More urgent need for the UN to authorise a special anti=piracy naval task force to blast into history the pirate base at Eyl,where the tanker is heading.Why can't the several naval vessels already off the Somalian coast send in commandos and storm the ship? What is the point of navies possessing massive supercarriers as the US does and then not going after 21st century buccaneers out of Africa?
More on the hijack.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23093.html
Pirates seize giant oil tanker
By Daniel Howden, Africa Correspondent
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Excerpt:
"The vessel – three times the size of a US aircraft carrier – was taken 450 miles off the coast of Kenya and well beyond the Gulf of Aden where the pirates have been stalking international shipping. Its seizure marked a "fundamental change" in tactics, the US Navy said. "
Geopolitical thread
Re: Geopolitical thread
India-Egypt to have a strategic dialogue
Seeking to "rekindle" their ties in tune with the contemporary realities, India and Egypt on Tuesday decided to establish a strategic dialogue at Foreign Minister level and agreed on a slew of other measures in political and economic field to "make up for the lost time".
The two sides signed five pacts, including an Extradition Treaty and an MoU for cooperation in trade and technical field, after wide-ranging talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak here.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Another failure of the Bush/Cheney era,Somalia,according to the Times UK.The gameplan of Bush & Co. was to get "Christian" troops from Christian Ethiopia to take over Somalia by default! What a moronic,cretinous and asinine policy that has turned Somalia into an Al Q breeding ground of the most devilish kind.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 175525.ece
From The TimesNovember 18, 2008
How the War on Terror pushed Somalia into the arms of al-Qaeda
It has been the forgotten debacle of the Bush years. But anarchy in the Horn of Africa may soon haunt the West
Martin Fletcher
As President Bush prepares to leave office, the pundits will start to produce their balance sheets. It is hard to know what they will list under “achievements”, but easy to predict their “disasters”: Iraq, Afghanistan, economic meltdown, soaring debt and America's loss of global stature.
One other debacle should feature prominently in that second column, but probably won't because it has occurred in a faraway country that most Westerners know only through the film Black Hawk Down - or from recent reports of rampant piracy including the seizure early on Sunday of a Saudi tanker, carrying more than two million barrels of oil, which had an immediate effect on crude prices.
I am referring to the Bush Administration's intervention in Somalia in the name of the War on Terror. It has helped to destroy that wretched country's best chance of peace in a generation, left more than a million Somalis dead, homeless or starving, and achieved the precise opposite of its original goal. Far from stamping out an Islamic militancy that scarcely existed, the intervention has turned Somalia into a breeding ground for Islamic extremists and given al-Qaeda a valuable foothold in the Horn of Africa.
Rewind to the early summer of 2006. For 15 years, since the fall of the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, feuding warlords had made Somalia a byword for anarchy and terrorism - the archetypal failed state. A tenth of its population had been killed. A million had fled abroad. At that point the warlords were finally routed, despite covert CIA backing, by a remarkable public uprising in support of the so-called Islamic Courts movement that promised to end the lawlessness.
Background
Islamists await hijacked ship's weapons cache
Plunder is used to fund terrorism
Britain’s phoney war on terror
Somalis in terror of the night letter
Somalia had always practised a mild form of Islam, but the Courts received a bad press in the West, being widely portrayed as a new Taleban determined to impose the most draconian forms of Sharia on a terrified populace. That was certainly what I expected when I visited Mogadishu in early December 2006. But what I actually found was a people still celebrating the return of peace and security.
Gone were the checkpoints where the warlords' gunmen extorted and killed. Gone were their “technicals” - the Jeeps with heavy machineguns on the back with which they terrorised the citzenry. For the first time that most Somalis could remember, they were walking around their shattered capital in safety, even at night. Businesses were reopening. Exiles were returning. Mountains of rubbish were being carted away.
“It's like paradise compared to even one year ago,” according to Mohammed Ahmed, a doctor who had returned from working at the West Middlesex Hospital.
The Courts had certainly imposed what would be seen in the West as some fairly repressive moral codes. They cracked down on the narcotic qat that rendered half the menfolk senseless, banned sexually explicit films, encouraged women to cover their heads and discouraged Western music and dancing. There had been two public executions. But that was a price most Somalis were happy to pay, and while the Courts' disparate factions undoubtedly included extremists with dangerous connections and intentions, they also included moderates with whom the West could have done business.
European nations favoured engagement. Washington did not. It accused the Courts of harbouring the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The Courts hardly helped their cause by claiming territory in Kenya and Ethiopia.
Weeks after my visit the US supported - morally, materially and with intelligence - an invasion by predominantly Christian Ethiopia, Somalia's oldest bitter enemy. That replaced what was, for all its faults, Somalia's most effective government in memory with a deeply unpopular one led by former warlords, which had been cobbled together by the international community in Nairobi two years previously.
“The Americans see an extremist under every Muslim stone,” one European official complained bitterly, and the consequences were entirely predictable. An insurgency that began early in 2007 has steadily gathered strength, while the reviled Government in Mogadishu has come to depend utterly for its survival on thousands of Ethiopian troops that were meant to withdraw within weeks.
As the fighting has worsened 10,000 Somali civilians are thought to have been killed, more than a million have fled their homes, and more than three million - 40 per cent of the population - now urgently need humanitarian assistance. Although the UN World Food Programme is still getting some aid into the country the situation is deteriorating and scores of humanitarian workers have been killed or abducted. Exploiting the lawlessness, pirates have turned the waters off Somalia into some of the most dangerous in the world.
In Kenya last weekend Abdullahi Yusuf, Somalia's President, finally admitted that insurgents now control most of the country and have advanced to the very edge of Mogadishu. His Government, he said, was close to collapse.
There are several insurgent forces, but one of the most powerful is the Shabab - a group of virulently anti-Western jihadists that has now eclipsed the Islamic Courts movement of which it was once part.
Somalia's nightmare may be only just starting. President Yusuf predicts wholesale slaughter if the Shabab seize Mogadishu. Diplomats fear that the Shabab will wage all-out war with other insurgent forces, including those of the Islamic Courts, for control of the country once Ethiopian troops - the common enemy - are withdrawn.
And unlike the Courts, the Shabab has no truck with moderation: in the port city of Kismayo last month a young girl who complained that she had been raped was stoned to death for adultery, while in Balad two dozen Somalis were flogged for performing a traditional dance.
Whatever happens, Somalia will be another horrendous legacy for Barack Obama, but somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border one man will be celebrating. Shabab openly supports al-Qaeda. It has adopted suicide bombings and other tactics. “Al-Qaeda is the mother of the holy war in Somalia... We are negotiating how we can unite into one,” Muktar Robow, a leading Shabab commander, recently told the Los Angeles Times. “We will take our orders from Sheikh Osama bin Laden because we are his students.”
All in all, hardly a resounding triumph for the War on Terror.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 175525.ece
From The TimesNovember 18, 2008
How the War on Terror pushed Somalia into the arms of al-Qaeda
It has been the forgotten debacle of the Bush years. But anarchy in the Horn of Africa may soon haunt the West
Martin Fletcher
As President Bush prepares to leave office, the pundits will start to produce their balance sheets. It is hard to know what they will list under “achievements”, but easy to predict their “disasters”: Iraq, Afghanistan, economic meltdown, soaring debt and America's loss of global stature.
One other debacle should feature prominently in that second column, but probably won't because it has occurred in a faraway country that most Westerners know only through the film Black Hawk Down - or from recent reports of rampant piracy including the seizure early on Sunday of a Saudi tanker, carrying more than two million barrels of oil, which had an immediate effect on crude prices.
I am referring to the Bush Administration's intervention in Somalia in the name of the War on Terror. It has helped to destroy that wretched country's best chance of peace in a generation, left more than a million Somalis dead, homeless or starving, and achieved the precise opposite of its original goal. Far from stamping out an Islamic militancy that scarcely existed, the intervention has turned Somalia into a breeding ground for Islamic extremists and given al-Qaeda a valuable foothold in the Horn of Africa.
Rewind to the early summer of 2006. For 15 years, since the fall of the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, feuding warlords had made Somalia a byword for anarchy and terrorism - the archetypal failed state. A tenth of its population had been killed. A million had fled abroad. At that point the warlords were finally routed, despite covert CIA backing, by a remarkable public uprising in support of the so-called Islamic Courts movement that promised to end the lawlessness.
Background
Islamists await hijacked ship's weapons cache
Plunder is used to fund terrorism
Britain’s phoney war on terror
Somalis in terror of the night letter
Somalia had always practised a mild form of Islam, but the Courts received a bad press in the West, being widely portrayed as a new Taleban determined to impose the most draconian forms of Sharia on a terrified populace. That was certainly what I expected when I visited Mogadishu in early December 2006. But what I actually found was a people still celebrating the return of peace and security.
Gone were the checkpoints where the warlords' gunmen extorted and killed. Gone were their “technicals” - the Jeeps with heavy machineguns on the back with which they terrorised the citzenry. For the first time that most Somalis could remember, they were walking around their shattered capital in safety, even at night. Businesses were reopening. Exiles were returning. Mountains of rubbish were being carted away.
“It's like paradise compared to even one year ago,” according to Mohammed Ahmed, a doctor who had returned from working at the West Middlesex Hospital.
The Courts had certainly imposed what would be seen in the West as some fairly repressive moral codes. They cracked down on the narcotic qat that rendered half the menfolk senseless, banned sexually explicit films, encouraged women to cover their heads and discouraged Western music and dancing. There had been two public executions. But that was a price most Somalis were happy to pay, and while the Courts' disparate factions undoubtedly included extremists with dangerous connections and intentions, they also included moderates with whom the West could have done business.
European nations favoured engagement. Washington did not. It accused the Courts of harbouring the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The Courts hardly helped their cause by claiming territory in Kenya and Ethiopia.
Weeks after my visit the US supported - morally, materially and with intelligence - an invasion by predominantly Christian Ethiopia, Somalia's oldest bitter enemy. That replaced what was, for all its faults, Somalia's most effective government in memory with a deeply unpopular one led by former warlords, which had been cobbled together by the international community in Nairobi two years previously.
“The Americans see an extremist under every Muslim stone,” one European official complained bitterly, and the consequences were entirely predictable. An insurgency that began early in 2007 has steadily gathered strength, while the reviled Government in Mogadishu has come to depend utterly for its survival on thousands of Ethiopian troops that were meant to withdraw within weeks.
As the fighting has worsened 10,000 Somali civilians are thought to have been killed, more than a million have fled their homes, and more than three million - 40 per cent of the population - now urgently need humanitarian assistance. Although the UN World Food Programme is still getting some aid into the country the situation is deteriorating and scores of humanitarian workers have been killed or abducted. Exploiting the lawlessness, pirates have turned the waters off Somalia into some of the most dangerous in the world.
In Kenya last weekend Abdullahi Yusuf, Somalia's President, finally admitted that insurgents now control most of the country and have advanced to the very edge of Mogadishu. His Government, he said, was close to collapse.
There are several insurgent forces, but one of the most powerful is the Shabab - a group of virulently anti-Western jihadists that has now eclipsed the Islamic Courts movement of which it was once part.
Somalia's nightmare may be only just starting. President Yusuf predicts wholesale slaughter if the Shabab seize Mogadishu. Diplomats fear that the Shabab will wage all-out war with other insurgent forces, including those of the Islamic Courts, for control of the country once Ethiopian troops - the common enemy - are withdrawn.
And unlike the Courts, the Shabab has no truck with moderation: in the port city of Kismayo last month a young girl who complained that she had been raped was stoned to death for adultery, while in Balad two dozen Somalis were flogged for performing a traditional dance.
Whatever happens, Somalia will be another horrendous legacy for Barack Obama, but somewhere on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border one man will be celebrating. Shabab openly supports al-Qaeda. It has adopted suicide bombings and other tactics. “Al-Qaeda is the mother of the holy war in Somalia... We are negotiating how we can unite into one,” Muktar Robow, a leading Shabab commander, recently told the Los Angeles Times. “We will take our orders from Sheikh Osama bin Laden because we are his students.”
All in all, hardly a resounding triumph for the War on Terror.
Re: Geopolitical thread
GLOBAL TRENDS 2025
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Gl ... Report.pdf
GLOBAL TRENDS 2025: THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL'S 2025 PROJECT"Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World" is the fourth unclassified report prepared by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in recent years that takes a long-term view of the future. It offers a fresh look at how key global trends might develop over the next 15 years to influence world events.
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Gl ... Report.pdf
Re: Geopolitical thread
CNN
And remember what Jairam Ramesh said,U.S. power, influence will decline in future, report says
Story Highlights
By Alan Silverleib
- Report says China will have growing impact, second largest economy by 2025
There will be an unprecedented global transfer of power because of oil, report says
Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, will likely see power, desire for natural resources increase
"Unprecedented" growth means demand for basic resources will outweigh supply
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A government report released Thursday paints an alarming picture of an unstable future for international relations defined by waning American influence, a fragmentation of political power and intensifying struggles for increasingly scarce natural resources.
The report, "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World," was drafted by the National Intelligence Council to better inform U.S. policymakers -- starting with the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama -- about the factors most likely to shape major international trends and conflicts through the year 2025.
"Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States' relative strength -- even in the military realm -- will decline and U.S. leverage will become more constrained," says the report, which is the fourth in a series from the Intelligence Council.
The report argues that the "international system -- as constructed following the second World War -- will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors."
It argues that the world is in the midst of an unprecedented "transfer of global wealth and power" -- from West to East -- that is being fueled by long-term "increases in oil and commodity prices" along with a gradual shift of manufacturing and certain service industries to Asia.
And yet, while American power and influence are projected to decline, America's burdens are not.
"Despite the recent rise in anti-Americanism, the U.S. probably will continue to be seen as a much-needed regional balancer in the Middle East and Asia," the report notes.
The American military will continue to be expected to play a leading role in the war against global terrorism, though the United States as a whole will be less able to "call the shots without the support of strong partnerships."
America's biggest rival by 2025, the reports says, will be China.
"China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country," it notes.
The report projects that China will have the world's second largest economy by 2025 and will be a leading military power.
Equally problematic for U.S. policymakers is the fact that China is expected to become the world's biggest polluter and largest importer of natural resources.
China will not be alone, however, in terms of its desire to provide a consumption-oriented American lifestyle to a rapidly growing population. Countries such as India and, to a lesser extent, Indonesia, Iran and Turkey, will also likely see their power -- and desire for natural resources -- increase.
The report predicts that, the recent economic downturn aside, "unprecedented global economic growth" will mean that the demand for basic resources such as food, water and oil "will outstrip easily available supplies" over the next decade.
As an estimated 1.2 billion people are added to the world population over the next 20 years, the demand for food will rise by 50 percent, the report projects.
The lack of access to stable water supplies will also worsen due to rapid global urbanization, it says.
Further complicating matters is the fact that while demand for energy is projected to rise, oil and gas production will continue to be "concentrated in unstable areas," it says. The world in 2025 is therefore likely to find itself in the midst of a "fundamental energy transition away from oil toward natural gas, coal and other alternatives."
Such a transformation, however, may not stave off armed conflict driven largely by the struggle for scarce resources, the report says.
While conflicts are still most likely to "revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition," the report states that "we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries."
Terrorism is also expected to remain a major issue through 2025, though its appeal could be significantly reduced if economic and political liberalization accelerates in the Middle East.
"In the absence of employment opportunities and legal means for political expression, conditions will be ripe for disaffection, growing radicalism and possible recruitment of youths into terrorist groups," the report argues.
Adding to complications in the always-volatile Middle East will be Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons, which could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, the report says. Continuing tensions between India and Pakistan also add to concerns regarding nuclear proliferation, it says. {In other words, Pakistan is here to stay, at least till 2025}
The report highlights the need for new technological innovation to provide "viable alternatives to fossil fuels" and overcome future food and water constraints. At the moment, "all current technologies are inadequate for replacing" traditional energy sources "on the scale needed," it says.
The bottom line, the report says, is that "the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks."
"This is a story," it says, "with no clear outcome."
- our future looks even more dim."We are not in a race," he said at a seminar sponsored by the Confederation of Indian Industry. "They have already won the race."
Re: Geopolitical thread
Manu< we have been studying these type of reports- RAND, Goldman Sachs and now this for quite a few years. Its not what is being purveyed. India is better than these reports tlak about. Wait for our take on this one too. Also this was written before the freeze. Its all different now/
Re: Geopolitical thread
US global dominance 'set to wane'
US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to American intelligence agencies.
US clout will weaken as China and India grow more powerful, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts in its latest report on global trends.
The US dollar will no longer be the world's major currency and food and water scarcities will fuel conflict.
The NIC report comes as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.
It will make sombre reading for Mr Obama, says the the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.
"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.
The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.
But the latest report says that rising economies such as China, India and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multipolar international system.
There will be greater potential for conflict in the future, the NIC says
A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.
Global warming will have had a greater impact by 2025, triggering food and water scarcities that could fuel conflict around the globe.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, says the report, as rogue states and terrorist groups gain greater access to such weapons.
But the NIC does give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent such scenarios.
"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.
And, adds our correspondent, it is worth noting that American intelligence has been wrong before.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Al Wafd, Egypt
http://watchingamerica.com/News/13083/w ... ica-falls/
What If America Falls?
By Lobna Abdel Aziz
When America sneezes, the whole world gets the flu.
Translated By Kirsten Beck
19 November 2008
Egypt - Al Wafd - Original Article (Arabic)
Whether you were a friend or foe, everyone is now calling on America to find a solution to the financial crisis that has shaken the world. I wonder why... Well, the reasons are many, but it appears that the most important among them is that the fate of America is the fate of the world.
Thus, representatives of the 20 countries considered the world's most economically important—holding 90% of the world's economy—arrived at the U.S. capital this week to find a resolution to this difficult crisis. For the first time, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Argentina, and Brazil were among these countries. This group is not the group of the past, which, aside from Japan, did not include a single country outside Europe or America. The representatives were hosted by President Bush. President-elect Obama excused himself, saying that there is only one president for now, and that's Bush. This was a smart move, considering that many concerns and problems will be waiting for him when he assumes office on January 20. For one reason or another, no constructive conclusion was reached at this historic meeting. The world awaits the next meeting planned for this spring, when the new American president will be at the head of the negotiation table.
For purely personal reasons, the world is interested in the fate of America. The economy of each of these countries depends on the American economy. For example, China and Japan depend almost entirely on the sale of their products in U.S. markets, especially since their products, which are of equal quality, sell for a lower price, as a result of U.S. laws, such as restrictions imposed by labor unions, limits on the number of working hours, and the minimum wage. All of this has made it so that American merchandise is not available to all. More than that, however, some U.S. businessmen have moved their factories off-shore, to countries such as China, the Philippines, and Mexico.
Some industries, including the footwear industry, have disappeared from the U.S. Now we find that the auto industry, one of the most important industrues in America, is being squandered, as American streets are filled with Japanese, Korean, German, Swedish, and Chinese cars. Although American cars still outsell foreign vehicles, its big three—Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler—are asking for a $24 billion government bailout for the second time in order to forestall bankruptcy. This happened what is considered the word's leading industry, having the most beautiful, most famous, and most loved cars worldwide. The response comes to us from Japan, who learned a great lesson after World War II: America has won the battle with the atomic bomb, but we will win the economic war. So why isn't Japan applauding America? Why is it so upset? Why isn't it happy with what is happening in America where the way is paved for one to stand alone in everything?! In fact, most Japanese money is in America- in its industries and banks, even in television, cinema, and especially real estate. In the event of a failure, Japan will be completely shaken.
This applies to most countries in the world whose money America chooses to take. For some, their fate is linked to America, and for others, their fate relies on America. So imagine that in the recent financial crisis of the stock market, Saudi Arabia lost $400 dollars, as did most countries in different proportions, whether seller or buyer. America is the brightest market on the economic horizon. The dollar is still the primary currency of global capitalism, regardless of whether the Euro rises or falls. So the fate of the dollar is the fate of the world because of cash. Whether the funds were personal or national, they were put into American projects.
Moreover, there are many countries that depend on the U.S. for aid. If this crisis overpowers it, how will it help others who really need help? The first test facing Obama is to save the auto industry from collapse. The opposition rejects this, claiming thatif we help every industry that fails, we will destroy the capital. The Democrats, conversely, claim that if we do not save the auto industry, more than three million people will be standing in unemployment lines.
Therefore we urge America to succeed because we know, just as the world knows, when America sneezes, the whole world gets the flu. And as the Irish writer James Joyce said, "Mistakes are the portals of discovery."
Re: Geopolitical thread
The year 2025: Oil, dollar out; Russia, Islam in
By PAMELA HESS
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 20, 2008; 7:07 PM
WASHINGTON -- Global warming could be a boon to Russia, a European country could be overrun by organized crime and the U.S. dollar _ and the United States itself_ could further decline in importance during the next two decades, says a U.S. intelligence report with predictions for the world in 2025.
The report, Global Trends 2025, is published every four years by the National Intelligence Council to give U.S. leaders insight into looming problems and opportunities.
The report says the warming earth will extend Russia and Canada's growing season and ease their access to northern oil fields, which will strengthen their economies. But Russia's potential emergence as a world power may be clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector, persistent crime and government corruption, the report says.
Analysts also warn that the same kind of organized crime plaguing Russia could eventually take over the government of an Eastern or Central European country. The report is silent on which one.
It also says countries in Africa and South Asia may find themselves unstable and ungoverned, as state regimes collapse or wither away under security problems and water and food shortages brought about by climate change and a population increase of 1.4 billion.
The potential for conflict will be greater in 2025 than it is now, as the world's population competes for declining and shifting food, water and energy resources.
Despite a more precarious world situation, the report also says al-Qaida's terrorist franchise could decay "sooner than people think." It cites its growing unpopularity in the Muslim world, where it kills most of its victims.
"The prospect that al-Qaida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," the report states.
The report forecasts a geopolitical rise in non-Arab Muslim states outside of the Middle East, including Turkey and Indonesia, {in south asia?} and says Iran could also be a central player in a new world order if it sheds its theocracy.
The report, a year in the making, also suggests the world may complete its move away from its dependence on oil, and that the U.S. dollar, while remaining important, will decline to "first among equals" among other national currencies.
U.S. global power will likely decline, as Americans' concerns about putting resources into solving domestic problems may cause the United States to withdraw some resources from foreign and global problems.
By PAMELA HESS
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 20, 2008; 7:07 PM
WASHINGTON -- Global warming could be a boon to Russia, a European country could be overrun by organized crime and the U.S. dollar _ and the United States itself_ could further decline in importance during the next two decades, says a U.S. intelligence report with predictions for the world in 2025.
The report, Global Trends 2025, is published every four years by the National Intelligence Council to give U.S. leaders insight into looming problems and opportunities.
The report says the warming earth will extend Russia and Canada's growing season and ease their access to northern oil fields, which will strengthen their economies. But Russia's potential emergence as a world power may be clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector, persistent crime and government corruption, the report says.
Analysts also warn that the same kind of organized crime plaguing Russia could eventually take over the government of an Eastern or Central European country. The report is silent on which one.
It also says countries in Africa and South Asia may find themselves unstable and ungoverned, as state regimes collapse or wither away under security problems and water and food shortages brought about by climate change and a population increase of 1.4 billion.
The potential for conflict will be greater in 2025 than it is now, as the world's population competes for declining and shifting food, water and energy resources.
Despite a more precarious world situation, the report also says al-Qaida's terrorist franchise could decay "sooner than people think." It cites its growing unpopularity in the Muslim world, where it kills most of its victims.
"The prospect that al-Qaida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," the report states.
The report forecasts a geopolitical rise in non-Arab Muslim states outside of the Middle East, including Turkey and Indonesia, {in south asia?} and says Iran could also be a central player in a new world order if it sheds its theocracy.
The report, a year in the making, also suggests the world may complete its move away from its dependence on oil, and that the U.S. dollar, while remaining important, will decline to "first among equals" among other national currencies.
U.S. global power will likely decline, as Americans' concerns about putting resources into solving domestic problems may cause the United States to withdraw some resources from foreign and global problems.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Robber barons alive and kicking!Having rapes the "turd world" of most of its riches,earlier,the latter day imperialists now want to grab the last assets of the poor of humanity,their land.Added to this report is the fact that genetically modified food is being secretly tested and grown in some countries without the knowledge of the general population,in a deal with local govts. so that they can later be introduced after being "perfected",without a squeak of protest.The Prince of Wales adressed the Indian community recently and condemned the use of such crops,which in India have had disastrous health effects upon our farmers and could destroy the green revolution.The entire globe is at risk from GM crops,which when ifood production declines as a result,will place the world at the mercy of those large MNCs and nations who have acquired the land to grow food.This is a danger as deadly as nuclear weapons,perhaps even more to the poor nations of th world,losing their land
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -land-grab.
Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply• States and companies target developing nations
• Small farmers at risk from industrial-scale dealsJulian Borger, diplomatic editor
guardian.co.uk,
The Guardian, Saturday November 22 2008
Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies.
The head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, has warned that the controversial rise in land deals could create a form of "neo-colonialism", with poor states producing food for the rich at the expense of their own hungry people.
Rising food prices have already set off a second "scramble for Africa". This week, the South Korean firm Daewoo Logistics announced plans to buy a 99-year lease on a million hectares in Madagascar. Its aim is to grow 5m tonnes of corn a year by 2023, and produce palm oil from a further lease of 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres), relying on a largely South African workforce. Production would be mainly earmarked for South Korea, which wants to lessen dependence on imports.
"These deals can be purely commercial ventures on one level, but sitting behind it is often a food security imperative backed by a government," said Carl Atkin, a consultant at Bidwells Agribusiness, a Cambridge firm helping to arrange some of the big international land deals.
Madagascar's government said that an environmental impact assessment would have to be carried out before the Daewoo deal could be approved, but it welcomed the investment. The massive lease is the largest so far in an accelerating number of land deals that have been arranged since the surge in food prices late last year.
"In the context of arable land sales, this is unprecedented," Atkin said. "We're used to seeing 100,000-hectare sales. This is more than 10 times as much."
At a food security summit in Rome, in June, there was agreement to channel more investment and development aid to African farmers to help them respond to higher prices by producing more. But governments and corporations in some cash-rich but land-poor states, mostly in the Middle East, have opted not to wait for world markets to respond and are trying to guarantee their own long-term access to food by buying up land in poorer countries.
According to diplomats, the Saudi Binladin Group is planning an investment in Indonesia to grow basmati rice, while tens of thousands of hectares in Pakistan have been sold to Abu Dhabi investors.
Arab investors, including the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development, have also bought direct stakes in Sudanese agriculture. The president of the UEA, Khalifa bin Zayed, has said his country was considering large-scale agricultural projects in Kazakhstan to ensure a stable food supply.
Even China, which has plenty of land but is now getting short of water as it pursues breakneck industrialisation, has begun to explore land deals in south-east Asia. Laos, meanwhile, has signed away between 2m-3m hectares, or 15% of its viable farmland. Libya has secured 250,000 hectares of Ukrainian farmland, and Egypt is believed to want similar access. Kuwait and Qatar have been chasing deals for prime tracts of Cambodia rice fields.
Eager buyers generally have been welcomed by sellers in developing world governments desperate for capital in a recession. Madagascar's land reform minister said revenue would go to infrastructure and development in flood-prone areas.
Sudan is trying to attract investors for almost 900,000 hectares of its land, and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has been courting would-be Saudi investors.
"If this was a negotiation between equals, it could be a good thing. It could bring investment, stable prices and predictability to the market," said Duncan Green, Oxfam's head of research. "But the problem is, [in] this scramble for soil I don't see any place for the small farmers."
Alex Evans, at the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "The small farmers are losing out already. People without solid title are likely to be turfed off the land."
Details of land deals have been kept secret so it is unknown whether they have built-in safeguards for local populations.
Steve Wiggins, a rural development expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: "There are very few economies of scale in most agriculture above the level of family farm because managing [the] labour is extremely difficult." Investors might also have to contend with hostility. "If I was a political-risk adviser to [investors] I'd say 'you are taking a very big risk'. Land is an extremely sensitive thing. This could go horribly wrong if you don't learn the lessons of history."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -land-grab.
Rich countries launch great land grab to safeguard food supply• States and companies target developing nations
• Small farmers at risk from industrial-scale dealsJulian Borger, diplomatic editor
guardian.co.uk,
The Guardian, Saturday November 22 2008
Rich governments and corporations are triggering alarm for the poor as they buy up the rights to millions of hectares of agricultural land in developing countries in an effort to secure their own long-term food supplies.
The head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, has warned that the controversial rise in land deals could create a form of "neo-colonialism", with poor states producing food for the rich at the expense of their own hungry people.
Rising food prices have already set off a second "scramble for Africa". This week, the South Korean firm Daewoo Logistics announced plans to buy a 99-year lease on a million hectares in Madagascar. Its aim is to grow 5m tonnes of corn a year by 2023, and produce palm oil from a further lease of 120,000 hectares (296,000 acres), relying on a largely South African workforce. Production would be mainly earmarked for South Korea, which wants to lessen dependence on imports.
"These deals can be purely commercial ventures on one level, but sitting behind it is often a food security imperative backed by a government," said Carl Atkin, a consultant at Bidwells Agribusiness, a Cambridge firm helping to arrange some of the big international land deals.
Madagascar's government said that an environmental impact assessment would have to be carried out before the Daewoo deal could be approved, but it welcomed the investment. The massive lease is the largest so far in an accelerating number of land deals that have been arranged since the surge in food prices late last year.
"In the context of arable land sales, this is unprecedented," Atkin said. "We're used to seeing 100,000-hectare sales. This is more than 10 times as much."
At a food security summit in Rome, in June, there was agreement to channel more investment and development aid to African farmers to help them respond to higher prices by producing more. But governments and corporations in some cash-rich but land-poor states, mostly in the Middle East, have opted not to wait for world markets to respond and are trying to guarantee their own long-term access to food by buying up land in poorer countries.
According to diplomats, the Saudi Binladin Group is planning an investment in Indonesia to grow basmati rice, while tens of thousands of hectares in Pakistan have been sold to Abu Dhabi investors.
Arab investors, including the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development, have also bought direct stakes in Sudanese agriculture. The president of the UEA, Khalifa bin Zayed, has said his country was considering large-scale agricultural projects in Kazakhstan to ensure a stable food supply.
Even China, which has plenty of land but is now getting short of water as it pursues breakneck industrialisation, has begun to explore land deals in south-east Asia. Laos, meanwhile, has signed away between 2m-3m hectares, or 15% of its viable farmland. Libya has secured 250,000 hectares of Ukrainian farmland, and Egypt is believed to want similar access. Kuwait and Qatar have been chasing deals for prime tracts of Cambodia rice fields.
Eager buyers generally have been welcomed by sellers in developing world governments desperate for capital in a recession. Madagascar's land reform minister said revenue would go to infrastructure and development in flood-prone areas.
Sudan is trying to attract investors for almost 900,000 hectares of its land, and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has been courting would-be Saudi investors.
"If this was a negotiation between equals, it could be a good thing. It could bring investment, stable prices and predictability to the market," said Duncan Green, Oxfam's head of research. "But the problem is, [in] this scramble for soil I don't see any place for the small farmers."
Alex Evans, at the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "The small farmers are losing out already. People without solid title are likely to be turfed off the land."
Details of land deals have been kept secret so it is unknown whether they have built-in safeguards for local populations.
Steve Wiggins, a rural development expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: "There are very few economies of scale in most agriculture above the level of family farm because managing [the] labour is extremely difficult." Investors might also have to contend with hostility. "If I was a political-risk adviser to [investors] I'd say 'you are taking a very big risk'. Land is an extremely sensitive thing. This could go horribly wrong if you don't learn the lessons of history."
Re: Geopolitical thread
The Coming Middle East Missile War
Russia's plan for the new Iskander theater ballistic missile doesn't stop with their proposed Kaliningrad deployment. Aviation Week reports that once domestic requirements are met, Russia may export the weapon to Syria, India, and the UAE -- to start. Algeria, Belarus, Kuwait, and Vietnam have also expressed interest in the SCUD replacement, though Russia claims to be working on an "Echo" variant of the rocket for export that reduces the Iskander's range from 400km to appx. 280km.
Russia's export of its latest and hottest weapon system isn't exactly news -- they've been supplying the world with military hardware for decades. What is interesting is the potential for another East v. West technological showdown in the Israeli-Syria theater. Israel is currently deploying a robust rocket and missile shield that is designed to knock out everything from short range Hezbollah rocket attacks all the way up to an Iranian Shahab-III ballistic missile laydown. That shield will include top-of-the-line American missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and a highly-sensitive new x-band radar, as well as Israeli weapon systems like David's Sling and Iron Dome.
As with the Six Day War, the October War, and the invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli and Syria may once again test the mettle of US vs. Russian weapon platforms in the near future. Considering the frightening power of ballistic missiles one would hope that America's defense technology again proves superior.
If nothing else, Ivan's callous proliferation of these heavy shooters should be enough to cast doubt on any existing plan to cut missile defense from the budget.
Russia's plan for the new Iskander theater ballistic missile doesn't stop with their proposed Kaliningrad deployment. Aviation Week reports that once domestic requirements are met, Russia may export the weapon to Syria, India, and the UAE -- to start. Algeria, Belarus, Kuwait, and Vietnam have also expressed interest in the SCUD replacement, though Russia claims to be working on an "Echo" variant of the rocket for export that reduces the Iskander's range from 400km to appx. 280km.
Russia's export of its latest and hottest weapon system isn't exactly news -- they've been supplying the world with military hardware for decades. What is interesting is the potential for another East v. West technological showdown in the Israeli-Syria theater. Israel is currently deploying a robust rocket and missile shield that is designed to knock out everything from short range Hezbollah rocket attacks all the way up to an Iranian Shahab-III ballistic missile laydown. That shield will include top-of-the-line American missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and a highly-sensitive new x-band radar, as well as Israeli weapon systems like David's Sling and Iron Dome.
As with the Six Day War, the October War, and the invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli and Syria may once again test the mettle of US vs. Russian weapon platforms in the near future. Considering the frightening power of ballistic missiles one would hope that America's defense technology again proves superior.
If nothing else, Ivan's callous proliferation of these heavy shooters should be enough to cast doubt on any existing plan to cut missile defense from the budget.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Link
'Current international crisis may alter India's stance on US'
Shafi Rahman
New Delhi, November 21, 2008
A new U.S. intelligence forecast identifies China and India as rising heavyweights in a coming multi-polar world but says Indian leaders do not see Washington as a military or economic patron and now believe the international situation has made such a benefactor unnecessary.
The report said New Delhi will, however, pursue "the benefits of favorable U.S. ties, partly, too, as a hedge against any development of hostile ties with China."
The report also adds that both China and India face a potentially bumpy ride to the top.
"Although we believe chances are good that China and India will continue to rise, their ascent is not guaranteed and will require overcoming high economic and social hurdles," the report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council released on Thursday said.
The last time the NIC published its quadrennial glimpse into the future was in December 2004.
The 121-page report titled Global Trends 2025 - A World Transformed aims to stimulate debate and thinking, as a new U.S. administration prepares to take power.
The next president, Barack Obama, inherits, the report warns, a country that will no longer be able to "call the shots" alone, as its power over an increasingly multi-polar world begins to fade.
The report said India would probably continue to enjoy relatively rapid economic growth, but the growing gap between rich and poor will become a more acute political issue.
"Indian leaders do not see Washington as a military or economic patron and now believe the international situation has made such a benefactor unnecessary. New Delhi will, however, pursue the benefits of favorable U.S. ties, partly, too, as a hedge against any development of hostile ties with China," it said.
The report feels that India and China could face new challenges if China becomes a peer competitor with a strong military and a dynamic, energy-hungry economy.
"Few countries are poised to have more impact on the world over the next 15-20 years than China. If current trends persist, by 2025 China will have the world's second largest economy and will be a leading military power. It could also be the largest importer of natural resources and an even greater polluter than it is now." But it said China's economic growth would certainly slow, or even recede.
"Mounting social pressures arising from growing income disparities, a fraying social safety net, poor business regulation, hunger for foreign energy, enduring corruption, and environmental devastation also lie in its future. Any of these problems might be soluble in isolation, but the country could be hit by a 'perfect storm' if many of them demand attention at the same time," the report said.
The report also identified three potential up and coming powers - Indonesia, Turkey and Iran - all from the Muslim world but not from its Arab core.
"Political and economic reform in Iran, along with a stable investment climate, could fundamentally redraw both the way the world perceives the country and also the way in which Iranians view themselves. Under those circumstances, economic resurgence could take place quickly in Iran and embolden a latent cosmopolitan, educated, at times secular Iranian middle class," it said.
Highlights
- The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way, will continue for the foreseeable future.
Indian leaders do not see Washington as a military or economic patron and now believe the international situation has made such a benefactor unnecessary.
Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources - particularly energy, food, and water - raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.
The whole international system - as constructed following WWII-will be revolutionised. Not only will new players - Brazil, Russia, India and China - have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.
Re: Geopolitical thread
The West’s fake concern
Having failed to keep their economies afloat, developed countries of the West are now proposing intrusive controls over the economies of developing countries. For evidence, look at the document adopted at the G-20 Summit in Washington, DC
Re: Geopolitical thread
Germany tells Russian leader to respect the Nato alliance
Germany's foreign minister has warned Russia must not try to drive a wedge between western Europe and America but respect his country's historic alliances.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... iance.html
By Michael Levitin in New Dehli
Last Updated: 6:25AM GMT 24 Nov 2008
Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Russia should recognise Germany's close relationship with the US.
"Russia knows that we have uniquely close relations with the United States," he said. "We are a member of EU and Nato and we are acting together with our allies."
Mr Steinmeier's remarks during a trip to India last week reflect European concerns that Russia's aggressive foreign policy is designed to divide Nato members.
The announcement by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia's first short-range missile deployment aimed at Western Europe the day after Barack Obama won the US presidency was interpreted by Berlin as a challenge to transatlantic relations.
"He has strong ambitions for the future development of Russia," Mr Steinmeier said. "We had to criticise his misplaced statement to bring missiles into Kaliningrad. I think he made a mistake with that announcement that day."
In a state of the nation address, Mr Medvedev said Russia would install missiles in Kaliningrad if the US did not "rethink" its plan for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, to guard against attack from Iran.
Mr Steinmeier said western Europe was ready to embrace a new transatlantic relationship with Mr Obama.
He said: "There's no other people with whom we have been linked in so many ways."
President-Elect Barack Obama's emphasis on a green revolution offer European countries an immediate opening to co-ordinate initiatives on climate change, energy security and the global fight for water, he said.
"These are issues that will no doubt have to be dealt with as items on the transatlantic agenda," he said.
As with the outgoing Republican administration, it was security issues that provided the litmus test of a new relationship but the dynamic has changed in favour of warmer ties. Mr Steinmeier hoped to spearhead European overtures to Washington and has signalled German readiness to surmount domestic reservations over sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
"I have met Barack Obama twice, and from those exchanges I know that he looks at Afghanistan in a very differentiated and a very wise way," he said. "He is aware of the fact that we face a very difficult security situation, but he is also aware of the fact that military means alone cannot bring the necessary changes. We will only be successful if we succeed in helping rebuild the country and its economy, so civil reconstruction is the other important pillar of what we do there."
Mr Steinmeier said that Germany was ready to make commitments in Afghanistan that were politically unpopular at home. "We're increasing our troops by 30 per cent to 4,500. We're responsible for radio surveillance across the whole of Afghanistan and aerial surveillance in the south [around] Kandahar," he said.
"In addition, we took over the quick reaction force in the north – and let us not forget that circumstances there have changed, too, so it's not fair to say the situation is calmer [in the north] than in the rest of the country."
With federal elections in Germany less than a year away and more than 80 per cent of the public opposed to increasing the troop presence in the south, any decision will be fraught with political difficulties.
Russia is another rallying point as Berlin abandons its previous emollient stance towards the Kremlin in pursuit of a stronger European foreign policy. He said that Europe "needs to speak with a clear single voice in foreign policy, which is why we fought for the Lisbon Treaty – and why we still need it".
"When Russia's behaviour in the southern Caucasus turned to exaggeration and began to alter geographical realities and maps, Europe responded with one voice. This no doubt contributed to the military conflict ending."
Mr Steinmeier cast doubt on predictions that Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, would return to his old office of president soon.
A looming decision on admitting Georgia and Ukraine to Nato was likely to provoke a further showdown with the Kremlin, Mr Steinmeier predicted.
Germany also stands ready to address the thorny task of shoring up Pakistan, which he described as a "country on the verge of economic collapse".
"We have to strengthen Pakistan's commitment to fight against terrorism," said Mr Steinmeier. He lauded the emergence of the "group of friends" of Pakistan, including the US, Britain, China, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, dedicated to stabilising the country.
Germany's foreign minister has warned Russia must not try to drive a wedge between western Europe and America but respect his country's historic alliances.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... iance.html
By Michael Levitin in New Dehli
Last Updated: 6:25AM GMT 24 Nov 2008
Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Russia should recognise Germany's close relationship with the US.
"Russia knows that we have uniquely close relations with the United States," he said. "We are a member of EU and Nato and we are acting together with our allies."
Mr Steinmeier's remarks during a trip to India last week reflect European concerns that Russia's aggressive foreign policy is designed to divide Nato members.
The announcement by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia's first short-range missile deployment aimed at Western Europe the day after Barack Obama won the US presidency was interpreted by Berlin as a challenge to transatlantic relations.
"He has strong ambitions for the future development of Russia," Mr Steinmeier said. "We had to criticise his misplaced statement to bring missiles into Kaliningrad. I think he made a mistake with that announcement that day."
In a state of the nation address, Mr Medvedev said Russia would install missiles in Kaliningrad if the US did not "rethink" its plan for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, to guard against attack from Iran.
Mr Steinmeier said western Europe was ready to embrace a new transatlantic relationship with Mr Obama.
He said: "There's no other people with whom we have been linked in so many ways."
President-Elect Barack Obama's emphasis on a green revolution offer European countries an immediate opening to co-ordinate initiatives on climate change, energy security and the global fight for water, he said.
"These are issues that will no doubt have to be dealt with as items on the transatlantic agenda," he said.
As with the outgoing Republican administration, it was security issues that provided the litmus test of a new relationship but the dynamic has changed in favour of warmer ties. Mr Steinmeier hoped to spearhead European overtures to Washington and has signalled German readiness to surmount domestic reservations over sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
"I have met Barack Obama twice, and from those exchanges I know that he looks at Afghanistan in a very differentiated and a very wise way," he said. "He is aware of the fact that we face a very difficult security situation, but he is also aware of the fact that military means alone cannot bring the necessary changes. We will only be successful if we succeed in helping rebuild the country and its economy, so civil reconstruction is the other important pillar of what we do there."
Mr Steinmeier said that Germany was ready to make commitments in Afghanistan that were politically unpopular at home. "We're increasing our troops by 30 per cent to 4,500. We're responsible for radio surveillance across the whole of Afghanistan and aerial surveillance in the south [around] Kandahar," he said.
"In addition, we took over the quick reaction force in the north – and let us not forget that circumstances there have changed, too, so it's not fair to say the situation is calmer [in the north] than in the rest of the country."
With federal elections in Germany less than a year away and more than 80 per cent of the public opposed to increasing the troop presence in the south, any decision will be fraught with political difficulties.
Russia is another rallying point as Berlin abandons its previous emollient stance towards the Kremlin in pursuit of a stronger European foreign policy. He said that Europe "needs to speak with a clear single voice in foreign policy, which is why we fought for the Lisbon Treaty – and why we still need it".
"When Russia's behaviour in the southern Caucasus turned to exaggeration and began to alter geographical realities and maps, Europe responded with one voice. This no doubt contributed to the military conflict ending."
Mr Steinmeier cast doubt on predictions that Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, would return to his old office of president soon.
A looming decision on admitting Georgia and Ukraine to Nato was likely to provoke a further showdown with the Kremlin, Mr Steinmeier predicted.
Germany also stands ready to address the thorny task of shoring up Pakistan, which he described as a "country on the verge of economic collapse".
"We have to strengthen Pakistan's commitment to fight against terrorism," said Mr Steinmeier. He lauded the emergence of the "group of friends" of Pakistan, including the US, Britain, China, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, dedicated to stabilising the country.
Re: Geopolitical thread
We should start looking at economic aspects of geopolitics...
Satya_anveshi wrote:So far no article has used "controlled demolition" in regard to financial crisis to earn more sympathy/loyalty and it is amusing.Acharya wrote:Looks like they are trying to bring the stocks and market down so that the Fed and US govt gets public support to fund and recapitalize these banks.
- APEC has met and along with a lot of hu ha, declared that they will not impose trade barriers
- China and India are doing everything they can to sooth US that they are doing everything within their power to "restore confidence" (euphenism to we are not doing anything adventurous)
- Sarkozy quickly took position that gives him "leadership" role and "control" the dissenters agenda
So, the charade continues for some more time.
However, even the common man has understood US's modus-operandi wrt managing their economy and the health (or lack) of it so this has to come to end soon. Unlike military abuse, where the victims are localized, financial abuse leaves vistims across vast locale. So, resentment is that much more / spread out. When and how this change will happen..remains to be seen.
Re: Geopolitical thread
From the Pakistan thread
1. Conversion of LoC to permanent IB.
2. Dismemberment of Pakistan.
3. Increased Indian presence in IOR.
4. A reconfigured geography, that facilitates land based access to CAR via reinforced Afghanistan.
Bonus points...
1. Chinese cut off from Pakistan (Gwadar investment will go down the drain).
2. Debilited Pakistan also means a stop to HuJI mischiefs. I just noted that usually clueless Home Minsiter has formally named BDs (beside Pakis) as terror financiers/trainers for the first time.
Paki PM seemed to have smelled the plot and hence so much bhai bandi (any armtwistimg to ensure peacefull polls in Kashmir???).
A reconfigured Afghanistan (with the entire Pashtun territories in one piece) will be a perpetual pain for the Pakis, hence "Indian in every Pakistani" songs. 10% seems to be trying to salvage whatever he can for PakJabis.
Just connecting some dots...
If we presume that a dominant section of GoI are inclined to give up PoK in exchange of the following.Kati wrote:The telegraph, Kolkata, Nov 24, 2008
Quote:
Jittery Pakistan smells an India-US axis
JANE PERLEZ
Islamabad, Nov. 23: A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fuelled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the US really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms.
“One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan,” said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning. “Some people feel the United States is colluding in this.”
That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years. But as the incoming Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored.
This is a country where years of weak governance have left ample room for conspiracy theories of every kind.
Pakistan is a collection of just four provinces, which often seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders is disputed with its neighbours.
These facts and the insecurities that flow from them inform many of Pakistan’s disagreements with the US, including differences over the need to rein in militancy in the form of al Qaida and the Taliban.
The new democratically elected President, Asif Ali Zardari, has visited the US twice since assuming power three months ago. He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticised at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-American public.
So how will the promise by President-elect Barack Obama for a new start between the US and Pakistan be received here? How can it be begun?
One possibility could be some effort to ease Pakistani anxieties, even as the US demands more from Pakistan. That will probably mean a regional approach to what, it is increasingly apparent, are regional problems. There, Pakistani and American interests may coincide.
American military commanders have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan must involve a wide array of neighbours.
Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat — the Qaida and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country.
“If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Obama has written in Foreign Affairs magazine.
New York Times News Service
1. Conversion of LoC to permanent IB.
2. Dismemberment of Pakistan.
3. Increased Indian presence in IOR.
4. A reconfigured geography, that facilitates land based access to CAR via reinforced Afghanistan.
Bonus points...
1. Chinese cut off from Pakistan (Gwadar investment will go down the drain).
2. Debilited Pakistan also means a stop to HuJI mischiefs. I just noted that usually clueless Home Minsiter has formally named BDs (beside Pakis) as terror financiers/trainers for the first time.
Paki PM seemed to have smelled the plot and hence so much bhai bandi (any armtwistimg to ensure peacefull polls in Kashmir???).
A reconfigured Afghanistan (with the entire Pashtun territories in one piece) will be a perpetual pain for the Pakis, hence "Indian in every Pakistani" songs. 10% seems to be trying to salvage whatever he can for PakJabis.
Just connecting some dots...
Re: Geopolitical thread
So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
Re: Geopolitical thread
An interesting thought.renukb wrote:So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
How is this to be achieved?
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Geopolitical thread
By having a sound strategy –RayC wrote:An interesting thought.renukb wrote:So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
How is this to be achieved?
Achieve internal cohesion – Establish honest and fair rule of law. Implement good governance. Remove pseudo-secular ideology from school text books. Fill self-confidence and pride in the next generation.
Infrastructure – Develop civil, industrial and military infrastructure. Ensure the logistics pipeline is in place to support a surgical war.
International opinion – Invest in the propaganda machine to show India in right light and garner international acceptance and support for our actions.
Gain friends across the globe. For example - Convincing 53 African governments and 15+ Asian countries along with couple of P5s to recognize a new Independent Tibet will achieve intended results.
Political will – Gain public confidence thru democratic means to build the political will to implement India’s geopolitical strategies.
Implementation – Walk the talk. Internally and externally.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Rhetorics firstrenukb wrote:So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
, is Kashmir any more special than Sindh, Punjab, and Bengal (Assam to be soon)? Someday when we strike down article 370 then we should talk about recovering PoK.Anyway.
How do we recover PoK? Is someone suggesting that PoK can be taken back while Pakistan still being around?
Do we have the stomach to fight a long drawn out war? Or do we have the means to fight such a war?
PoK is not going to end up as the next new bunch of J&K district as long as Pakistan is around. To remove that factor you need mass mobilization of manpower and massive increase in armament production output in India, in case of a conventional warfare. That is assuming we do not go the path of nuclear weapons.
The military machinery should be simply able to carry on in face of sanctions, embargos and casualties.
You also need to account for impact on economy and heavy industry and plan accordingly.
Re: Geopolitical thread
What the heck is this?
Sunken 'pirate ship' was actually Thai trawler, owner says
Is this another attempt to get Indian Navy discredited, either way?
Sunken 'pirate ship' was actually Thai trawler, owner says
Is this another attempt to get Indian Navy discredited, either way?
Re: Geopolitical thread
They should charge the Thai owner with abetting piracy by letting his vessel be used for piracy. 
Seriously there is no dobt that it was under pirates custody when it was sunk. It just means that the pirates had commandeered the trawler.
Press reprot from NDTV
Seriously there is no dobt that it was under pirates custody when it was sunk. It just means that the pirates had commandeered the trawler.
Press reprot from NDTV
Did sunken pirate ship belong to Thai?
NDTV Correspondent
Tuesday, November 25, 2008, (New Delhi)
The Navy's decision to destroy a pirate mother ship is now being questioned by a Thai national who says the ship sunk last Tuesday in the Gulf of Aden actually belonged to him.
The Navy spokesman has told NDTV that the Navy ship fired in self defence, after armed pirates on board the unidentified ship threatened to blow up the ship and then fired at the Indian ship.
The Thai national has apparently admitted that the ship was under pirates control and that of the 16 crew members, one is confirmed dead, and others still missing.
Is the Thai chap's case that IN should have peacefully taken over the trawler and given it back to him so he can lose it again?
And whats wrong with NDTV to give that headline as if there was a mess-up?
Re: Geopolitical thread
How to achieve this? Spoonfeeding? Sorry I got no time for that. But, For some one who can't think and act, it may sound like a rheotric, but If you have a goal, you will learn how to achieve it. It is not very difficult for a nation of 1 billion Plus... THINK and think differently, you will find ways. But if you don't even have (achievable) goals or objectives, you will achieve nothing. Now don't call it as pep talkRayC wrote:An interesting thought.renukb wrote:So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
How is this to be achieved?
Learn from Chinese... China has a goal to get back Taiwan, you will see that they get it back, regardless of what USA does. Where there is a will, there is a way out. Learn to see light at the end of every tunnel. But if you miss the willl... no one can help you.
Re: Geopolitical thread
The pukis have kept their eye on the kashmiri ball for decades now.SRoy wrote:Rhetorics firstrenukb wrote:So people have started discussing the price of Kashmir! Only Indians can do this. No wonder some Kashmiris don't want to be with India. India should never give up Kashmir, but rather chalk out plans to get back, POK, COK and the entire Indus river valley back. Liberating Tibet next.
Anyway.
How do we recover PoK? Is someone suggesting that PoK can be taken back while Pakistan still being around?
Do we have the stomach to fight a long drawn out war? Or do we have the means to fight such a war?
PoK is not going to end up as the next new bunch of J&K district as long as Pakistan is around. To remove that factor you need mass mobilization of manpower and massive increase in armament production output in India, in case of a conventional warfare. That is assuming we do not go the path of nuclear weapons.
The military machinery should be simply able to carry on in face of sanctions, embargos and casualties.
You also need to account for impact on economy and heavy industry and plan accordingly.
These are guys who can barely count to ten on their fingers, to twenty with their shoes off and twenty one with a hole in their pocket.
The pukis don't want the kashmiris, or the apples. The kashmiris well know this and this is exactly is why they want azadi.
They fully well know what the pukis have done in POK, the shia genocide is a small taste of things to come for them
The pukis are nationally desperate for the water in kashmir and frantically want total control over the water.
Recall musharraf's address to his nation when he was forced to align with the us for the war on terror. Thought that he could leverage it into some significant advantage on kashmir.
Even the thought of a little disturbance in the water flow from kashmir causes various puki orifices to pucker up.
Give this water angle wide publicity so the general public in kashmir does not continue to have romantic
illusions from the ROP angle.
Re: Geopolitical thread
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 233104.ece
Russian navy arrives in Venezuela to 21-gun salute
President Medvedev will make the first visit to Venezuela by a Russian leader on Wednesday
Tony Halpin in Moscow
Russian warships received a 21-gun salute in Venezuela yesterday as they made their first show of force in America’s backyard since the end of the Cold War.
The nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great and the submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko arrived at the port of La Guaira before war games in the Caribbean with the Venezuelan Navy.
Their presence was timed to coincide with the visit of President Medvedev today, the first to Venezuela by a Russian leader, as Moscow seeks to reclaim influence in the region.
President Chávez, Venezuela’s fiercely anti-American leader, welcomed the arrival of the task force in what is being seen as a calculated display of Russian defiance to the United States.
Peter the Great, the largest ship in the Russian Navy, is so big that it had to anchor offshore. Venezuelan sailors lined the harbour as the Admiral Chabanenko and two support vessels docked. General Jesús González, head of Operations Command in Venezuela, said that eleven ships and eight aircraft would take part in the exercises with the Russian fleet, which includes five aircraft. Some 1,150 Russian and 600 Venezuelan servicemen were involved.
Venezuela showed off two Sukhoi fighter jets recently bought from Russia, which performed a flyover as the task force approached. Mr Chávez has bought more than $4 billion of Russian arms since 2005 and is expected to conclude more deals during Mr Medvedev’s visit.
The Kremlin has described its relationship with Venezuela as a “counterweight to US influence”. The presence of its task force so close to the American coast is seen as a retort to the US decision to send warships to deliver aid to Georgia after the war over South Ossetia in August.
The US State Department laughed off the arrival of the ageing Russian vessels, with its spokesman Sean McCormack asking reporters: “Are they accompanied by tugboats this time?”
Mr Chávez insisted that the manoeuvres were not provocative and described them as an “exchange between two free countries”. He is seeking Russian aid to build Venezuela’s first nuclear power station.
Mr Medvedev, who has also visited Peru and Brazil, will continue his Latin American tour with a trip to communist Cuba, the focus of the 1962 missile crisis between the US and the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, said in August that Russia should “restore its position in Cuba” amid speculation that it may seek to open a military base there in response to US plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe.
Russian navy arrives in Venezuela to 21-gun salute
President Medvedev will make the first visit to Venezuela by a Russian leader on Wednesday
Tony Halpin in Moscow
Russian warships received a 21-gun salute in Venezuela yesterday as they made their first show of force in America’s backyard since the end of the Cold War.
The nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great and the submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko arrived at the port of La Guaira before war games in the Caribbean with the Venezuelan Navy.
Their presence was timed to coincide with the visit of President Medvedev today, the first to Venezuela by a Russian leader, as Moscow seeks to reclaim influence in the region.
President Chávez, Venezuela’s fiercely anti-American leader, welcomed the arrival of the task force in what is being seen as a calculated display of Russian defiance to the United States.
Peter the Great, the largest ship in the Russian Navy, is so big that it had to anchor offshore. Venezuelan sailors lined the harbour as the Admiral Chabanenko and two support vessels docked. General Jesús González, head of Operations Command in Venezuela, said that eleven ships and eight aircraft would take part in the exercises with the Russian fleet, which includes five aircraft. Some 1,150 Russian and 600 Venezuelan servicemen were involved.
Venezuela showed off two Sukhoi fighter jets recently bought from Russia, which performed a flyover as the task force approached. Mr Chávez has bought more than $4 billion of Russian arms since 2005 and is expected to conclude more deals during Mr Medvedev’s visit.
The Kremlin has described its relationship with Venezuela as a “counterweight to US influence”. The presence of its task force so close to the American coast is seen as a retort to the US decision to send warships to deliver aid to Georgia after the war over South Ossetia in August.
The US State Department laughed off the arrival of the ageing Russian vessels, with its spokesman Sean McCormack asking reporters: “Are they accompanied by tugboats this time?”
Mr Chávez insisted that the manoeuvres were not provocative and described them as an “exchange between two free countries”. He is seeking Russian aid to build Venezuela’s first nuclear power station.
Mr Medvedev, who has also visited Peru and Brazil, will continue his Latin American tour with a trip to communist Cuba, the focus of the 1962 missile crisis between the US and the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, said in August that Russia should “restore its position in Cuba” amid speculation that it may seek to open a military base there in response to US plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe.
Re: Geopolitical thread
UPI.com
Outside View: Time to talk to the Taliban
MOSCOW, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The Soviet Union fought in Afghanistan from December 1979 until February 1989. Right now, U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan are developing interesting similarities with the scenario and timeframe of the Soviet operation there.
In 1986 Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced Moscow's decision to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. Gorbachev's statement came seven years after the Soviet Union deployed its troops in the country. Soviet leaders officially said it was impossible to solve the Afghan problem solely by using military force.
Although Moscow's decision to pull out of Afghanistan shocked many people, the Afghan leader, Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, and his government quickly recovered and proclaimed a "national reconciliation" policy -- convening a Loya Jirga, or Grand Assembly, that was originally attended only by Pashtun tribes but later included other ethnic groups. He also called on armed opposition groups to negotiate.
History tends to repeat itself. The U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition, which also includes Russia, has been fighting in Afghanistan since October 2001. The International Security Assistance Force, a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan, was established by the U.N. Security Council in December 2001.
Although a troop withdrawal is still out of the question, the parties concerned have already started talking about the need to negotiate with the Afghan opposition.
On Nov. 16 Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on Taliban leaders to take part in talks aimed at national reconciliation. He guaranteed the safety of Mullah Omar -- the Taliban leader with a multimillion-dollar U.S. bounty on his head thought to be hiding in Pakistan -- if he returns to Afghanistan or conducts peace talks.
His call was also addressed to the international community supporting the struggle against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
He said the international community should either oust him or not interfere with his actions, even if it opposed his plan.
NATO is so far the only international organization to support Karzai's move. If Karzai and the government of Afghanistan make this choice, then we will support it, NATO spokesman James Appaturay said.
NATO believes there is no purely military solution to this problem, Appaturay said.
It appears that all 40 nations that have contributed troop contingents to ISAF share this position.
Russia, the only country to oppose the proposed talks, was indirectly supported by Washington.
U.S. Ambassador George A. Krol, deputy assistant secretary of state for south and central Asian affairs, said the talks could get under way only if the Taliban lay down their weapons, return to civilian life, renounce all ties with al-Qaida, acknowledge the primacy of the Afghan Constitution and president, and recognize the U.S. government as their partner.
In reality, however, these demands resemble the terms of a surrender, rather than conditions for future talks.
The United States should admit that it missed an excellent chance to convert Operation Enduring Freedom, the official name used by the U.S. government for its contribution to the war in Afghanistan, into a peace-enforcement operation. Washington should have done this right after the creation of the interim Afghan administration in Kabul. A peace-enforcement operation should have been conducted on the initiative of that administration and should have also stipulated talks with the Taliban.
That opportunity was missed, however, and the Taliban have now seized the initiative. Naturally, the Taliban turned down Karzai's offer and said there could be no talk of a cease-fire agreement until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.
The Taliban also noted Washington's obvious tactical mistake and inquired why Karzai didn't think about negotiations in 2001.
Although the Afghan leader pondered and repeatedly noted the need for such dialogue, his stand had many opponents both inside Afghanistan and among the international community.
It turns out Karzai was right after all. But the Taliban is unlikely to negotiate on Washington's terms.
There will be no need for peace talks if the Taliban lay down their weapons, return to civilian life, renounce all ties with Al-Qaida, acknowledge the primacy of the Afghan Constitution and president, and recognize the U.S. government as their partner.
Still, this seems unlikely because the Taliban has seized military initiative and because any local peace talks should be preceded by a cease-fire. The current situation is no exception either.
Najibullah was a skilled politician who knew the feelings of ordinary Afghans. By proclaiming a national reconciliation policy and calling on the armed opposition to negotiate, he retained political initiative and won people's sympathies. He also got rid of state symbols that irritated the Afghan population and initiated a cease-fire agreement.
Right now, the traditionally influential ulema (experts on Islamic law) and the Muslim clergy of the western Afghan provinces support the idea of negotiating with the Afghan Taliban but do not want to hold talks with foreign members of the Taliban movement.
The national reconciliation program launched by Najibullah is appropriate in the present-day context. Most importantly, the international community should not hinder the efforts of Karzai and the Afghan nation to negotiate with the Taliban because no one else knows this problem better.
No matter what we say about the allegedly pointless talks and a flawed cease-fire agreement with the Taliban, this choice belongs to the people of Afghanistan and nobody else.
--
(Pyotr Goncharov is a foreign news commentator for RIA Novosti, which first published a version if this article. The opinions expressed in it are the author's alone.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Outside View: Time to talk to the Taliban
MOSCOW, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The Soviet Union fought in Afghanistan from December 1979 until February 1989. Right now, U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan are developing interesting similarities with the scenario and timeframe of the Soviet operation there.
In 1986 Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced Moscow's decision to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. Gorbachev's statement came seven years after the Soviet Union deployed its troops in the country. Soviet leaders officially said it was impossible to solve the Afghan problem solely by using military force.
Although Moscow's decision to pull out of Afghanistan shocked many people, the Afghan leader, Dr. Mohammad Najibullah, and his government quickly recovered and proclaimed a "national reconciliation" policy -- convening a Loya Jirga, or Grand Assembly, that was originally attended only by Pashtun tribes but later included other ethnic groups. He also called on armed opposition groups to negotiate.
History tends to repeat itself. The U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition, which also includes Russia, has been fighting in Afghanistan since October 2001. The International Security Assistance Force, a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan, was established by the U.N. Security Council in December 2001.
Although a troop withdrawal is still out of the question, the parties concerned have already started talking about the need to negotiate with the Afghan opposition.
On Nov. 16 Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on Taliban leaders to take part in talks aimed at national reconciliation. He guaranteed the safety of Mullah Omar -- the Taliban leader with a multimillion-dollar U.S. bounty on his head thought to be hiding in Pakistan -- if he returns to Afghanistan or conducts peace talks.
His call was also addressed to the international community supporting the struggle against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
He said the international community should either oust him or not interfere with his actions, even if it opposed his plan.
NATO is so far the only international organization to support Karzai's move. If Karzai and the government of Afghanistan make this choice, then we will support it, NATO spokesman James Appaturay said.
NATO believes there is no purely military solution to this problem, Appaturay said.
It appears that all 40 nations that have contributed troop contingents to ISAF share this position.
Russia, the only country to oppose the proposed talks, was indirectly supported by Washington.
U.S. Ambassador George A. Krol, deputy assistant secretary of state for south and central Asian affairs, said the talks could get under way only if the Taliban lay down their weapons, return to civilian life, renounce all ties with al-Qaida, acknowledge the primacy of the Afghan Constitution and president, and recognize the U.S. government as their partner.
In reality, however, these demands resemble the terms of a surrender, rather than conditions for future talks.
The United States should admit that it missed an excellent chance to convert Operation Enduring Freedom, the official name used by the U.S. government for its contribution to the war in Afghanistan, into a peace-enforcement operation. Washington should have done this right after the creation of the interim Afghan administration in Kabul. A peace-enforcement operation should have been conducted on the initiative of that administration and should have also stipulated talks with the Taliban.
That opportunity was missed, however, and the Taliban have now seized the initiative. Naturally, the Taliban turned down Karzai's offer and said there could be no talk of a cease-fire agreement until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.
The Taliban also noted Washington's obvious tactical mistake and inquired why Karzai didn't think about negotiations in 2001.
Although the Afghan leader pondered and repeatedly noted the need for such dialogue, his stand had many opponents both inside Afghanistan and among the international community.
It turns out Karzai was right after all. But the Taliban is unlikely to negotiate on Washington's terms.
There will be no need for peace talks if the Taliban lay down their weapons, return to civilian life, renounce all ties with Al-Qaida, acknowledge the primacy of the Afghan Constitution and president, and recognize the U.S. government as their partner.
Still, this seems unlikely because the Taliban has seized military initiative and because any local peace talks should be preceded by a cease-fire. The current situation is no exception either.
Najibullah was a skilled politician who knew the feelings of ordinary Afghans. By proclaiming a national reconciliation policy and calling on the armed opposition to negotiate, he retained political initiative and won people's sympathies. He also got rid of state symbols that irritated the Afghan population and initiated a cease-fire agreement.
Right now, the traditionally influential ulema (experts on Islamic law) and the Muslim clergy of the western Afghan provinces support the idea of negotiating with the Afghan Taliban but do not want to hold talks with foreign members of the Taliban movement.
The national reconciliation program launched by Najibullah is appropriate in the present-day context. Most importantly, the international community should not hinder the efforts of Karzai and the Afghan nation to negotiate with the Taliban because no one else knows this problem better.
No matter what we say about the allegedly pointless talks and a flawed cease-fire agreement with the Taliban, this choice belongs to the people of Afghanistan and nobody else.
--
(Pyotr Goncharov is a foreign news commentator for RIA Novosti, which first published a version if this article. The opinions expressed in it are the author's alone.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
Re: Geopolitical thread
'India should join NATO'
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20081206/81 ... ato_1.html
Chandigarh, Dec 6 (IANS) A new political outfit, Jago (Awake!) Party, Saturday demanded India give up its non-aligned status and join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to more effectively combat terrorism.
'The more than five-decade old Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is no longer relevant in the current world order. The world is no longer divided in blocs headed by two superpowers. Now the questions faced by our country need fresh answers,' party chief Deepak Mittal said here.
'We should join NATO to fight the menace of crossborder terrorism', he said, adding that if this country were part of the alliance, 'any attack on India will be considered an attack on NATO and all the member countries will reply with their combined strength to fight the source of the attack'.
The party was set up Aug 2007 and the Election Commission registered it as a political party Jan 2008.
The party fielded 30 candidates in the recently concluded assembly elections in Rajasthan. It is also planning to contest the forthcoming general elections.
Mittal, a local businessman, said the party, led by 'educated and competent individuals, is dedicated to awake the sleeping populace of our country'.
All political parties, national or regional, are playing divisive politics based on caste and religion, he said, adding they decided to enter politics to protest the current scenario and were against 'all deceitful politicians'.
'Our party candidates will be intellectuals drawn from the common people and professional politicians who have contested elections from other parties will never be considered as our candidates,' said Mittal.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20081206/81 ... ato_1.html
Chandigarh, Dec 6 (IANS) A new political outfit, Jago (Awake!) Party, Saturday demanded India give up its non-aligned status and join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to more effectively combat terrorism.
'The more than five-decade old Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is no longer relevant in the current world order. The world is no longer divided in blocs headed by two superpowers. Now the questions faced by our country need fresh answers,' party chief Deepak Mittal said here.
'We should join NATO to fight the menace of crossborder terrorism', he said, adding that if this country were part of the alliance, 'any attack on India will be considered an attack on NATO and all the member countries will reply with their combined strength to fight the source of the attack'.
The party was set up Aug 2007 and the Election Commission registered it as a political party Jan 2008.
The party fielded 30 candidates in the recently concluded assembly elections in Rajasthan. It is also planning to contest the forthcoming general elections.
Mittal, a local businessman, said the party, led by 'educated and competent individuals, is dedicated to awake the sleeping populace of our country'.
All political parties, national or regional, are playing divisive politics based on caste and religion, he said, adding they decided to enter politics to protest the current scenario and were against 'all deceitful politicians'.
'Our party candidates will be intellectuals drawn from the common people and professional politicians who have contested elections from other parties will never be considered as our candidates,' said Mittal.
Re: Geopolitical thread
US Refuses to Sign Treaty Banning Cluster Bombs
http://i4.democracynow.org/2008/12/3/headlines
Around 100 nations have begun signing a new international treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Human Rights Watch has described the ban as the most significant arms control and humanitarian treaty in a decade. The convention bans use, stockpiling and trading of the weapons. It also requires signatories to clear contaminated areas within ten years. A signing ceremony is being held today in the Norwegian capital of Oslo. Norway was the first country to sign the treaty, followed by Laos and Lebanon, two countries who have been most affected by cluster bombs. The United States, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan have rejected the ban.
Thomas Nash of the Cluster Munition Coalition: “There are some countries in the world that don’t seem to like to sign international treaties. The US, Russia and China are three that come to mind, many treaties that they have not signed. They won’t be here in Oslo next week, and we regret that. Those countries, if they want to be part of the international community that is protecting civilians in armed conflict, they should sign this treaty in Oslo.”
Washington, Moscow and other non-signers say cluster bombs have legitimate military uses. But according to the group Handicap International, 98 percent of cluster bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children.
http://i4.democracynow.org/2008/12/3/headlines
Around 100 nations have begun signing a new international treaty banning the use of cluster bombs. Human Rights Watch has described the ban as the most significant arms control and humanitarian treaty in a decade. The convention bans use, stockpiling and trading of the weapons. It also requires signatories to clear contaminated areas within ten years. A signing ceremony is being held today in the Norwegian capital of Oslo. Norway was the first country to sign the treaty, followed by Laos and Lebanon, two countries who have been most affected by cluster bombs. The United States, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan have rejected the ban.
Thomas Nash of the Cluster Munition Coalition: “There are some countries in the world that don’t seem to like to sign international treaties. The US, Russia and China are three that come to mind, many treaties that they have not signed. They won’t be here in Oslo next week, and we regret that. Those countries, if they want to be part of the international community that is protecting civilians in armed conflict, they should sign this treaty in Oslo.”
Washington, Moscow and other non-signers say cluster bombs have legitimate military uses. But according to the group Handicap International, 98 percent of cluster bomb victims are civilians, and 27 percent are children.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Deleted.
Last edited by renukb on 07 Dec 2008 13:05, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Where is the China thread?
China steps up military ties with Nepal
After India, It's China's Turn in Nepal
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issues two rosy releases at the end of Chinese foreign minister Yan Jiechi’s Kathmandu visit.
The two sides-- Nepal and China-- discuss political developmennts, trade, economy and more. China's offers Nepal approximately NRs. 1.2 billion in aid. The following is the full text of the press release, issued December 3, 2003:
Official talks between Nepal and China were held today at the level of Foreign Minister at Shital Niwas. The Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister H. E. Mr Yang Jiechi consisted of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal H.E. Mr Qiu Guohong as well as Senior Officials of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. The Nepalese delegation led by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal Hon. Mr Upendra Yadav comprised Advisor Mr Shyamananda Suman, Foreign Secretary Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya as well as other Senior Officials of the Government of Nepal.
Welcoming the Foreign Minister of China the Foreign Minister of Nepal highlighted the importance of such a high level visit from China after the declaration of Republic in Nepal.
During the talks, both the Foreign Ministers agreed to enhance and upgrade bilateral relationship to a new height with the expansion and consolidation of mutual interaction in diverse fields. They also agreed that regular exchange of visits at high levels will contribute towards enhancing mutual understanding and goodwill between the two countries.
The Foreign Minister of Nepal briefed the Chinese Foreign Minister about the current developments in Nepal and the peace process. He also expressed his thanks to the people and the Government of China for their valuable support during Nepal's transition and peace process. They agreed to enhance and broaden the areas of cooperation in the days ahead. The Nepalese side lauded the economic achievements that China has made over the years and requested for Chinese cooperation in enabling Nepal to derive due benefits from bilateral partnerships and joint undertakings.
They also reviewed the projects being undertaken with the assistance of China such as Syafrubesi-Rasuwagadi Road, National Ayurveda Research and Training Centre and National Trust for Nature Conservation as well as other important projects. They also discussed about future projects for their detailed technical study and prioritization.
On bilateral trade, both sides emphasized the need for promoting sustainable trade, thereby enhancing mutually beneficial trading relationship through promotion of Nepalese exports to China. In this context, they also agreed to consider Comprehensive Trade Agreement between the two countries. Both sides noted with satisfaction the Chinese investment in Nepal in diverse areas and also decided to further promote such investments to contribute towards strengthening economic ties between the two countries.
Both sides also discussed about the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and Dry Ports in border areas. They also agreed to make the best use of the existing geographical advantage to expand relations between Nepal and Tibet and promote border trade between the two countries through more facilitating measures. While expressing their appreciation for growing business to business and people to people relations between the two countries both sides agreed to promote and encourage them for mutual benefit in the days to come.
Nepalese side highlighted the advantages of better connectivity by all means of transport including railways to promote linkages between Nepal and China. The Nepalese Foreign Minister also appreciated the Government of China for providing scholarships as well as human resource training opportunities in China. Both sides agreed to promote tourism between the two countries through various initiatives and appropriate measures.
Both sides directed the bilateral consultation mechanism to hold regular meetings to review all aspects of bilateral cooperation, explore new areas of cooperation and prepare long-term measures and a vision paper to promote bilateral relationship between the two countries. They also discussed other issues of mutual interest.
The two Foreign Ministers reviewed regional and international issues of mutual concern and agreed to cooperate in the international forums for promoting their common interests. The Chinese side appreciated the reaffirmation of Nepal's 'One China Policy' and its principled stand of not allowing its territories to be used against China. The Chinese Foreign Minister extended invitation to the Nepalese Foreign Minister to pay an Official visit to China at a mutually convenient time.
On the occasion, the Government of the People's Republic of China agreed to provide the Government of Nepal with a grant of RMB 100 million (Renminbi Yuan one Hundred Million only) equivalent to Nepalese Rs. 1.2 billion approximately. To this effect, an Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government of Nepal and the Government of the People's Republic of China was also signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries. According to the Agreement the grant is to be used for projects to be discussed and decided upon by the two Governments of Nepal and China.
(Official talks between Nepal and China were held today at the level of Foreign Minister at Shital Niwas. The Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister H. E. Mr Yang Jiechi consisted of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal H.E. Mr Qiu Guohong as well as Senior Officials of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. The Nepalese delegation led by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal Hon. Mr Upendra Yadav comprised Advisor Mr Shyamananda Suman, Foreign Secretary Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya as well as other Senior Officials of the Government of Nepal)
China steps up military ties with Nepal
After India, It's China's Turn in Nepal
Nepal's Foreign Ministry issues two rosy releases at the end of Chinese foreign minister Yan Jiechi’s Kathmandu visit.
The two sides-- Nepal and China-- discuss political developmennts, trade, economy and more. China's offers Nepal approximately NRs. 1.2 billion in aid. The following is the full text of the press release, issued December 3, 2003:
Official talks between Nepal and China were held today at the level of Foreign Minister at Shital Niwas. The Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister H. E. Mr Yang Jiechi consisted of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal H.E. Mr Qiu Guohong as well as Senior Officials of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. The Nepalese delegation led by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal Hon. Mr Upendra Yadav comprised Advisor Mr Shyamananda Suman, Foreign Secretary Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya as well as other Senior Officials of the Government of Nepal.
Welcoming the Foreign Minister of China the Foreign Minister of Nepal highlighted the importance of such a high level visit from China after the declaration of Republic in Nepal.
During the talks, both the Foreign Ministers agreed to enhance and upgrade bilateral relationship to a new height with the expansion and consolidation of mutual interaction in diverse fields. They also agreed that regular exchange of visits at high levels will contribute towards enhancing mutual understanding and goodwill between the two countries.
The Foreign Minister of Nepal briefed the Chinese Foreign Minister about the current developments in Nepal and the peace process. He also expressed his thanks to the people and the Government of China for their valuable support during Nepal's transition and peace process. They agreed to enhance and broaden the areas of cooperation in the days ahead. The Nepalese side lauded the economic achievements that China has made over the years and requested for Chinese cooperation in enabling Nepal to derive due benefits from bilateral partnerships and joint undertakings.
They also reviewed the projects being undertaken with the assistance of China such as Syafrubesi-Rasuwagadi Road, National Ayurveda Research and Training Centre and National Trust for Nature Conservation as well as other important projects. They also discussed about future projects for their detailed technical study and prioritization.
On bilateral trade, both sides emphasized the need for promoting sustainable trade, thereby enhancing mutually beneficial trading relationship through promotion of Nepalese exports to China. In this context, they also agreed to consider Comprehensive Trade Agreement between the two countries. Both sides noted with satisfaction the Chinese investment in Nepal in diverse areas and also decided to further promote such investments to contribute towards strengthening economic ties between the two countries.
Both sides also discussed about the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and Dry Ports in border areas. They also agreed to make the best use of the existing geographical advantage to expand relations between Nepal and Tibet and promote border trade between the two countries through more facilitating measures. While expressing their appreciation for growing business to business and people to people relations between the two countries both sides agreed to promote and encourage them for mutual benefit in the days to come.
Nepalese side highlighted the advantages of better connectivity by all means of transport including railways to promote linkages between Nepal and China. The Nepalese Foreign Minister also appreciated the Government of China for providing scholarships as well as human resource training opportunities in China. Both sides agreed to promote tourism between the two countries through various initiatives and appropriate measures.
Both sides directed the bilateral consultation mechanism to hold regular meetings to review all aspects of bilateral cooperation, explore new areas of cooperation and prepare long-term measures and a vision paper to promote bilateral relationship between the two countries. They also discussed other issues of mutual interest.
The two Foreign Ministers reviewed regional and international issues of mutual concern and agreed to cooperate in the international forums for promoting their common interests. The Chinese side appreciated the reaffirmation of Nepal's 'One China Policy' and its principled stand of not allowing its territories to be used against China. The Chinese Foreign Minister extended invitation to the Nepalese Foreign Minister to pay an Official visit to China at a mutually convenient time.
On the occasion, the Government of the People's Republic of China agreed to provide the Government of Nepal with a grant of RMB 100 million (Renminbi Yuan one Hundred Million only) equivalent to Nepalese Rs. 1.2 billion approximately. To this effect, an Agreement on Economic and Technical Cooperation between the Government of Nepal and the Government of the People's Republic of China was also signed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries. According to the Agreement the grant is to be used for projects to be discussed and decided upon by the two Governments of Nepal and China.
(Official talks between Nepal and China were held today at the level of Foreign Minister at Shital Niwas. The Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister H. E. Mr Yang Jiechi consisted of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal H.E. Mr Qiu Guohong as well as Senior Officials of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. The Nepalese delegation led by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nepal Hon. Mr Upendra Yadav comprised Advisor Mr Shyamananda Suman, Foreign Secretary Mr Gyan Chandra Acharya as well as other Senior Officials of the Government of Nepal)
Re: Geopolitical thread
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510
The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
From the desk of Martin De Vlieghere on Fri, 2005-11-25 19:27
This article was written by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit.
“America’s social model is flawed, but so is France’s,” the Parisian newspaper Le Monde recently wrote. According to Le Monde Europe should adopt the “Scandinavian model,” which is said to combine the economic efficiency of the Anglo-Saxon social model with the welfare state benefits of the continental European ones. On the eve of the EU’s Hampton Court Summit (October 27), one could even read that “Britain might be forced to discuss the advantages of Scandinavian models, which rely on more social security.”
The praise for the Nordic model comes from Bruegel, a new Brussels-based think tank, “whose aim is to contribute to the quality of economic policymaking in Europe.” The think tank is a Franco-German government initiative and is heavily funded by EU governments and corporations. In October Bruegel published a study “Globalisation and the Reform of European Social Models” [pdf] propagating the Nordic model.
A paper [pdf] from the economics department of Ghent University does the same. This paper, Fiscal Policy Employment and Growth: Why is the Euro Area Lagging Behind, was also subsidized by the government. In the selection of data comparing the performance of EU economies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated Ireland, Spain and Portugal (three of the four best performing EU economies) from their research and added oil-producing non-EU member Norway (which has a GDP more than 20% of which is based on income from oil). It is hardly imaginable that professors of one of Belgium’s major universities would not be aware of how this arbitrary selection must distort the results. Hence one must read their text as an ideological pamphlet rather than a scientific study.
However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies and the European media’s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.
The implosion of the welfare state
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Major terror attack foiled.Pakistan HQ again!
"Four Belgian nationals had been in Pakistan and Afghanistan since late 2007 and two of them were placed under surveillance when they returned some months ago. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ttack.html
Gordon Brown 'target of suicide bomb attack'
An al-Qaeda suicide bomb attack on Gordon Brown and other European leaders in Brussels has been foiled by police.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 6:35AM GMT 12 Dec 2008
Belgian police arrested 14 suspects, three of whom had just returned from Afghanistan Photo: REUTERS
Belgian police arrested 14 suspected members of al-Qaeda, including a man believed to have been planning a suicide attack, as European leaders gathered in the Belgian capital for a two-day summit.
Johan Delmulle, the Federal Prosecutor, said one suspect had "received the green light to carry out an operation from which he was not expected to come back," and "had said goodbye to his loved ones, because he wanted to enter paradise with a clear conscience."
He had recorded a farewell video and assured that his relatives were taken somewhere safe, according to investigators, although no weapons or explosives have been found.
"This information, linked to the fact that a European summit is getting underway at this moment in Brussels, left us no choice but to take action today," Mr Delmulle said.
The group had been to training camps on the Afghan-Pakistan border, taken part in fighting and had "direct contacts" with "important figures in al-Qaeda," according to the federal prosecutor's office.
Mr Brown, who was arriving in Brussels for a two-day summit to discuss the economic crisis and climate change, was informed of the raids as Belgian police officers went into action.
Glen Audenaert, head of the Belgian judicial police, said officers carried out 16 raids in Brussels and one in the eastern city of Liege in the biggest anti-terrorism operation in the country's history.
Four Belgian nationals had been in Pakistan and Afghanistan since late 2007 and two of them were placed under surveillance when they returned some months ago.
A third, the suicide attack suspect, returned only last week.
The other detainees, both men and women, were suspected of offering "logistic and material support" to the mission, providing accommodation, clothing and communication assistance.
Mr Delmulle said: "We don't know where the suicide attack was to take place.
"It could have been an operation in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but it can't be ruled out that Belgium or Europe could have been the target."
The investigation began in December last year when investigators made 14 arrests in connection with an alleged attempt to spring the Tunisian, Niza Trabelsi from jail in Belgium, although no one was charged.
Trabelsi, a former professional footballer, was the handler for British shoe bombers Richard Reid and Saajid Badat and was arrested with the ingredients to make the explosive TATP.
He was also part of a network planning an attack on the US Embassy in Paris which was connected to Finsbury Park Mosque in North London.
Paul Cruickshank, a fellow at New York University’s Center on Law and Security, said many Belgian radicals take their queues from preachers in Britain such as Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.
“Belgium has a less severe problem than the UK when it comes to violent extremism,” he added, “but it faces as large a challenge as any country on the European continent. Al-Qaeda affiliated groups have taken advantage of the fact that a small but significant number of the country’s North African immigrant population has become radicalised, to recruit individuals for global Jihad.”
Among those arrested was a woman referred to as "MEA" described as "playing an important role in the group" and thought to be Malika el-Aroud, 48, the widow of the assassin of the anti-Taliban leader Ahmed Shah Massoud.
Her husband is a hero in al-Qaeda circles after smuggling himself into Massoud's inner circle with the pretence of conducting a TV interview before blowing up the Northern Alliance leader.
Mrs el-Aroud, who also uses the name Oum-Obeyda, runs a French language website and said earlier this year: "It's not my role to set off bombs. I have a weapon. It's to write, it's to speak out. That's my jihad [holy war]."
Belgium has a history of Islamic extremism and two years ago three men were found guilty of belonging to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, the terrorist cell behind the Madrid bombings.
"Four Belgian nationals had been in Pakistan and Afghanistan since late 2007 and two of them were placed under surveillance when they returned some months ago. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ttack.html
Gordon Brown 'target of suicide bomb attack'
An al-Qaeda suicide bomb attack on Gordon Brown and other European leaders in Brussels has been foiled by police.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 6:35AM GMT 12 Dec 2008
Belgian police arrested 14 suspects, three of whom had just returned from Afghanistan Photo: REUTERS
Belgian police arrested 14 suspected members of al-Qaeda, including a man believed to have been planning a suicide attack, as European leaders gathered in the Belgian capital for a two-day summit.
Johan Delmulle, the Federal Prosecutor, said one suspect had "received the green light to carry out an operation from which he was not expected to come back," and "had said goodbye to his loved ones, because he wanted to enter paradise with a clear conscience."
He had recorded a farewell video and assured that his relatives were taken somewhere safe, according to investigators, although no weapons or explosives have been found.
"This information, linked to the fact that a European summit is getting underway at this moment in Brussels, left us no choice but to take action today," Mr Delmulle said.
The group had been to training camps on the Afghan-Pakistan border, taken part in fighting and had "direct contacts" with "important figures in al-Qaeda," according to the federal prosecutor's office.
Mr Brown, who was arriving in Brussels for a two-day summit to discuss the economic crisis and climate change, was informed of the raids as Belgian police officers went into action.
Glen Audenaert, head of the Belgian judicial police, said officers carried out 16 raids in Brussels and one in the eastern city of Liege in the biggest anti-terrorism operation in the country's history.
Four Belgian nationals had been in Pakistan and Afghanistan since late 2007 and two of them were placed under surveillance when they returned some months ago.
A third, the suicide attack suspect, returned only last week.
The other detainees, both men and women, were suspected of offering "logistic and material support" to the mission, providing accommodation, clothing and communication assistance.
Mr Delmulle said: "We don't know where the suicide attack was to take place.
"It could have been an operation in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but it can't be ruled out that Belgium or Europe could have been the target."
The investigation began in December last year when investigators made 14 arrests in connection with an alleged attempt to spring the Tunisian, Niza Trabelsi from jail in Belgium, although no one was charged.
Trabelsi, a former professional footballer, was the handler for British shoe bombers Richard Reid and Saajid Badat and was arrested with the ingredients to make the explosive TATP.
He was also part of a network planning an attack on the US Embassy in Paris which was connected to Finsbury Park Mosque in North London.
Paul Cruickshank, a fellow at New York University’s Center on Law and Security, said many Belgian radicals take their queues from preachers in Britain such as Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.
“Belgium has a less severe problem than the UK when it comes to violent extremism,” he added, “but it faces as large a challenge as any country on the European continent. Al-Qaeda affiliated groups have taken advantage of the fact that a small but significant number of the country’s North African immigrant population has become radicalised, to recruit individuals for global Jihad.”
Among those arrested was a woman referred to as "MEA" described as "playing an important role in the group" and thought to be Malika el-Aroud, 48, the widow of the assassin of the anti-Taliban leader Ahmed Shah Massoud.
Her husband is a hero in al-Qaeda circles after smuggling himself into Massoud's inner circle with the pretence of conducting a TV interview before blowing up the Northern Alliance leader.
Mrs el-Aroud, who also uses the name Oum-Obeyda, runs a French language website and said earlier this year: "It's not my role to set off bombs. I have a weapon. It's to write, it's to speak out. That's my jihad [holy war]."
Belgium has a history of Islamic extremism and two years ago three men were found guilty of belonging to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, the terrorist cell behind the Madrid bombings.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Gates Warns Enemies of U.S. Not to ‘Test’ Obama Administration
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
By Camilla Hall
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned adversaries of America not to “test” the resolve of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration in the first months of its leadership.
“Anyone who thought that the upcoming months might present opportunities to ‘test’ the new administration would be sorely mistaken,” Gates said today at a security conference in Bahrain.
Gates, who will be retained in his post under the new administration, has said he will not be a “caretaker secretary.” A review of U.S. policy and strategy in Afghanistan will be a priority of the new administration as well as closing the American prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, he has said. With regards to Iran Obama has said he will pursue a “carrot and stick” approach.
Gates said that the Persian Gulf will remain a region of central concern for the new administration. “I bring from President-elect Barack Obama a message of continuity and commitment to our friends and partners in the region,” he said today.
The U.S. accuses Iran of using the development of nuclear energy to disguise efforts to make a bomb. Iran says its nuclear activities are peaceful and has called on Obama to move from confrontation to cooperation. The U.S. and Israel haven’t ruled out attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
“Nobody is after a regime change in Iran. What we’re after is a change in policies,” Gates said. “There is no doubt that Iran has been heavily engaged in trying to influence the development and direction of the Iraqi government and has not been a good neighbor.”
The U.S. will give Iran “a set of carrots and sticks” in the form of economic incentives or tougher sanctions, in unison with countries such as China, India and Russia that do business with the Persian Gulf nation, Obama said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Dec. 7. Obama said he will “ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy” with Iran and make clear that building nuclear weapons would be “unacceptable.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Camilla Hall in Bahrain at chall24@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
By Camilla Hall
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned adversaries of America not to “test” the resolve of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration in the first months of its leadership.
“Anyone who thought that the upcoming months might present opportunities to ‘test’ the new administration would be sorely mistaken,” Gates said today at a security conference in Bahrain.
Gates, who will be retained in his post under the new administration, has said he will not be a “caretaker secretary.” A review of U.S. policy and strategy in Afghanistan will be a priority of the new administration as well as closing the American prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, he has said. With regards to Iran Obama has said he will pursue a “carrot and stick” approach.
Gates said that the Persian Gulf will remain a region of central concern for the new administration. “I bring from President-elect Barack Obama a message of continuity and commitment to our friends and partners in the region,” he said today.
The U.S. accuses Iran of using the development of nuclear energy to disguise efforts to make a bomb. Iran says its nuclear activities are peaceful and has called on Obama to move from confrontation to cooperation. The U.S. and Israel haven’t ruled out attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
“Nobody is after a regime change in Iran. What we’re after is a change in policies,” Gates said. “There is no doubt that Iran has been heavily engaged in trying to influence the development and direction of the Iraqi government and has not been a good neighbor.”
The U.S. will give Iran “a set of carrots and sticks” in the form of economic incentives or tougher sanctions, in unison with countries such as China, India and Russia that do business with the Persian Gulf nation, Obama said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Dec. 7. Obama said he will “ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy” with Iran and make clear that building nuclear weapons would be “unacceptable.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Camilla Hall in Bahrain at chall24@bloomberg.net.
Re: Geopolitical thread
Was US anti-missile test aimed at Russia and China?
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/34443
A consultant to the head of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces has said that a simulated anti-missile test by the U.S. was not aimed at stopping a North Korean threat as Washington had claimed.
Colonel-general Viktor Yesin said last Friday’s test had China and Russia in mind.
He said: “To avoid agitating public opinion, U.S. Missile Defense Agency officials say the test was aimed at intercepting North Korean and Iranian rockets. But we missile specialists understand that it was in fact aimed at stopping Russian and Chinese intercontinental missiles.”
During the test last Friday an interceptor rocket was launched from California to knock down a missile launched from Alaska.
America spends some $US 10 billion a year on an anti-missile network claiming it's necessary to counteract growing threats from ‘rogue nations’ such as North Korea and Iran.
Related links:
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/34443
A consultant to the head of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces has said that a simulated anti-missile test by the U.S. was not aimed at stopping a North Korean threat as Washington had claimed.
Colonel-general Viktor Yesin said last Friday’s test had China and Russia in mind.
He said: “To avoid agitating public opinion, U.S. Missile Defense Agency officials say the test was aimed at intercepting North Korean and Iranian rockets. But we missile specialists understand that it was in fact aimed at stopping Russian and Chinese intercontinental missiles.”
During the test last Friday an interceptor rocket was launched from California to knock down a missile launched from Alaska.
America spends some $US 10 billion a year on an anti-missile network claiming it's necessary to counteract growing threats from ‘rogue nations’ such as North Korea and Iran.
Related links:
Re: Geopolitical thread
After Iraq, Should anyone trust US intel reports?
N. Korea Has Several Nuclear Bombs: Gates
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35985.html
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has said he believes North Korea possess several nuclear bombs, a report said Thursday.
``North Korea has built several bombs, and Iran seeks to join the nuclear club,'' Gates, who had been selected to continue his job under the Barack Obama administration, said in an article to be published in the January edition of policy journal Foreign Affairs, according to Yonhap news agency.
Defense officials and analysts here are paying keen attention to Gates' remarks because it was the first time that a defense leader either from the United States or South Korea had said North Korea succeeded in making nuclear bombs.
They also raised speculation that the U.S. government is moving to change its position on North Korea's nuclear status. Earlier this week, controversy erupted after it was found that an annual U.S. defense report categorized North Korea as one of the nuclear powers in Asia, alongside China, India, Pakistan and Russia.
The Pentagon said the description didn't reflect an official U.S. view of North Korea's nuclear capability.
``As a matter of policy, we do not recognize North Korea as a nuclear state,'' Stewart Upton, spokesman for the Department of Defense, said in a statement Tuesday. ``What was contained in a recent Joint Forces Command report does not reflect official U.S. government policy regarding the status of North Korea.''
Upton added that the report ``is not meant to be a statement of policy and specifically states on the second page that the report is speculative in nature and is only intended to serve as a starting point for discussions about the future security environment.''
Pyongyang, which conducted its first-ever nuclear test in October 2006, is believed to have enough plutonium to produce six to eight nuclear weapons, which was never officially confirmed.
Regional powers have been pushing the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions under a 2007 disarmament-for-aid pact. Chief nuclear envoys from the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia opened a fresh round of six-party talks in Beijing Monday to finalize the establishment of a protocol to verify the North's declaration of its nuclear programs and activities.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr
N. Korea Has Several Nuclear Bombs: Gates
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35985.html
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has said he believes North Korea possess several nuclear bombs, a report said Thursday.
``North Korea has built several bombs, and Iran seeks to join the nuclear club,'' Gates, who had been selected to continue his job under the Barack Obama administration, said in an article to be published in the January edition of policy journal Foreign Affairs, according to Yonhap news agency.
Defense officials and analysts here are paying keen attention to Gates' remarks because it was the first time that a defense leader either from the United States or South Korea had said North Korea succeeded in making nuclear bombs.
They also raised speculation that the U.S. government is moving to change its position on North Korea's nuclear status. Earlier this week, controversy erupted after it was found that an annual U.S. defense report categorized North Korea as one of the nuclear powers in Asia, alongside China, India, Pakistan and Russia.
The Pentagon said the description didn't reflect an official U.S. view of North Korea's nuclear capability.
``As a matter of policy, we do not recognize North Korea as a nuclear state,'' Stewart Upton, spokesman for the Department of Defense, said in a statement Tuesday. ``What was contained in a recent Joint Forces Command report does not reflect official U.S. government policy regarding the status of North Korea.''
Upton added that the report ``is not meant to be a statement of policy and specifically states on the second page that the report is speculative in nature and is only intended to serve as a starting point for discussions about the future security environment.''
Pyongyang, which conducted its first-ever nuclear test in October 2006, is believed to have enough plutonium to produce six to eight nuclear weapons, which was never officially confirmed.
Regional powers have been pushing the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions under a 2007 disarmament-for-aid pact. Chief nuclear envoys from the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia opened a fresh round of six-party talks in Beijing Monday to finalize the establishment of a protocol to verify the North's declaration of its nuclear programs and activities.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr
Re: Geopolitical thread
US intel forecast about the world in 2025.
the demographic projections are particularly portent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p ... Report.pdf
the demographic projections are particularly portent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p ... Report.pdf
Re: Geopolitical thread
Since the International intelligence/security thread has disappeared (why?) this post arrives here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 342730.ece
From The TimesDecember 15, 2008
Terrorism adviser to Met is on wanted list
Interpol notice urges arrest of Islam TV chief
Mohamed Ali Harrath
Richard Kerbaj in Tunis and Dominic Kennedy in London
A man wanted by Interpol for his links to an alleged terrorist organisation has been advising Scotland Yard on countering Muslim extremism, a Times investigation has discovered.
Mohamed Ali Harrath has been the subject of the Interpol red notice since 1992 because of his alleged activities in Tunisia, where he co-founded the Tunisian Islamic Front (FIT).
Tunisia has accused Mr Harrath, the chief executive officer of the Islam Channel in Britain and an adviser to the Scotland Yard Muslim Contact Unit, of seeking help from Osama bin Laden. It says that the FIT wants to establish “an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence”.
Mr Harrath has been convicted in absentia of numerous criminal and terrorism-related offences by Tunisian courts and sentenced to 56 years in prison. Tunisia is an ally of the West in the fight against terrorism but is regarded by critics as a police or one-party state. Its secular Government regards those who advocate an Islamic state as a threat to its stability.
Unanswered questions about ‘man of peace’
‘Nothing criminal about wanting an Islamic state’
Tunisia claims exile met Osama bin Laden
The Times has also learnt that, in evidence before Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission in 2003, an MI5 witness accused the FIT of terrorism activities in France. Mr Harrath denies this, saying his movement was wrongly blamed by the French courts for founding a guerrilla network that held banned military weapons.
No one has ever produced evidence linking Mr Harrath to any terrorist activity. Despite this, he is still the subject of an Interpol red notice — its highest level of alert – as a terrorist suspect and countries are urged to arrest and extradite him. His lawyers have sought to remove the notice but in the meantime this extraordinary state of affairs remains unresolved.
Mr Harrath admitted setting up the FIT but said that it was a “nonviolent political party founded in 1986 to oppose the one-party state in Tunisia”. He stated unequivocally: “We are not extremists and we are not terrorists and we [sic] never been involved in any such activities”. However, he added that “revolution is not [necessarily] a dirty word” and “there is nothing wrong or criminal in trying to establish an Islamic state”.
Despite Mr Harrath being wanted by Interpol, Scotland Yard has appointed him as adviser to its Muslim Contact Unit on preventing extremism and terrorism. Mr Harrath told The Times that he was “regularly consulted in an advisory capacity by the Muslim Contact Unit of the British police for guidance on best practice in relation to counter-terrorism issues and combating extremism”.
The unit’s former head, Robert Lambert, wrote in a letter of support to Mr Harrath that he had made a “key contribution to our efforts to defeat adverse influence of al-Qaeda in the UK”.
The British Government refused a request by the Tunisian Government in 1997 to have him extradited. According to his lawyers, “the UK security services informed Mr Harrath that the UK did not regard him as a threat and that there was no basis for the Tunisian extradition request, which the Tunisian authorities had wholly failed to substantiate”.
His political views and wish to overthrow Tunisia’s Government have, however, raised alarm in British circles. One government minister said: “That is not acceptable. We have a problem with that because Tunisia is our ally. Tunisia today, UK tomorrow.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 342730.ece
From The TimesDecember 15, 2008
Terrorism adviser to Met is on wanted list
Interpol notice urges arrest of Islam TV chief
Mohamed Ali Harrath
Richard Kerbaj in Tunis and Dominic Kennedy in London
A man wanted by Interpol for his links to an alleged terrorist organisation has been advising Scotland Yard on countering Muslim extremism, a Times investigation has discovered.
Mohamed Ali Harrath has been the subject of the Interpol red notice since 1992 because of his alleged activities in Tunisia, where he co-founded the Tunisian Islamic Front (FIT).
Tunisia has accused Mr Harrath, the chief executive officer of the Islam Channel in Britain and an adviser to the Scotland Yard Muslim Contact Unit, of seeking help from Osama bin Laden. It says that the FIT wants to establish “an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence”.
Mr Harrath has been convicted in absentia of numerous criminal and terrorism-related offences by Tunisian courts and sentenced to 56 years in prison. Tunisia is an ally of the West in the fight against terrorism but is regarded by critics as a police or one-party state. Its secular Government regards those who advocate an Islamic state as a threat to its stability.
Unanswered questions about ‘man of peace’
‘Nothing criminal about wanting an Islamic state’
Tunisia claims exile met Osama bin Laden
The Times has also learnt that, in evidence before Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission in 2003, an MI5 witness accused the FIT of terrorism activities in France. Mr Harrath denies this, saying his movement was wrongly blamed by the French courts for founding a guerrilla network that held banned military weapons.
No one has ever produced evidence linking Mr Harrath to any terrorist activity. Despite this, he is still the subject of an Interpol red notice — its highest level of alert – as a terrorist suspect and countries are urged to arrest and extradite him. His lawyers have sought to remove the notice but in the meantime this extraordinary state of affairs remains unresolved.
Mr Harrath admitted setting up the FIT but said that it was a “nonviolent political party founded in 1986 to oppose the one-party state in Tunisia”. He stated unequivocally: “We are not extremists and we are not terrorists and we [sic] never been involved in any such activities”. However, he added that “revolution is not [necessarily] a dirty word” and “there is nothing wrong or criminal in trying to establish an Islamic state”.
Despite Mr Harrath being wanted by Interpol, Scotland Yard has appointed him as adviser to its Muslim Contact Unit on preventing extremism and terrorism. Mr Harrath told The Times that he was “regularly consulted in an advisory capacity by the Muslim Contact Unit of the British police for guidance on best practice in relation to counter-terrorism issues and combating extremism”.
The unit’s former head, Robert Lambert, wrote in a letter of support to Mr Harrath that he had made a “key contribution to our efforts to defeat adverse influence of al-Qaeda in the UK”.
The British Government refused a request by the Tunisian Government in 1997 to have him extradited. According to his lawyers, “the UK security services informed Mr Harrath that the UK did not regard him as a threat and that there was no basis for the Tunisian extradition request, which the Tunisian authorities had wholly failed to substantiate”.
His political views and wish to overthrow Tunisia’s Government have, however, raised alarm in British circles. One government minister said: “That is not acceptable. We have a problem with that because Tunisia is our ally. Tunisia today, UK tomorrow.”
Re: Geopolitical thread
A Great Game for the 21st Century
Saturday December 20, 2008
U.S. Could Win More than War on Terrorism in Central Asia
http://terrorism.about.com/b/2008/12/20 ... entury.htm
While many of us are focused on the U.S. troop build up in Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Qaeda presence, there is a more substantial geostrategic game afoot, according to a former Indian career diplomat, M K Bhadrakumar.
Bhadrakumar's basic argument is that the Afghanistan war and the global war on terrorism in whose name it is being fought may help the U.S. establish an enduring presence in the region, while repelling Russia, Iran, China and potentially India from expanding their power.
Asia map
Both Russia and Iran would like to expand their power in the region. One way to expand their say in the regional future would be by being able to leverage cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan to their advantage. Both countries, as well as China, offer potential supply routes to Afghanistan. The United States may need new supply routes, if protests and attacks on Pakistan routes continue.
Bhadrakumar opines that, according to the currently available evidence, the United States may trump all three by opening a line at Georgia's Poti port. This route would go through Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to arrive at Afghanistan's northern border. Several political gains could be achieved, including bypassing Russia and potentially offering a "Caspian oil and gas corridor" the U.S could exploit.
In Bhadrakumar's reading of the geopolitical tea leaves, the U.S. may be losing the war on terror, but it may win something much bigger, if the U.S. continues its presence in Afghanistan.
Saturday December 20, 2008
U.S. Could Win More than War on Terrorism in Central Asia
http://terrorism.about.com/b/2008/12/20 ... entury.htm
While many of us are focused on the U.S. troop build up in Afghanistan and the Taliban and Al Qaeda presence, there is a more substantial geostrategic game afoot, according to a former Indian career diplomat, M K Bhadrakumar.
Bhadrakumar's basic argument is that the Afghanistan war and the global war on terrorism in whose name it is being fought may help the U.S. establish an enduring presence in the region, while repelling Russia, Iran, China and potentially India from expanding their power.
Asia map
Both Russia and Iran would like to expand their power in the region. One way to expand their say in the regional future would be by being able to leverage cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan to their advantage. Both countries, as well as China, offer potential supply routes to Afghanistan. The United States may need new supply routes, if protests and attacks on Pakistan routes continue.
Bhadrakumar opines that, according to the currently available evidence, the United States may trump all three by opening a line at Georgia's Poti port. This route would go through Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to arrive at Afghanistan's northern border. Several political gains could be achieved, including bypassing Russia and potentially offering a "Caspian oil and gas corridor" the U.S could exploit.
In Bhadrakumar's reading of the geopolitical tea leaves, the U.S. may be losing the war on terror, but it may win something much bigger, if the U.S. continues its presence in Afghanistan.
Surely, the renewed Taliban threat in Afghanistan and the escalation of combat is providing a fantastic backdrop. For the first time, the US would be establishing a military presence in the Caucasus and the distinct possibility emerges for a Caspian energy corridor leading to the European market. Both Russia and Iran will feel directly threatened by the US military presence virtually in their border regions, and both would feel outplayed by Washington in the Caspian energy sweepstakes.
These maneuverings over the supply routes bring out the full range of the bitterly fought geopolitical struggle in the Hindu Kush, which mostly lies hidden from the world opinion that remains focused on the fate of al-Qaeda and Taliban. The fact is, seven years down the road from the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the US has done exceedingly well in geopolitical terms, even if the war as such may have gone rather badly both for the Afghans and the Pakistanis and the European soldiers serving in Afghanistan.
Re: Geopolitical thread
The Next World Order
By GURCHARAN DAS
Published: January 1, 2009
New Delhi
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opini ... ef=opinion
CHINA and India are in a struggle for a top rung on the ladder of world power, but their approaches to the state and to power could not be more different.
Two days after last month’s terrorist attack on Mumbai, I met with a Chinese friend who was visiting India on business. He was shocked as much by the transparent and competitive minute-by-minute reporting of the attack by India’s dozens of news channels as by the ineffectual response of the government. He had seen a middle-class housewife on national television tell a reporter that the Indian commandos delayed in engaging the terrorists because they were too busy guarding political big shots. He asked how the woman could get away with such a statement.
I explained sarcasm resonates in a nation that is angry and disappointed with its politicians. My friend switched the subject to the poor condition of India’s roads, its dilapidated cities and the constant blackouts. Suddenly, he stopped and asked: “With all this, how did you become the second-fastest growing economy in the world? China’s leaders fear the day when India’s government will get its act together.”
The answer to his question may lie in a common saying among Indians that “our economy grows at night when the government is asleep.” As if to illustrate this, the Mumbai stock market rose in the period after the terrorist attacks. Two weeks later, in several state elections, incumbents were ousted over economic issues, not security.
All this baffled my Chinese friend, and undoubtedly many of his countrymen, whose own success story has been scripted by an efficient state. They are uneasy because their chief ally, Pakistan, is consistently linked to terrorism while across the border India’s economy keeps rising disdainfully. It puzzles them that the anger in India over the Mumbai attacks is directed against Indian politicians rather than Muslims or Pakistan.
The global financial crisis has definitely affected India’s growth, and it will be down to perhaps 7 percent this year from 8.7 percent in 2007. According to my friend, China is hurting even more. What really perplexes the Chinese, he said, is that scores of nations have engaged in the same sorts of economic reforms as India, so why is it that it’s the Indian economy that has become the developing world’s second best? The speed with which India is creating world-class companies is also a shock to the Chinese, whose corporate structure is based on state-owned and foreign companies.
I have no satisfactory explanation for all this, but I think it may have something to do with India’s much-reviled caste system. Vaishyas, members of the merchant caste, who have learned over generations how to accumulate capital, give the nation a competitive advantage. Classical liberals may be right in thinking that commerce is a natural trait, but it helps if there is a devoted group of risk-taking entrepreneurs around to take advantage of the opportunity. Not surprisingly, Vaishyas still dominate the Forbes list of Indian billionaires.
In a much-discussed magazine article last year, Lee Kwan Yew, the former prime minister of Singapore, raised an important question: Why does the rest of the world view China’s rise as a threat but India’s as a wonderful success story? The answer is that India is a vast, unwieldy, open democracy ruled by a coalition of 20 parties. It is evolving through a daily flow of ideas among the conservative forces of caste and religion, the liberals who dominate intellectual life, and the new forces of global capitalism.
The idea of becoming a military power in the 21st century embarrasses many Indians. This ambivalence goes beyond Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle for India’s freedom, or even the Buddha’s message of peace. The skeptical Indian temper goes back to the 3,500-year-old “Nasadiya” verse of the Rig Veda, which meditates on the creation of the universe: “Who knows and who can say, whence it was born and whence came this creation? The gods are later than this world’s creation. Who knows then whence it first came into being?” When you have millions of gods, you cannot afford to be theologically narcissistic. It also makes you suspect power.
Both the Chinese and the Indians are convinced that their prosperity will only increase in the 21st century. In China it will be induced by the state; in India’s case, it may well happen despite the state. Indians expect to continue their relentless march toward a modern, democratic, market-based future. In this, terrorist attacks are a noisy, tragic, but ultimately futile sideshow.
However, Indians are painfully aware that they must reform their government bureaucracy, police and judiciary — institutions, paradoxically, they were so proud of a generation ago. When that happens, India may become formidable, a thought that undoubtedly worries China’s leaders.
Gurcharan Das is the author of “India Unbound.”
By GURCHARAN DAS
Published: January 1, 2009
New Delhi
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opini ... ef=opinion
CHINA and India are in a struggle for a top rung on the ladder of world power, but their approaches to the state and to power could not be more different.
Two days after last month’s terrorist attack on Mumbai, I met with a Chinese friend who was visiting India on business. He was shocked as much by the transparent and competitive minute-by-minute reporting of the attack by India’s dozens of news channels as by the ineffectual response of the government. He had seen a middle-class housewife on national television tell a reporter that the Indian commandos delayed in engaging the terrorists because they were too busy guarding political big shots. He asked how the woman could get away with such a statement.
I explained sarcasm resonates in a nation that is angry and disappointed with its politicians. My friend switched the subject to the poor condition of India’s roads, its dilapidated cities and the constant blackouts. Suddenly, he stopped and asked: “With all this, how did you become the second-fastest growing economy in the world? China’s leaders fear the day when India’s government will get its act together.”
The answer to his question may lie in a common saying among Indians that “our economy grows at night when the government is asleep.” As if to illustrate this, the Mumbai stock market rose in the period after the terrorist attacks. Two weeks later, in several state elections, incumbents were ousted over economic issues, not security.
All this baffled my Chinese friend, and undoubtedly many of his countrymen, whose own success story has been scripted by an efficient state. They are uneasy because their chief ally, Pakistan, is consistently linked to terrorism while across the border India’s economy keeps rising disdainfully. It puzzles them that the anger in India over the Mumbai attacks is directed against Indian politicians rather than Muslims or Pakistan.
The global financial crisis has definitely affected India’s growth, and it will be down to perhaps 7 percent this year from 8.7 percent in 2007. According to my friend, China is hurting even more. What really perplexes the Chinese, he said, is that scores of nations have engaged in the same sorts of economic reforms as India, so why is it that it’s the Indian economy that has become the developing world’s second best? The speed with which India is creating world-class companies is also a shock to the Chinese, whose corporate structure is based on state-owned and foreign companies.
I have no satisfactory explanation for all this, but I think it may have something to do with India’s much-reviled caste system. Vaishyas, members of the merchant caste, who have learned over generations how to accumulate capital, give the nation a competitive advantage. Classical liberals may be right in thinking that commerce is a natural trait, but it helps if there is a devoted group of risk-taking entrepreneurs around to take advantage of the opportunity. Not surprisingly, Vaishyas still dominate the Forbes list of Indian billionaires.
In a much-discussed magazine article last year, Lee Kwan Yew, the former prime minister of Singapore, raised an important question: Why does the rest of the world view China’s rise as a threat but India’s as a wonderful success story? The answer is that India is a vast, unwieldy, open democracy ruled by a coalition of 20 parties. It is evolving through a daily flow of ideas among the conservative forces of caste and religion, the liberals who dominate intellectual life, and the new forces of global capitalism.
The idea of becoming a military power in the 21st century embarrasses many Indians. This ambivalence goes beyond Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle for India’s freedom, or even the Buddha’s message of peace. The skeptical Indian temper goes back to the 3,500-year-old “Nasadiya” verse of the Rig Veda, which meditates on the creation of the universe: “Who knows and who can say, whence it was born and whence came this creation? The gods are later than this world’s creation. Who knows then whence it first came into being?” When you have millions of gods, you cannot afford to be theologically narcissistic. It also makes you suspect power.
Both the Chinese and the Indians are convinced that their prosperity will only increase in the 21st century. In China it will be induced by the state; in India’s case, it may well happen despite the state. Indians expect to continue their relentless march toward a modern, democratic, market-based future. In this, terrorist attacks are a noisy, tragic, but ultimately futile sideshow.
However, Indians are painfully aware that they must reform their government bureaucracy, police and judiciary — institutions, paradoxically, they were so proud of a generation ago. When that happens, India may become formidable, a thought that undoubtedly worries China’s leaders.
Gurcharan Das is the author of “India Unbound.”