Geopolitical thread

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 12 Mar 2008 18:23

[quote]Heinz-Christian Strache: 'Serbs Defending Europe's Gates Once Again'

Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) leader Heinz-Christian Strache on Sunday attended the service at the Church of the Ascension of Holy Mother of God in Vienna's 17th district and said afterwards that he would defend Serbian positions and fight for Serbia in Austria's parliamentary life.

In a one-and-half hour speech, Strache said that he absolutely supports the just struggle of the Serbian people and urges the respect of international law. Condemning the recognition of the unilateral declaration of independence by Pristina separatists, Strache warned that this could hit the entire Europe like a boomerang.

â€œSimilar to 600 years ago, the Serbs are again defending Europe, which is threatened by a dangerous islamization,â€

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Mar 2008 18:53

Brazil is all set to sign a massive deal with France for the building of nuclear subs and 50+ helos for variious uses.Intersting developments for India.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7376860

Brazil to sign helicopter deal with FranceReuters, Tuesday March 11 2008 (Adds detail, context, byline)
By Raymond Colitt
BRASILIA, March 11 (Reuters) - Brazil will sign a deal with France by July to build 50 military helicopters as part of a broader strategic defense alliance, Brazil's defense minister said on Tuesday.
"We should sign all the necessary documents in June or July," Nelson Jobim told Reuters in an interview. A Brazilian subsidiary of Eurocopter is to build the units, he said.
Both countries are also to sign by December a strategic defense alliance including the construction of a nuclear submarine in Brazil, Jobim said.
"I don't see any obstacle (to the submarine deal). There's political agreement," Jobim said.
The idea was to create a joint venture to build at least one conventional submarine and subsequently another one with nuclear propulsion developed by Brazil.
Brazil has embarked on a major program to upgrade its armed forces, planning to buy and build equipment to defend offshore oil riches and a porous border in the Amazon jungle.
"We won't have a dissuasive force in the Atlantic if we don't have a fast tool -- the nuclear submarine -- with domestic participation," Jobim said.
The Brazilian government is keen to stress it has no problems with neighboring governments and does not want to provoke a Latin American arms race with a wave of military spending, whose estimated size has not been made public.
Jobim emphasized the proposed submarine was not an attack vessel and would not be armed with nuclear missiles. (Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 15 Mar 2008 07:23

Sarkozy, Brown humbled at EU meet
DPA
Friday, March 14, 2008 18:46 IST

BRUSSELS: European Union (EU) leaders humbled French President Nicolas Sarkozy Thursday by watering down his ambitious plans to create a union of Mediterranean countries.

They also gave British premier Gordon Brown thumbs down by opposing his idea of reducing VAT rates for environmentally friendly fridges and televisions.

The EU's traditional spring summit in Brussels, which was due to end Friday, was largely devoted to finding ways of reviving the European economy, securing its energy supplies and stopping global warming.

But much of the discussion turned to French proposals for a Union of Mediterranean states.

Sarkozy's original idea was to make all the countries of the Mediterranean basin work together on such diverse issues as migration, the environment, energy, development, trade, and the fight against crime and terrorism.

But the latest draft of the proposal, brokered by Germany earlier this week and submitted to leaders over dinner Thursday, includes all EU member states and vaguely talks about "projects with an accent on regional cooperation".

The downsizing came after EU countries with borders not on the Mediterranean expressed scepticism at the proposal. Member states from Eastern Europe were particularly concerned that a Union for the Mediterranean would divert precious EU funds away from the region.

Many also noted that the EU already has a similar neighbourhood policy known as the Barcelona process.

In the end, EU leaders agreed that the best thing to do would be to re-launch the Barcelona process and give it a new name.

"The project for a Union for the Mediterranean was presented as an upgrade of the Barcelona process," said Slovenia Prime Minister Janez Jansa, whose country currently holds the EU's rotating presidency.

"And sometimes, changes get a new name," he added.

Sarkozy nevertheless presented Thursday's deal as an "important step" for Europe and the Mediterranean.

"Europe will not turn its back on the Mediterranean any more," he said.

France now plans to launch the Union for the Mediterranean July 13, during its stint as EU president.

On climate change, presidents and prime ministers gave their backing to a proposal by the EU executive, the commission, to cut the bloc's emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) to at least 20 percent below 1990 levels - a legally-binding goal which they set themselves a year ago.

However, they did not get into detailed exchanges on some of its most controversial aspects, including how to share the burden of meeting that target. Discussions are now expected to drag on well into 2009.

Several countries also blocked British plans to reduce the VAT rate on household goods that carry a high eco-friendly rating for low energy consumption.

"Everything to do with taxes requires unanimity. And some member states do not accept this idea," said commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

EU leaders also defended an EU competitiveness policy known as the Lisbon strategy.

Officials said the policy had helped create 6.5 million jobs and produce a gross domestic product growth rate of 3 percent in 2007.

Among the objectives of the strategy's second three-year cycle is to equip every school in Europe with broadband connection by 2010.

Leaders spent much of their dinner engaged in acrimonious talks on another commission plan designed to make energy markets more competitive by splitting up companies that both sell energy to consumers and manage power lines.

The idea is strongly backed by Britain but is resisted by France and Germany.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 15 Mar 2008 23:39

TIRANA (Reuters) - About 160 people, including several Americans, were killed or injured on Saturday by a series of large explosions at an Albanian army base on the outskirts of the capital Tirana, government officials said.

Full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080315/wl_ ... plosion_dc

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 16 Mar 2008 07:21

Nat'l Geographic video on N.Korea:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6905&hl=en

Communism. Yumyum.

The boys in Calcutta must be fantasizing about this stuff.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 16 Mar 2008 21:16

Russia's confidence in its capabilities in Afghanisthan is to be noted.

link

[quote]
Russia-NATO-Afghanistan: Today, Foreign Minister Lavrov offered that, "Russia has long been urging our NATO partners to conclude a treaty on cooperation on all aspects of the Afghan problem between the CSTO and NATO.â€

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 16 Mar 2008 21:40

Albanian arms dump blasts kill 5, devastate area
Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:58pm EDT

Dismantling its obsolete arsenal and reforming the army has been a condition for Albania to join NATO. Tirana hopes to be invited to join next month.

Berisha said he believed the country's bid for membership would not be affected by the accident.

"The stock of 100,000 tonnes of 40-50 years old ammunition is one of our most serious problems," Berisha said. "One thing is certain, Albania must get rid of this dangerous inheritance

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Mar 2008 21:59

The West/USA's interest is in destabilizing Afghanisthan, which is why Afghanisthan never seems to come off boil -

The Making of US Foreign Policy for South Asia
Offshore Balancing in Historical Perspective
LLOYD I RUDOLPH
SUSANNE HOEBER RUDOLPH
Economic and Political Weekly February 25, 2006

Sir Olaf Caroe Invents Offshore Balancing in South Asia

Why and how did offshore balancing come to the south Asia region? Its origin can be found in the geo-strategic ideas of Sir Olaf Caroe, the last foreign secretary for the British raj in India (1939-45). Winston Churchill thought India was the heart of the British empire and that Britainâ€™s capacity to be a world power depended on its rule in India. He succeeded in blocking the viceroy, Lord Irwinâ€™s, and the leader of the Conservative Party, Stanley Baldwinâ€™s efforts in 930-31 to grant dominion status to India. The power and influence of British India reached into central, south-east and west Asia, not least into the Persian gulf and the Arabian peninsula; Burma, Sri Lanka and Singapore; Afghanistan and Tibet; and into East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. The rajâ€™s political service made foreign and security policy for this vast trans-regional space and the British Indian army backed it up. In the dying days of the raj at the close of the second world war, Caroe began to worry about what he came to call, in a prescient phrase, â€œthe wells of powerâ€

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 17 Mar 2008 00:18

Old habits are so hard to break:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/ ... fen-SS.php

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Mar 2008 14:52

Kosovo explodes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ovo217.xml

UN and Nato forces attacked in Kosovo
By Harry de Quetteville in Berlin and Thomas Harding
Last Updated: 2:37am GMT 18/03/2008

Kosovo has suffered its worst day of violence since declaring independence a month ago, as ethnic Serbs in the north of the new country attacked Nato and United Nations forces with grenades and automatic weapons.

Kosovo is undergoing its worst violence since independence was declared, exactly a month ago

Dozens of UN police and Nato troops, mostly from Poland and France, were injured after coming under fire in the town of Mitrovica.

Explosives were detonated and UN vehicles set ablaze in the fighting, which left more than 80 civilians injured and 30 troops in need of treatment in Nato military hospitals.

Following the confrontation, UN police were ordered to withdraw from the Serb-dominated northern half of Mitrovica, with the grip of Kosovo's ethnic-Albanian government on Serb areas of the country growing ever weaker.

"After attacks with explosive devices suspected to be hand grenades, and firearms, the police are ordered to withdraw from the north of Mitrovica," a UN police statement said.

advertisementNato insisted that it would respond "firmly" to any further violence. British defence sources confirmed that Britain's emergency reserve force was at "high readiness" to deploy to Kosovo if the security situation deteriorated.

More than 600 men from the Welsh Guards, the regiment which is currently the Army's "Spearhead Lead Element", could deploy within 24 hours if Nato commanders decide the situation "had spiralled out of control".

Britain is one of the 27 countries - including America and the major European Union powers - which has recognised Kosovo as an independent state.

But that number falls far short of the swift, universal recognition Kosovo's new government had hoped for.

The wounded UN and Nato forces were part of a dawn raid on a Mitrovica courthouse which had been occupied for days by ethnic Serbs, who bitterly resent Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia.

Negotiations for a peaceful end to the sit-in broke down over the weekend, and large numbers of UN police, backed by Nato soldiers, surrounded the building early in the morning.

They arrested more than 50 of the demonstrators, but the situation quickly turned violent as explosives were detonated outside the courthouse and in its courtyard.

"Twenty-seven police officers were injured, including the commander of the Polish contingent," said Mariusz Sokolowski, the Polish national police spokesman. "Most of the injuries were caused by grenade fragments."

As some of the prisoners were driven away, Serb crowds surrounded the UN police vehicles, forcing them open and freeing some of those arrested inside the courthouse.

"Police stormed into the building this morning around 5:20 am," said Dragoljub Drazevic, one of the freed protesters.

"They handcuffed us, searched the offices and put us in a police van.

"When we were coming out of the compound, the van I was in was stopped by Serbs who trashed it and freed us."

Since the declaration of independence, ethnic Serbs in the country who reject the breakaway and still consider themselves Serbian citizens loyal to Belgrade have been staging daily protests in Mitrovica.

The town marks the ethnic fault line between Kosovo's ethnic-Albanian dominated south and its ethnic-Serb dominated north.

About 120,000 of Kosovo's population of two million are Serb, with some 40,000 living in and around northern Mitrovica.

Since independence, the Serbian government has implemented a strategy to enforce its rule in and around Mitrovica, fuelling fears that the newborn state could face immediate partition.

Some ethnic Serb officials who had worked for United Nations-run institutions in Kosovo - such as the police force and judiciary - have refused to work now Kosovo is independent.

The move to clear the courthouse fell on a particularly sensitive anniversary for Kosovo's ethnic Serbs, coming four years after Albanians rampaged against Serbs in the then province, burning down hundreds of Serb homes and churches.

Then, Nato forces were caught by surprise by the violence and were unable to contain it. Commanders have vowed no repeat of such an escalation this time around.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 18 Mar 2008 15:59

BR again proves to be ahead of the curve .. now for the first time US has been directly accused by a senior official of a foreign govt for manufacturing biological weapons ..

Media: U.S. denies Indonesia's allegation on bird flu samples

www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-17 13:46:26 Print

JAKARTA, March 17 (Xinhua) -- The United States has flatly denied allegations it was producing biological weapons from bird flu samples sent by Indonesia to the World Health Organization, the English daily The Jakarta Post reported Monday.

Michael H. Anderson, counselor for Public Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia, has explained the U.S. has undertaken "not to develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain microbial or other biological agents or toxins of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, and other peaceful purposes, as well as weapons and means of delivery."

The U.S. is a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, which entered into force on March 26, 1975.

However, Indonesian senior biodefense researcher Isro Samihardjo said the U.S. could use bird flu virus samples from Indonesia to develop weapons at the Los Alamos Laboratory.

Isro was speaking at a meeting about Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari's newly released book here Saturday.

In her book "It's Time for the World to Change, Divine Hands behind Bird Flu," Siti writes of her suspicions about a conspiracy between the U.S. and the WHO.

She says the collection of bird flu samples from developing countries like Indonesia for the production of vaccines was questionable and a conspiracy would force Indonesia to buy expensive bird flu vaccines.

The health minister defied protocol and refused to share virus samples with WHO last year because she said the practice was unfair to developing countries.

Indonesia has been working with Illinois-based Baxter Healthcare to develop an H5N1 virus vaccine since November 2005, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February last year to provide samples of the bird flu virus to Baxter.

The agreement said samples would be provided as long as Baxter gave Indonesia technical help to produce a vaccine.

Indonesia also gave permission to Roche International in November 2005 to produce a generic version of Tamiflu for bird flu-infected patients.

Bird flu has infected 129 Indonesians so far, killing 105 of them, which is the highest death toll in the world.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 806186.htm

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 18 Mar 2008 21:28

China's looming Olympics disaster

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 18 Mar 2008 21:40

On hindsight, a lesson from China's Olympic games effort is that probably a nation should not have high stakes in a single event. I am surprised how the Chinese leaders led themselves into a such a position where they wanted the success of Olympics to define China's current status. Now, it is going to take some heavy toll on them.
I think, the moment they wanted the Western countries to think good of China, China lost a battle.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 18 Mar 2008 22:11

SawmyG wrote:

the moment they wanted the Western countries to think good of China, China lost a battle.

You are right. I agree.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2008 22:13

SwamyG wrote:
I think, the moment they wanted the Western countries to think good of China, China lost a battle.

It was a trap setup by the west on China

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 19 Mar 2008 00:28

Kissinger's declaration of the death of the treaty of westphalia seems to be borne out of the realpolitik motivation to intrude in the internal affairs of other countries.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian ... halia.html

Today, October 24, is the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, or at least the final part of it signed in Munster. When quoted nowadays the treaty is seen as the bedrock of the modern system of independent states, free of feudal entanglements and thus from foreign interference in internal affairs. Most often, it is the foundation of every thuggish ruler's claim: "T'ain't nobody's business what I do" to my own subjects.

Apparently, the bolded part should be read as "My business is not my own business, but it is the international community's business -- of course, the "international community"'s business will never be my business".

Since the US and EU states themselves are impervious to external interference in their internal politics (given their political stability), the west wants to create a fertile ground for regime changes on countries where they have an interest. However, the concept of a nation state stands in the way of such actions -- it would violate the UN charter which acknowledges the westphalian concept of nation state and, furthermore, it can be cloaked under moralpolitik under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy to counter the fact that the west's actions are in direct violation of the UN charter.

The UN needs to be destroyed and an alternate body that protects the interests of Asian nations against the predatory behaviour of EU and the US is needed.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 20 Mar 2008 08:21

Iran says U.S. missile shield in Turkey would threaten Russia
19:24 | 17/ 03/ 2008

TEHRAN, March 17 (RIA Novosti) - Iran's Foreign Ministry warned on Monday that the United States' alleged plans to deploy missile defense elements in Turkey could pose a threat to Russia's security.

Media reports of Washington's new plans emerged after U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' visit to Turkey late last month. The Pentagon confirmed that the issue of missile defense was touched on during discussions with Turkish officials.

The plans for Turkey would "go against the national interests of countries in the region including Russia, and lead to an escalation of the arms race," ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.

Both Russia and Iran, which borders on Turkey, have already been riled by U.S. missile shield plans for Poland and the Czech Republic, which the U.S. says would defend against 'rogue states' such as Iran, but which Moscow views as a direct threat to its own security.

Hosseini said Turkey has not yet confirmed whether the issue has been discussed with Washington.

"We are convinced that Turkey - a friendly neighbor to us - will not allow non-regional states to jeopardize security and stability in the region," the spokesman concluded.

Russia concerned over Taiwan's UN referendum
22:01 | 19/ 03/ 2008

MOSCOW, March 19 (RIA Novosti) - An upcoming referendum in Taiwan on UN membership could seriously destabilize the situation in the Asian-Pacific Region, a Russian deputy foreign ministry said Wednesday.

On March 22, Taiwan is set to hold a referendum on United Nations membership under the name of Taiwan rather than its formal title of the Republic of China. Presidential elections are also set for the same day.

The referendum could have "a destabilizing impact on the political climate in the Asia-Pacific Region," said Andrei Denisov.

He also said that the majority of countries, including Russia, viewed Taiwan as an inseparable part of China.

The move to seek membership in the UN under the name of Taiwan would likely be seen by Beijing as a step towards sovereignty by Taiwan. China has long threatened a military invasion if the island announces its full independence.

Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan, which split from the mainland in 1949 during the Chinese Civil War, to mainland rule.

"Russia's principal position on Taiwan is well-known. We are against Taiwan's independence in any form. We believe that the resolution of the issue is purely China's interior affair," Denisov also said.

On September 30, 2007, Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party approved a resolution asserting a separate identity from China. However, the opposition Kuomintang party, which favors closer ties with China, recently won a landslide victory in parliamentary polls and many political analysts suggest the pro-independence movement may now have had its day.

Current Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian, who has long pushed for independence for Taiwan, is due to step down after eight years in office after the March 22 elections.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Mar 2008 08:25

Kissinger is not as bad as Brzezinski. At least Kissinger is capable of being pro-India, and more objectively recognizing the need to accommodate Asian interests. But Brzezinski is purely Euro-centric, wanting America to be in Europe's orbit. Atlanticist to the core.

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 23 Mar 2008 21:40

Sovereign funds agree to avoid 'geopolitical goals' in U.S. investments
Singapore and Abu Dhabi make commitment
By Steven R. Weisman
Published: March 21, 2008

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration won a commitment Thursday from two prominent foreign government investment funds to disavow "geopolitical goals" in their investments in the United States and elsewhere, a step the administration hoped would set an example for other funds.

The commitment came from the so-called sovereign wealth funds controlled by the governments of Singapore and Abu Dhabi, which is part of the United Arab Emirates. Both funds have stepped up their American investments in the last year and played a major role in purchasing stakes in Citigroup.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. praised the two funds for embracing a set of principles that not only disavowed political motives in investing but also made commitments to maximum disclosure of investment activities and strong internal controls, including management of risk in investments.

"Singapore and UAE have long-established, well-respected funds and are showing real leadership by joining with us today," Paulson said in a statement.

Paulson reiterated the administration's position that the United States welcomed foreign investments, but his comment came at a time of rising concern in the administration about political opposition to such activities, especially after several government funds bought stakes in major American companies this year.

At the same time, representatives of the funds have hired lobbyists and public relations firms and have gone out of their way to proclaim their intention to invest in the United States based on commercial principles and not out of political motivations.

Singapore expressed its support on Friday for the agreement by saying that an open investment environment is critical in a globalized economy, Reuters reported. Singapore's Ministry of Finance is the sole stakeholder in the island's $110 billion Temasek investment fund.

The policies were meant to contribute to work by the International Monetary Fund and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to develop voluntary best practices for such funds, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement.

The United States has enlisted the International Monetary Fund, which has 185 country members, and OECD, a voluntary group of wealthy countries, to develop a code to guide cross-border investments by government funds.

The International Monetary Fund's board is to meet in Washington on Friday to push its study forward with a goal of adopting best practices in the fall.

Part of the exercise of these two group efforts is to make both funds and the countries that receive investments more comfortable with each other's motives. "It's a process of mutual self-reassurance," said an official involved in the process, speaking anonymously to describe the motives of the players candidly.

The drive by the United States and Europe to draw up the code of best practices, including a renunciation of political motives, has stirred resentment among some of the investing funds, particularly in China and some in the Gulf.

At the World Economic Forum, representatives of some of the funds in the Gulf said such a code was unnecessary and an intrusion, since they said the investment funds had never done anything to arouse suspicions. Some Chinese officials have also been quoted as saying the best practices idea was unnecessary.

Bush administration officials say that they are pleased with the level of cooperation from foreign governments, however.

"The general impression I have is that there is an openness to discussing this," said Clay Lowery, an assistant Treasury secretary for international affairs, referring to a best practices code. "Some funds think this is a really good idea. Some are saying, 'Let's do a little bit of wait-and-see.' "

A leading Senate proponent of more openness by sovereign wealth funds, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat, praised Paulson on Thursday for agreeing to a set of principles but called on the principles to be adopted by others.

"Now it is up to other sovereign wealth funds to follow this lead," Schumer said. "I hope the administration, the IMF and other governments will encourage them to do so."

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Mar 2008 18:50

Beijing Olympics & Jihadi Terrorism B.Raman is connecting the dots and making predictions.

12. As of now, there are two possibilities which have to be factored into by the Chinese authorities in their physical security plan. Firstly, a terrorist strike by pro-Al Qaeda Uighurs either at Beijing or in Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly,a Munich,1972 like terrorist strike by Al Qaeda or pro-Al Qaeda organisations in Beijing itself. Apart from the usual physical security measures, the Danish teams will need special protection. If there is an attempted repeat of Munich, it will most probably be directed against the Danish participants because of the continuing anger of the Muslims against the publication of cartoons in the Danish media showing a depiction of the Holy Prophet.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Mar 2008 02:43

[quote]Can India save the world?

Kishore Mahbubani
March 21, 2008

Is China abdicating global leadership and leaving that role to India?

Yes, says Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore diplomat, one of the world's key intellectuals and a seasoned observer of international affairs:

â€œWith America and Europe losing faith in multilateral norms, the responsibility should pass on to the new rising powers, China and India, to maintain these norms.

Humanity is embarking on a bizarre journey into the future. Subconsciously, we all believe (or would like to believe) that we live in a rational, well-ordered universe. The reality is closer to the opposite. If this sounds unbelievable, consider the following analogy. Imagine 660 passengers boarding a ship that is sailing into unchartered waters. After boarding, all 660 retreat into their cabins. No captain or crew is taking care of the ship as a whole.

Sadly, this is a literal, not metaphorical description of how spaceship Earth is sailing into the future. Globalisation has shrunk the world. All 6.6 billion inhabitants now live in a single interdependent universe. From financial crises to health epidemics, from borderless terrorism to global warming, we are moving into a world where more global governance (not global government) is needed to manage the growing interdependence. Instead, precisely when more is needed, humanity is either shrinking or weakening global governance. This essay will explain why. It will also argue that perhaps only one country can solve this crisis â€” India.

Global governance is shrinking because the West, which spun a rich web of multilateral institutions and norms after World War II, is losing faith in multilateralism. The Western powers were happy to be custodians of the main rules and processes of the global order because they were convinced that a more rules-bound universe, accompanied by greater trade liberalisation, would benefit the Western economies the most since they had the worldâ€™s most competitive economies. This conviction of economic superiority led the West to bring down trade barriers. They had no doubt that the West would win on an open economic playing field.

John F Kennedy illustrated this confidence when he said in 1962, â€œA more liberal trade policy will in general benefit our most efficient and expanding industries.â€

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Mar 2008 02:47

With America and Europe losing faith in multilateral norms, the responsibility should pass on to the new rising powers, China and India, to maintain these norms

I thought Singapore had strict drug laws? Or is whatever the Ambassador is smoking brought in diplomatic pouches?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Mar 2008 05:47

JAPAN-U.S. SEA POWER DIALOGUE SPECIAL / U.S. taking steps toward ratification of U.N. convention
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/world/20080325TDY19002.htm
Shin Nagahara Yomiuri Shimbun Senior Writer

With the world entering what former Foreign Minister Taro Aso has described as an "age of growing maritime uncertainty," the United States is undertaking a major shift in its ocean policy to cope with the challenges this change presents.

Such a shift is seen in the U.S. government's decision to strengthen international cooperation on maritime activities, including the introduction of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which aims to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, and maritime interdiction operations aimed at curtailing terrorist activity in the Indian Ocean.

In October, the U.S. Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard jointly hammered out a new maritime strategy titled "A Cooperative Maritime Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power." It says, "The Global Maritime Partnerships initiative seeks a cooperative approach to maritime security, promoting the rule of law by countering piracy, terrorism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking and other illicit activities" through cooperation with the navies and coast guards of other countries.

Another change is that the U.S. government has started taking concrete steps toward ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The convention sets out legal frameworks covering the entire ocean--from coastal areas to deep seabed. It was adopted in 1982 and took effect in 1994. So far, 155 nations have joined the treaty, with Japan ratifying it in 1996.

Initially, the United States had been reluctant to join the convention, fearing that its maritime activities would be restricted. However, President George W. Bush in May requested the Senate to support ratification of the convention, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved ratification of the convention in October.

One reason for the policy shift is that the United States has become increasingly concerned about the spread of terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction through maritime channels, especially since the so-called war on terrorism became the nation's top priority in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It was learned that a senior Al-Qaida member in March 2003 approached a container company and offered to invest in its operations in exchange for use of the company's containers. Experts believe the organization hoped to use the containers to smuggle biological and chemical weapons into the United States. In April 2004, a failed suicide bombing targeted a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf.

The change in U.S. policy reflects recognition by the United States that existing mechanisms for containing terrorism and weapons proliferation are extremely fragile. Indeed, the PSI initiative, unveiled in 2003, was itself a direct response to the inability of the United States to seize missiles being transported on a North Korean ship that the Spanish military discovered off Yemen in December 2002, as international law did not allow for their seizure.

Clearly, Washington realizes it cannot ensure maritime security on its own and that it would be more beneficial to seek other nations' involvement.

The United States' shift toward ratifying UNCLOS, which it had virtually ignored for more than two decades, also stems at least in part from a belief that adherence would help expand the PSI regime.

In a public hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September, Adm. Patrick Walsh, vice chief of naval operations, testified: "Our failure to be a party to the UNCLOS is limiting further expansion of PSI. Critically important democratic Pacific countries have indicated a desire to support our counterproliferation efforts, but they tell us that so long as we are not a party to the UNCLOS, they will not be able to convince their legislatures to endorse PSI."

He went on to say: "How, they ask us, can they convince their legislatures that PSI interdiction activities will only occur in accordance with international law including the UNCLOS, when the leading PSI nation, the United States, refuses to become a party to the UNCLOS?"

The United States is not limiting its partnerships to allies such as Japan and Australia, and has welcomed China to join its efforts. The "1,000-Ship Navy" initiative proposed in 2005 by Adm. Michael Mullen, then chief of naval operations and currently chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged the Chinese Navy to be part of it. A further sign of change was seen in the new maritime strategy drawn up last year as it did not to mention China's naval buildup.

===

Battle over Arctic Circle heating up

Taro Aso pointed out that international tensions over seabed resources have started to gain increasing attention.

"The postwar maritime status quo is gradually being lost. In its stead [another] 'great game' seems to be emerging," Aso said, referring to the rivalry between Britain and Russia over hegemony in Central Asia in the late 19th century.

While Japan sees negotiations with China on the gas fields in the East China Sea as a principal issue to be tackled, the United States is more closely watching Russia's moves into the Arctic Circle.

In recent years Russia has put significant effort into collecting scientific data proving that the nation's continental shelf stretches to the North Pole.

If countries with coastlines can prove their continental shelf stretches beyond the 200 nautical miles (about 370 kilometers) of their exclusive economic zones and this fact is recognized by the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, they have the right to develop the seabed beyond the limits of their EEZs. One-fourth of the world's yet-to-be-discovered oil and natural gas resources are believed to be concentrated in the Arctic Sea.

In August, Russia sent a submersible vessel to the seabed at the North Pole, where it positioned a Russian flag made of titanium, displaying both within and outside the nation its ambition to put seabed resources there under its control.

The Northwest Passage in the Arctic Circle, running north of Canada, is also drawing international attention.

It is believed that the passage will become available for commercial use within 20 years due to climate change and the consequent reduction of sea ice.

Sailing times are expected to shorten dramatically if the Northwest Passage is used, compared to routes via the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal.

Canada claims the sea areas around northern parts of the nation as an internal waterway and has been at odds with the United States and the European Union, which are insisting that the passage should be regarded as an international strait.
(Mar. 25, 2008)

mayurav · Post by **mayurav** » 25 Mar 2008 09:26

Sanjay M wrote:Kissinger is not as bad as Brzezinski. At least Kissinger is capable of being pro-India, and more objectively recognizing the need to accommodate Asian interests. But Brzezinski is purely Euro-centric, wanting America to be in Europe's orbit. Atlanticist to the core.

IMHO, it is not good that the New World is biased towards a part of the Old World. Eventually, the New World will have to be a true reflection of the Old World - starting with an increasing influence of India and China.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Mar 2008 09:35

Well, I feel that these biased people represent only a section of the New World. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to dialogue with those in the New World who disagree with them. The Libertarians are a good example of such people, as well as some of the Jacksonians.

mayurav · Post by **mayurav** » 25 Mar 2008 09:48

Sanjay M wrote:Well, I feel that these biased people represent only a section of the New World. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to dialogue with those in the New World who disagree with them. The Libertarians are a good example of such people, as well as some of the Jacksonians.

I agree. And not only should the New World be NOT biased towards one part of the Old World, but it should also be a reflection of it.

wrdos · Post by **wrdos** » 27 Mar 2008 12:02

Co-post from the Tibet Watch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... hina.tibet

Just like America, China is building a multi-ethnic empire in the west
Tibet and Xinjiang have the misfortune of having resources the Asian giant wants, and being on the path to resources it needs
Parag Khanna The Guardian, Tuesday March 25 2008 Article

historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday March 25 2008 on p29 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:02 on March 25 2008.

It is difficult to find a westerner who does not intuitively support the idea of a free Tibet. But would Americans ever let go of Texas or California? For China, the Anglo-Russian great game for control of central Asia was neither inconclusive nor fruitless, something that cannot be said for Russia or Britain. Indeed, China was the big winner.

Boundary agreements in 1895 and 1907 gave Russia the Pamir mountains and established the Wakhan Corridor - the slender eastern tongue of Afghanistan that borders China - as a buffer to Britain. But rather than cede East Turkestan (Uighurstan) to the Russians, the British financed China's recapture of the territory, which it organised into Xinjiang (which means "New Dominions"). While West Turkestan was splintered into the hermetic Soviet Stans, China reasserted its traditional dominance over Xinjiang and Tibet, today its largest - and least stable - provinces. (Beijing has now accused the Dalai Lama of colluding with Muslim Uighur separatists in Xinjiang.) But without them, the country would be like America without all territory west of the Rockies: denied its continental majesty and status.

Every backpacker who has visited Tibet and Xinjiang in the past decade knows that the Chinese empire is painfully real: the western region's going concern is undoubtedly Chinese Manifest Destiny. With the end of the civil war in 1949, China endeavoured immediately to overcome the "tyranny of terrain" and tame the interminable mountain and desert landscapes with the aim of exploiting vast natural assets, establishing penal colonies and military bases, and expand the Lebensraum for its exploding population.

Both Tibet and Xinjiang have the misfortune of possessing resources China wants and of being situated on the path to resources China needs: Tibet has vast amounts of timber, uranium and gold, and the two territories constitute China's geographic gateway for trade flow outward - and energy flow inward - with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Decades of labour by the army and swarms of workers have paved the way for unchallenged Chinese dominance. The high-altitude train linking Shanghai and Lhasa that began service in 2006 represents not the beginning of Chinese hegemony, but its culmination.

Tibet and Xinjiang today set the stage for the birth of a multi-ethnic empire in ways that resemble nothing so much as America's frontier expansion nearly two centuries ago. Chinese think about their mission civilatrice much as American settlers did: they are bringing development and modernity. Asiatic, Buddhist Tibetans and Turkic, Muslim Uighurs are being lifted out of the third world - whether they like it or not.

They are getting roads, telephone lines, hospitals and jobs. School fees are being reduced or abolished to promote basic education and Chineseness. Unlike those Europeans who seek to define the EU as a Christian club, there are no Chinese inhibitions about incorporating Muslim territories. The new mythology of Chinese nationalism is based not on expunging minorities but granting them a common status in the paternalistic state: Uighurs and Tibetans, though not Han, are told they are Chinese.

"The Soviet Union collapsed because they experimented with glasnost prematurely, before the achieved unity among the peoples," explains a Chinese intellectual in Shanghai who studies central Asia. Large empires are maintained through a combination of force and law; and as recent weeks illustrate, China is determined not to waver.

In even the remotest corners of Tibet, small bases house platoons of the People's Liberation Army, with soldiers menacingly practising martial arts twice daily in public squares, often right next to ancient Buddhist stupas. Inaccessible jungle areas designated environmentally protected zones are often actually military encampments. Signs trumpeting "Tibet power" refer strictly to the Chinese electricity company.

China has pumped in billions of development dollars, hoping to generate goodwill among the scarcely 3 million Tibetans. In Lhasa, crumbling stone quarters have been replaced with sturdy homes built along thoroughfares connecting the city to the new railway station. The consequence of Chinese modernity, however, is that a city that once symbolised cultural authenticity has become merely a gateway to the remote plateaus where wild yak still outnumber people.

An even greater prize than Tibet is the far larger and more populous Xinjiang, with its oil deposits, deserts and mountains. Its demographic dilution has been dubbed "apartheid with Chinese characteristics". Xinjiang's Muslims have always been unruly, even briefly securing an independent East Turkestan at the end of the civil war. But massive Han resettlement began with the "Develop the west" campaign of the 1950s, and in the cultural revolution Xinjiang was sealed off for a massive pogrom of mosque destruction and Qur'an burning. Violent clashes in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, in 1996 proved that no peaceful Islamic culture would prevail in a Chinese-dominated environment. China suspended all mosque reconstruction and launched a "Strike Hard" campaign, imprisoning and executing hundreds of suspected separatists. Today one can see the results of a programme Mao and Deng began, but never completed: a railway and highway transporting coal, migrants and goods across the Taklamakan desert, facilitating the Hanification of a province where Uighurs now make up only half the population.

The annihilation of local people, history and architecture, and their replacement with shiny skyscrapers paying tribute to modern Chinese capitalism, make Urumqi the Shanghai of the northern Silk Road. A six-lane freeway runs through the city, and the Han majority fill up spiffy Japanese cars at the large Sinopec and PetroChina petrol stations. Urumqui buzzes with traders from Russia to Pakistan and all Stans in between, who buy cheap Chinese goods to be sold back home at a profit. Uighurs are now a marginalised minority in the city. Chinese tourists crowd the few accessible natural attractions, making the emerald-coloured Heavenly Lake no longer very heavenly.

Ironically, China's near absolute sense of security over both provinces is the greatest hope for a Chinese glasnost: China no longer faces any meaningful resistance to its rule and so some day may lighten up. Spiritual Tibetans have long looked south to Nepal and India for their cultural underpinnings, and in the 18th century Tibet was allowed a functional autonomy from China, a model the current Dalai Lama has proposed. Once he passes the scene, China might be less anxious about cultural exchange between Buddhists, further restoring Tibet's role as the Silk Road passage it was when Dunhuang's Caves of the Thousand Buddhas were carved, more than a millennium ago.

Tibetans and Uighurs will gradually become more prosperous than their neighbouring Mongols, Kyrgyz, Tajiks, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, and Nepalis - and this may provide a basis for Chinese claims of a benevolent hegemony elsewhere in Asia. But China will achieve that dominance before it talks about it.

Â· This is an edited extract from Parag Khanna's book The Second World: Empires and Influences in the New Global Order, which will be published next week

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Mar 2008 13:17

wrdos wrote:
Boundary agreements in 1895 and 1907 gave Russia the Pamir mountains and established the Wakhan Corridor - the slender eastern tongue of Afghanistan that borders China - as a buffer to Britain. But rather than cede East Turkestan (Uighurstan) to the Russians, the British financed China's recapture of the territory, which it organised into Xinjiang (which means "New Dominions"). While West Turkestan was splintered into the hermetic Soviet Stans, China reasserted its traditional dominance over Xinjiang and Tibet, today its largest - and least stable - provinces. (Beijing has now accused the Dalai Lama of colluding with Muslim Uighur separatists in Xinjiang.) But without them, the country would be like America without all territory west of the Rockies: denied its continental majesty and status.

THis explains why British are in Bed with China to oppose Russia even now.

wrdos · Post by **wrdos** » 27 Mar 2008 13:41

Acharya wrote:
wrdos wrote:
Boundary agreements in 1895 and 1907 gave Russia the Pamir mountains and established the Wakhan Corridor - the slender eastern tongue of Afghanistan that borders China - as a buffer to Britain. But rather than cede East Turkestan (Uighurstan) to the Russians, the British financed China's recapture of the territory, which it organised into Xinjiang (which means "New Dominions"). While West Turkestan was splintered into the hermetic Soviet Stans, China reasserted its traditional dominance over Xinjiang and Tibet, today its largest - and least stable - provinces. (Beijing has now accused the Dalai Lama of colluding with Muslim Uighur separatists in Xinjiang.) But without them, the country would be like America without all territory west of the Rockies: denied its continental majesty and status.
THis explains why British are in Bed with China to oppose Russia even now.

Xinjiang was named according to an ancient Chinese phrase, "Jiu Tu Xin Jiang", which means "our original land finally returns back as our new territory".

The current Xinjiang area was firstly brought to Chinese control about 2100 years ago in the Han dynasty. It repeated the process of taking in and taking back numerous times before the current international border was finally set in the 1800s.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Mar 2008 21:10

wrdos wrote:
Acharya wrote: THis explains why British are in Bed with China to oppose Russia even now.
Xinjiang was named according to an ancient Chinese phrase, "Jiu Tu Xin Jiang", which means "our original land finally returns back as our new territory".

The current Xinjiang area was firstly brought to Chinese control about 2100 years ago in the Han dynasty. It repeated the process of taking in and taking back numerous times before the current international border was finally set in the 1800s.

The question is not about Xinjiang but the history of support by British to Imperial China to contain Russian expansion. The same tacit support was given to China when China INVADED TIbet in 1959. It could have been overt encouragement to communist China. Only thing is that Indian leadership was not aware of this and did not use this in the calculation.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 28 Mar 2008 07:42

Uh-oh, NATO is taking up expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/27/europe/nato.php

They're really waving a red flag in front of the Russians

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 28 Mar 2008 09:55

Acharya wrote:
The question is not about Xinjiang but the history of support by British to Imperial China to contain Russian expansion. The same tacit support was given to China when China INVADED TIbet in 1959. It could have been overt encouragement to communist China. Only thing is that Indian leadership was not aware of this and did not use this in the calculation.

The viceroys/India Office in the 1890s and early 1900s regarded the Chinese Empire as a buffer against the Russian Empire, but in 1949 the British attitudes towards the Chinese Communists were very different, seeing them as close Soviet allies. Mao's victory in the Chinese Civil War meant that China's position in the great game/cold war went from neutral/benign to unfriendly.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Mar 2008 20:47

Johann wrote:
The viceroys/India Office in the 1890s and early 1900s regarded the Chinese Empire as a buffer against the Russian Empire, but in 1949 the British attitudes towards the Chinese Communists were very different, seeing them as close Soviet allies. Mao's victory in the Chinese Civil War meant that China's position in the great game/cold war went from neutral/benign to unfriendly.

Facts do not support this

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Mar 2008 10:06

Acharya,

There was confrontation on the ground, and attempts to limit all-out direct confrontation at the top.

See the HMS Amethyst incident for example;
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/AMETHYST.htm
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OB49.html

Britain, like the US feared the way the PRC was aggressively pushing communism in Asia.

The cost of the effort of containment in Malaya and Korea delayed British recovery from WWII by 5 years. In Korea British troops directly fought PLA troops, and Malaya they fought ethnic Chinese supported by the CPC/PRC.

Despite the tremendous domestic cost of containment and war, despite the Labour Party's Socialist bent and communist sympathies in some quarters it followed through. Rationing, conscription, all of which were unpopular continued.

Labour's Attlee saw the India and the INC as a natural barrier to the west-ward spread of communism from China.

Churchill had dismissed the INC's leadership in 1946 as "men of straw", who would be swept aside along with democracy by radical communists. By the time of Churchill's re-election in 1955 that had obviously failed to happend, and Churchill reversed his opinion and took to describing Nehru as "the light of Asia".

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Mar 2008 10:09

Controlling the Eurasian heartland was more important from the Communist Russian expansion after the victory in WWII. Hence working with the communist CPC Mao was acceptable.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 29 Mar 2008 11:41

The west again played both sides, as needed. Sometimes to thwart the soviets and sometimes to work against the Japanese. While KMT went about fighting Mao with US weapons, there was the dixie mission which provided support to Mao's communists. So, yes no one was particularly worried about Chinese communism in those times.

G Subramaniam · Post by **G Subramaniam** » 29 Mar 2008 12:43

Johann wrote:Acharya,

There was confrontation on the ground, and attempts to limit all-out direct confrontation at the top.

See the HMS Amethyst incident for example;
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/AMETHYST.htm
http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OB49.html

Britain, like the US feared the way the PRC was aggressively pushing communism in Asia.

The cost of the effort of containment in Malaya and Korea delayed British recovery from WWII by 5 years. In Korea British troops directly fought PLA troops, and Malaya they fought ethnic Chinese supported by the CPC/PRC.

Despite the tremendous domestic cost of containment and war, despite the Labour Party's Socialist bent and communist sympathies in some quarters it followed through. Rationing, conscription, all of which were unpopular continued.

Labour's Attlee saw the India and the INC as a natural barrier to the west-ward spread of communism from China.

Churchill had dismissed the INC's leadership in 1946 as "men of straw", who would be swept aside along with democracy by radical communists. By the time of Churchill's re-election in 1955 that had obviously failed to happend, and Churchill reversed his opinion and took to describing Nehru as "the light of Asia".

How did Hong Kong escape being invaded by Mao in 1949 ?

G Subramaniam · Post by **G Subramaniam** » 29 Mar 2008 12:49

Johann wrote:
Acharya wrote:
The question is not about Xinjiang but the history of support by British to Imperial China to contain Russian expansion. The same tacit support was given to China when China INVADED TIbet in 1959. It could have been overt encouragement to communist China. Only thing is that Indian leadership was not aware of this and did not use this in the calculation.
The viceroys/India Office in the 1890s and early 1900s regarded the Chinese Empire as a buffer against the Russian Empire, but in 1949 the British attitudes towards the Chinese Communists were very different, seeing them as close Soviet allies. Mao's victory in the Chinese Civil War meant that China's position in the great game/cold war went from neutral/benign to unfriendly.

Incidentally in 1790, Nepal annexed Tibet
and the lamas invited chinese help to get rid of the nepalese

The nepalese ended up having to pay tribute to china for some time
And per the chinese thinking, any land that once paid them tribute belongs to them
I remember reading a speech by Chiang Kai Shek in 1936, on expanding chinese borders to assam , myanmar, nepal etc

The KMT would also have annexed tibet, but without the large scale genocide

Also Ranjit singhs generals temperorily occupied lhasa in 1837 and again the lamas got help from china in evicting them

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 29 Mar 2008 15:14

GS,

Hong Kong and Macao survived for the same reason West Berlin survived in the middle of East Germany, or why Finland wasnt annexed by the Soviets.

There was a kind of tense detente that kept it open.

a) West Berlin originally was too much trouble to take by force; it would have brought the West and the USSR in to open and direct conflict, which Stalin feared.

b) West Berlin soon enough became the place the the Soviet and E.European Communist govts spied on the West, conducted track II discussions, and illicitly traded with foreign capitalists.

Hong Kong and Macao had exactly the same kind of deterrent/fringe benefit status for the PRC.

It should also be remembered Mao never dared to openly reject Stalin's advice as long as Stalin was alive. It was only after Stalin's death in 1953 that Mao began to dream of leading the communist world himself, rather than deferring to Khrushchev etc. There was no question in 1945-53 who Mao cleared every major action with.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Mar 2008 10:26

'Magic is over' for U.S., says French foreign minister
By Alison Smale
Published: March 12, 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/12/ ... france.php

PARIS: Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a longtime humanitarian, diplomatic and political activist on the international scene, says that whoever succeeds President George W. Bush may restore something of the United States' battered image and standing overseas, but that "the magic is over."

In a wide-ranging conversation with Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune at the launch of a Forum for New Diplomacy in Paris, Kouchner on Tuesday also held out the hope of talking with Hamas, the Palestinian faction that rules the Gaza Strip but has been ostracized by the West and by its Palestinian rival, Fatah, because it opposes peace talks with Israel and denies that Israel has a right to exist.

Asked whether the United States could repair the damage it has suffered to its reputation during the Bush presidency and especially since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Kouchner replied, "It will never be as it was before."

"I think the magic is over," he continued, in what amounted to a sober assessment from one of the strongest supporters in France of the United States.

U.S. military supremacy endures, Kouchner noted, and the new president "will decide what to do - there are many means to re-establish the image." But even that, he predicted, "will take time."

Kouchner began the 90-minute event with a speech that emphasized that "there is not just a new diplomacy; there is a new world."

To those intimidated by or fearful of what seem to be the rising challenges of globalization, climate change, spreading disease or new technology, Kouchner had a simple message: "The great difficulty is to accept this new world."

"There are not more problems - please, have a little memory - than 35 years ago," he said, recalling how, in 1971, he co-founded MÃ©decins Sans FrontiÃ¨res in response to the horrors of the conflict in Nigeria over Biafra.

The challenges may be daunting, he said, noting for instance that the world had decided to act to curb the AIDS epidemic, but asking, "Can we take charge of all the other diseases? I'm not sure."

Some of the most persistent diplomatic challenges emanate from the Middle East, and Kouchner was asked about approaches to Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of Israel, or to Hamas, which has the same stated goal.

Kouchner and other European diplomats have tried to talk Iran out of its controversial nuclear program, but officially rejected all contacts with Hamas, which is listed as a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union. Asked whether there is a way to engage Hamas, which is supported by a significant minority of Palestinians, Kouchner appeared to hold out hope of contact, saying: "I'm looking for a diplomatic way to say yes."

He then carefully couched this statement by noting that, in general, "we have to talk with our enemies," and that Fatah, which controls the West Bank, "always said they were in favor" of unity talks with Hamas. But after Hamas routed Fatah forces from Gaza in June, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, has refused to deal with Hamas, which he accused of committing a coup. Kouchner, of the Socialist left in France, stirred controversy when he accepted the offer from President Nicolas Sarkozy, leader of the Gaullist center-right, to join his government last May.

At the end of the conversation, held in a glittering hall at the AcadÃ©mie Diplomatique Internationale, the IHT's partner in the new diplomatic forum, Kouchner denied that his activism had been curbed by the need to run the resplendent Foreign Ministry on the Quai d'Orsay and France's large diplomatic machinery around the world.

But he conceded that practicing the new diplomacy - which he defined as being action that is more practical, multifaceted and realistic than mere protocol calls and visits - "is very difficult, and very time-consuming."

Bharat Rakshak

Geopolitical thread

Some Americans among the dozens of dead at Albanian military