be seen to be an exercise ad infinitum" and a results-based timeline is crucial to achieve a concrete outcome.

"Those who ask for not imposing artificial timelines may be advised to desist from inflicting artificial delays on this process," India's Ambassador to the UN Asoke Kumar Mukerji has said in the past.

Sources said that India feels that the 70th anniversary of the UN, being commemorated this year, is an appropriate milestone to propel the reform process, which should be completed within the next one year.

Russia said that in the situation when positions of the main groups of states - those who support the idea of the UN Security Council's expansion in both categories and those who do not - remain polar, one can advance in the negotiating process only by searching for a compromise.

It said that while it supports broader representation of the developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America on a reformed Security Council, it is important to maintain compact composition of the Council in order for it to provide an adequate and prompt reaction to new challenges.

"The number of members in an enlarged UNSC should not exceed a reasonable level of low twenties," it added.

On improvement of the working methods of the Security Council, Russia said the leading role in this process should belong to the Security Council itself as the "only legitimate master of its own procedures and working methods."

China said UNSC reform is "multifaceted", covering not only issues such as enlarging the Council's membership and strengthening representation, but also increasing efficiency and improving working methods. It added that Member States are still seriously divided on the Security Council reform and no general agreement has been reached on any solution so far.

UNSC "reform should not be carried out at the expense of the unity of Member States. All member States should remain committed to the intergovernmental negotiations process, adopt a flexible and pragmatic attitude, gradually build mutual trust and meet each other halfway.

No solution on which Member States are seriously divided or approach that may cause division among Member States will have China's Support," it said.

"Member states still need to engage in patient consultations to find a solution that accommodates each other's interests and concerns," it said, a position different from that of India which has stressed that the 2015 "is a year for decisive action" and for it, another round of the IGN with business like the earlier rounds would "not be acceptable."

India has said it would then find it very difficult to meaningfully engage with the process.

China also stressed that new seats of the Security Council should be reasonably distributed. It also noted that any solution or reform model should enjoy general consensus.

"The five clusters of key issues concerning Security Council reform are interrelated, and should not be addressed in isolation of each other. It is imperative to stick to the approach of a package solution. The 'piecemeal' or 'step-by-step' approach is not conducive to accommodating the interests and concerns of Member States," China said.

India has received support from France and the UK, the two remaining permanent members of Security Council. The two nations along with Kazakhstan and Romania have specifically named in the negotiating text Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African representation to be included among the permanent members of a reformed UNSC.

[Tuvaluan]

Demonstrates the braindead-edness of the IFS-heads who conduct Indian FP that they waste so many resources on the UN and provide it legitimacy with such action, and in return they get no say in how UN policies affect its own interest and have zero chance of ever making it to the UNSC. And yet they sent (during the UPA regime) delegation after delegation from timbuktu to Antarctica to "garner support" for UNSC seat --- just some free foreign trips on the taxpayers expense disguised as "the right of one-fifth of mankind to a UNSC seat"...would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[A_Gupta]

A sulking Iran is bad news for India: Modi govt needs to soothe Tehran’s ruffled feathers

In contrast, today bilateral ties are so strained that Iran recently revoked visas on arrival for Indians. The highly significant move is essentially Tehran’s retaliation against India bracketing a proven friend like Iran with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Nigeria when it comes to granting Indian visas. Despite protests, Iran still figures on what’s called the Prior Reference Category, or PRC list from which China was recently removed when the facility of e-visa was extended to it.

Iran revoked Indian visa on arrival in March 2014.
(e.g., see http://www.iranianvisa.com/uponarr.htm )

This was after India did not extend visa-on-arrival to Iran in February 2014.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 919007.cms

India extends visa-on-arrival facility to 180 countries
By the end of the year, visa-on-arrival facility will be extended to citizens of 180 countries at nine airports across the country.
NEW DELHI: In a significant step towards liberalization of the visa regime, the government on Wednesday cleared two initiatives: visa on arrival and electronic travel authorization for all countries barring eight "prior reference'' countries including Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka and China.