Geopolitical thread

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 12 Nov 2012 11:48

'China not interested in settling border issue with India' - Kanwal Sibal on Rediff

Princess: Hello sir, how would you describe the state of Indo-US relations, now that Obama has been re-elected? What do you think the focus areas should be?
kanwal sibal: I think the relations are in good shape despite unfulfilled expectations on both sides. They have entered into a phase of steadiness though they lack excitement. Obama's re-election will provide continuity to the relations. The bilateral agenda is well set and implementation can continue without any hiatus. On Pakistan, Kashmir [ Images ], terrorism and China Obama's views have evolved and have become more congenial for us. On outsourcing, he is being populist and alienating the most pro-US sections of our society -- the entrepreneurs who are building India's knowledge economy.

Mellon: Mr Sibal, Obama administration has not really bothered about India, isn't it? Don't you think a Republican administration will be better suited for India?
kanwal sibal: Well, Bush was good for India but bad for the US and the rest of the world. Romney would have been easier on outsourcing and immigration, but he would have put us in a spot on Iran and Syria, especially if he took military action. Our interests in the Gulf, with 6 million expatriates, $37 billion of remittances and 80 per cent of our energy supplies would have been disrupted. Finally, any US Administration will work for US interests and will fit our interests into its own international jigsaw puzzle. We have to leverage our relations with the US to our advantage but have to ultimately stand on our own feet.

Tomyumsoup: Do you think there will be a breakthrough in Indo-China relations in 2013?
kanwal sibal: No, China is not interested in settling the border issue. It thinks that as time passes it will forge ahead of India more and more. Meanwhile, it will use the border issue to make us behave, put us on the defensive, play up Pakistan and our neighbours against us. It wants to keep India distracted so that we cannot raise our profile in Asia enough to challenge China. It will make some friendly noises from time to time to confuse us and our public opinion and discourage us from moving into the US camp. It wants more economic opportunities in India and it has a powerful corporate lobby in India backing it. It wants to have the best of both worlds -- more trade with no political concession.

Ajeet: There is considerable speculation on what will happen once the US pulls out of Afghanistan? Will the scenario be as dreary as what the doomsayers are predicting?
kanwal sibal: It could be. The International Crisis Group's recent report is most pessimistic. The fact is the US and its allies are bogged down in Afghanistan and want to cut and run, but not in disorder like in Vietnam but with a semblance of order. Hence, the talks with the Taliban [ Images ] and the coddling of Pakistan. Karzai is manipulative but has no strong political base. The Afghan National Security Force cannot operate on its own; it has little hi-tech intelligence capability and no air assets. The Taliban can continue to perpetrate violence and keep the situation unstable. Pakistani ambitions are there to be contended with. The West no longer has democracy and nation- building agenda in Afghanistan. One hopes conditions of a civil war can be avoided.

Kishore: In coming years, is China going to be more aggressive, when it comes to relationship with India? Is India capable of replying with same aggression?
kanwal sibal: We should build up our military strength on a priority basis. That is our surest guarantee against Chinese bullying. But we should also continue to engage China pragmatically and not think in terms of aggression

Astana: Sir, do you think our ministry of external affairs has kept pace with the changing unipolar world? Or are we dominated by mindsets that think of non-alignment all the time, think of China as an adversary not a partner?
kanwal sibal: We are not thinking of nonalignment but of strategic autonomy, which means we decide on issues in the light of our national interest, not of others. We are members of the India-Russia-China dialogue, of BRICS of the India-Brazil-South Africa dialogue. We have vastly improved relations with the US with which we have a strategic partnership. We have the India-US-Japan dialogue and naval exercises. We are showing flexibility and forging relationships wherever it suits us. I think we are being wise. China is an adversary. It is the only country apart from Pakistan that claims our territory. We should not forget that.

Hamid: Excuse me sir, but I have been most exercised by this decision to resume cricketing ties with Pakistan. I know this is not part of your agenda here today, but can you please shed light on what earthly reason there can be for this preposterous decision to show the world everything is normal, when the fact is nothing can ever be normal between us? Have we so easily forgotten 26/11 sir? Are Mumbai [ Images ] lives so cheap?
kanwal sibal: I think this decision is wrong. We want Pakistan to act on terrorism and try those accuse of the Mumbai carnage. We should know what we want and not pretend things are normal when they are not.

asha: Hi Mr Sibal. With the US headed for next recession and Europe in turmoil as well, where do you see India's exports and economy headed? Are we in for a major recession ourselves?
kanwal sibal: We are not heading into a recession but the situation in the US and the Eurozone is hurting us economically. Poor governance in the country is adding to our problems -- lack of reforms and decision-making. We have to have a growth rate of 8 per cent plus to make a dent into poverty. At 5 per cent plus we will be in trouble.

Kabeer: How would India's relationship changes with the US with the distinct possibility of a Third Front coming to power where Left parties possibly play an influential role?
kanwal sibal: Our relations with the US are important enough for any party in power in India to disrupt them. Common sense dictates that we maintain fruitful ties with the most powerful country in the world. Yes, on some issue the Left will be problematic but they too will have to take pragmatic decisions. Even Morsi in Egypt [ Images ] realises the need for good US-Egyptian ties. There is no room for ideology today. We should be pragmatic and serve our interests.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Nov 2012 11:20

India's Neighbourhood: Armies of South Asia - IDSA

This book is an attempt to examine the role, relevance and status of the armies in the ever dynamic socio-political milieu of the countries in India’s South Asian neighbourhood. It is part of an ongoing endeavour by the area/country specialists at the South Asia Centre of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) to further explore and understand the role of a key institution, the Army, in shaping the political destiny and defining the ideational evolution of the (nation-) states in India’s South Asian neighbourhood. The book deals with the national armies of seven South Asian countries bordering India, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Various chapters in the book, focussing on the armies of individual countries, discuss the security environment in which each country is situated, its geo-political or the strategic significance, its threat perceptions, both domestic and external, the doctrinal orientation and strategic thought process of the armies, their origin, evolution, organisation, structuring, relationship with civil authorities and institutions, and the nature of bilateral/multilateral defence cooperation or security pacts. The contributors to the volume also trace out the likely trajectory of the future role and position of the armies in the given or evolving national and geo-political settings.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Nov 2012 11:21

Cooperative Security Framework (CSF) for South Asia - IDSA

This volume brings together views of some of the most eminent scholars and security analysts from South Asia on the challenges and prospects of a cooperative security framework (CSF) in the region. The objective of the volume is to generate debate on CSF and forge a consensus on the issue at the Track-II level. The contributions critically analyse such frameworks in different regions and explore whether it is possible and practicable in the South Asian region. Despite strong historical and cultural linkages the region has been suffering from underdevelopment due to lack of cooperation and cohesive policy. The region is also vulnerable to serious non-traditional security threats in future. There is an urgent need for countries to overcome mutual suspicion and mistrust, and work towards the evolution of a cooperative security framework which is both strong and binding.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Nov 2012 16:04

Where is India when we need it, says ASEAN

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrives in Phnom Penh on Sunday, he is likely to hear a common refrain in this part of the world: India is sorely needed here, but India is too slow.

This is true.

"Asean needs India now, not 10 years later," says Kavi Chongkittavorn, a regional expert, of the Jakarta-based ERIA group. "we need strategic support from India about the way forward. How do we deal with the advent of big powers and still retain our relevance?" there is much talk about "Asean-led" and the "centrality" of Asean, but everyone knows its in danger of being swamped.

The wasted opportunities are stacking up.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 17 Nov 2012 16:26

Unfortunately, the government appears to is busy expending its energies on various means to ensure the continuation of the Gandhi dynasty within the country and everything else is just something to be addressed "in due course"... Wasted opportunity indeed. Let's hope it's not too late...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Nov 2012 09:14

A growing disappointment with India's inaction

Getting to know India's other neighbours

However, in repeating that message to his hosts at the Asean-India Summit on Monday Dr. Singh must remember that India’s eastern maritime neighbours expect a little more attention than they are getting. Over the past couple of years I have heard South-East Asian members of the Asean-India Eminent Persons Group (AIEPG) lament the slow pace and the low profile of India’s engagement of the region. Sensitivity on this score has reached a new height as many Asean (Association of South-East Asian Nations) members have become wary of China’s assertiveness in the region.

Whatever the hurdles and the gaps in communication, India has to pay greater attention to its relations with her maritime neighbours. A first step would be to recognise the fact that they are, indeed, our neighbours — not just geographically but also civilisationally! Neighbours are defined purely by geography, but a neighbourhood is defined by economic, social, cultural and political factors. A community is born of an interactive neighbourhood. Any which way, Asean and India are neighbours, as indeed are India and the Gulf. Time for MEA to update its website!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 19 Nov 2012 10:21

^^In truth, Dilli may seem to be punching below its weight but in reality, perhaps not. Weight is both capability and intention. And Dilli's capabilities, while decent, are not in the shock-and-awe range. And getting Dilli's intent focussed on anything other than expedient politics is well nigh impossible now. Fine, same old same old. Might as well cede (not that it was ours anyway) the space in ASEAN to people whose intent is strong (regardless of capability, IMO).

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 21 Nov 2012 13:19

I often wonder how exactly is India's foreign policy decided. The politicians, including the Gandhi family, are primarily interested in internal affairs. Most of the so-called politicians are unlikely to be well-informed about the details of international affairs. It is primarily going to be the institutionalized bureaucracy which provides continuity and the big picture when it comes to foreign affairs.

So I do wonder, that even if the politicians are sleeping, what is happening to the IFS and other institutions which determine India's foreign policy. If the politicians are disinterested, then the institutions should have greater latitude to act? Why don't they take the initiative? Or is it that the institutions themselves are so politicized with internal bickering that they do not have the time to their jobs?

In the US there are is Foggy Bottom, tons of think-tanks, and other institutes which help define the policy. Who does that job in India?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Nov 2012 13:42

Bureocracy are good at blocking things at the most, they can be expected to continue down the path.

They will not take initiatives and will always be in reactive mode. It is the duty of the political executive to give them the initiative and the path (look east or 98 nuke explosion). It was Jaswant- Talbott (political) initiative which brought India-US closer. Similarly nuke deal was political. Institutionalized boors will not take such steps.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Nov 2012 13:56

VikramS wrote:I often wonder how exactly is India's foreign policy decided. The politicians, including the Gandhi family, are primarily interested in internal affairs. Most of the so-called politicians are unlikely to be well-informed about the details of international affairs. It is primarily going to be the institutionalized bureaucracy which provides continuity and the big picture when it comes to foreign affairs.

So I do wonder, that even if the politicians are sleeping, what is happening to the IFS and other institutions which determine India's foreign policy. If the politicians are disinterested, then the institutions should have greater latitude to act? Why don't they take the initiative? Or is it that the institutions themselves are so politicized with internal bickering that they do not have the time to their jobs?

In the US there are is Foggy Bottom, tons of think-tanks, and other institutes which help define the policy. Who does that job in India?

The whole govt apparatus is about defending India. Nothing about proactive engagement. Total Panipat mind set.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 21 Nov 2012 15:58

It is the curse of the resource rich countries - they are well fed, fat, and lazy. Our elite have reached the apex of a system of easy money - they do not want to make extra effort to retain it - the Chinese threat is too far and/or too complex for these simple minded folks. They do not want to be disturbed in their Saturnalia of wine, women, and wealth.

They wait for the barbarians to claw at the gates, and then they panic.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Nov 2012 09:41

The Confessions of Kofi Annan

Is There a Jewish Gene?

The Jihadis of Yemen

In Conversation: Tina Brown

Wrong side of the fence: In taking the logic of settlement to extremes and shutting out minorities of every stripe, Israel damages only itself

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 01 Dec 2012 21:35

United by a Catchy Acronym

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2012 03:06

Rather than integrate its armed forces with the ASEAN nations,we are instead trying to obey Uncle Sam and integrate our forces with OZ,Japan and the US-tricky countries instead! When our PM and FM are so weak that piddling Maldives boots out GMR who won a contract openly and legally,what does it say to the rest of AEEAN and the world,including the Chinese who must be rolling with laughter.The news of China launching a Lankan sat.,even it bore the fig leaf of a pvt. venture,indicates to all that the Chinese "take-away" of Sri Lanka is cooking well.

It is a tragedy that at this crucial time in our history we have a wimp,nay a western weasel ,and a firang-born party leader ruining....sorry,running India,who from Tavleen Singh's latest book with its allegations,,more interested in material matters and staying in power,both of whom seem to have abdicated the defence and security of India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Dec 2012 08:08

x-post

Anne Applebaum: "Why did so many people co-operate with what were clearly evil and unjust regimes?"

On US Militarism

Hayek, Friedman, and the Illusions of Conservative Economics

Berlin in the Golden Twenties

The Salman Rushdie Case

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Dec 2012 08:40

What's the foreign policy agenda for the next four years?

In Soviet Russia, Storm Weathers You

A new paradigm for international relations: Confusionism

x-post

On Desert Nations

The Execution of Carlos DeLuna

On Disaster Diplomacy

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Dec 2012 23:14

Legacy of Noam Chomsky

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 08 Dec 2012 04:13

Taiwan ‘status quo’ is just not good enough

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Dec 2012 08:51

Expect to Be Lied to in Japan

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Dec 2012 02:39

North Korea rocket launch provokes widespread condemnation
US, UK, Japan, South Korea and UN condemn launch while China urges 'prudent and moderate' response to situation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... ndemnation

North Korea's successful rocket launch has provoked rapid and widespread condemnation, with the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, deploring a clear and "provocative" breach of security council resolutions.However, a tempered response from North Korea's main ally, China, which expressed regret but called for a careful reaction, suggests that a push for fresh action by the world body is likely to struggle.A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, said dialogue was the way forward, adding that China believed the council's reaction "should be prudent and moderate and conducive to maintaining stability and avoiding escalation of the situation".

Earlier the White House condemned the act as an irresponsible decision that threatened regional security, while in Britain the foreign secretary warned it would increase tensions and urged Pyongyang to take constructive steps towards denuclearisation.William Hague added in his statement: "I deplore the fact that the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] has chosen to prioritise this launch over improving the livelihood of its people."
South Korea's president held an emergency national security council meeting and the country's foreign minister, Kim Sung-hwan, warned that North Korea would face grave consequences.Japan immediately requested UN security council consultations on the launch, its foreign ministry said, describing the event as something it "cannot tolerate".Morocco, which holds the rotating presidency, said the security council would hold closed-door discussions on Wednesday. The US, Japan and South Korea said last week they would seek further action by the council if the launch went ahead.Wednesday's White House statement, from the National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, said: "The international community must work in a concerted fashion to send North Korea a clear message that its violations of UN security council resolutions have consequences."But Daniel Pinkston, the deputy director of the International Crisis Group's north-east Asia programme, said that while China might sign up to a presidential statement from the council and criticise North Korea in private, he doubted whether it would take action "that really raises the costs" for the country."He added: "The critical question is how the US-China relationship handles this. At least we are going to see Obama come to this from a position of confidence, secure in the knowledge of his second term."Wei Zhijiang, professor of international relations at Sun Yat-sen University, said: "The launch didn't give consideration to China's security in north-east Asia. Because of the rocket, the US, South Korea and Japan will further strengthen their military co-operation in north-east Asia, which will squeeze the strategic space for China and damage its interests."But he said that while North Korea's move would have some negative impact on bilateral relations, it would not fundamentally affect them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2012 03:44

Its a silly article. China knows that the US, Japan and SoKo are cooperating and will do so anyways. This NoKo launch gives the PRC strategic space as the trio will now take NoKo more seriously and hopefully have less gaze at PRC.

The Guardian should wonder if NoKo has a missile what will its payload be? ANd whay does TSP need so many warheads way more than needed to deter India.
Maybe there is new axis of new ICBM armed powers working under PRC benign gaze?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2012 00:03

This deserves to be answered in the open forum....

X wrote:Turkey seems to be picking the wrong fights. It seems to be an odd case of head in the sand behavior, their calculations seem to indicate that it could resurrect the Ottoman caliphate with the help of the Sunni Arab without realizing the fact that the Sunni Arab (whether Salafist or Wahhabi) has caliphate ambitions of its own.

The only expansionists/net gainers in the WANA revolutions seem to be the Sunni Islamist Arabs, every other geopolitical player (Turkey, Iran, Israel, Alawites) are boxed in. Turkey is being foolish in thinking that it could compensate in West Asia for having failed to acquire EU membership, not realizing that they will be a laughing stock soon.

Then again, they probably reckon that they could be a player of significance in the CAR region too, starting over afresh there after the dust in the Levant settles. They seem to have some political rapport with the PRC going on for a while now.

Bliss to nitpick and post retorts!

Turkey has turned Eastwards or towards West Asia after the EU rebuff. This part is very clear.
To make themselves fit in they dropped the Kemalist coat and adopted an en-mo Islamist coat and hope to get accepted. The en-mo coat is to get US acceptance.
However since the collapse of the Otomons, West Asia has changed and is more fundamentilsed than what the Turks know and can offer. Turks were essentially Sufi based while the Arab revolt against Ottomons was spurred by Wahabis who want to re-Arabise Islam.
The Turks were able to take control due to demographics in the old days. After the Mongol conquest of Baghdad Caliphate, Arab power was broken and Turks could seize the day.

In modern era the Arabs have hardline sect of Islam(Wahabi), control the Muslim holy places(Hejaz peninsula) and have oil wealth(KSA, etc).

Turks don't have any of these. Not to mention they didn't get Western acceptance for their Kemalist coats!

The end of Soviet Union marginalized the Turkey card for Europe.

One chance they have is in CAR but those countries are getting back under Russian influence.

Their only hope is to be a gateway for oil pipelines from Central Asia. But Oil is losing its importance with new energy discoveries in North America.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 14 Dec 2012 03:54

Asia is too small for so many competing powers! Turkey wants its fiefdom. Arabs want their rapine kingdom. Iran wants its Persian glory. China wants its Superpowerdom. Russia wants to retain its past power. and in all this, India slumbers on with no clue or vision for anything.

meanwhile, the "West" is laughing its a$$ off playing each of these powers against the other(s). one wonders if perhaps too clever by half manipulations might go too far above their own heads in this ever more complicated game.

ramana garu, you are right on the Arab Jihad front: they are too powerful now, and continue to grow in their capabilities. does Turkey have the ideological fortitude to pull out Turkic Islam? I doubt it. Sunni Jihad seems to be the focal point of Islamic forward movement.

will Turkey choose to submerge itself in the Sunni Jihadi maelstrom? they clearly seem to be on the path to more Islamization, so what are their options?

meanwhile Iran is getting boxed in too. fall of Assad means Iran looses link to the mediterranian. so who's stepping in: Sunni Arabs obvious choice b/c they'll come to power in Syria. Turkey is another choice, especially if US props up their Navy.

this might be the intended course for Turkey and Iran: both boxed in due to the Sunni Arab dragon, and perhaps he Sunnis will be nudged to look East to Iran, thereby freeing Turkey and Israel from that threat. so what, is the idea to unleash a direct Sunnia-Shia war?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2012 04:17

Things may turn out in complicated ways.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 14 Dec 2012 04:59

It would be interesting to see the Islamist dynamic in Turkey if an independent Kurdistan emerges and carves out a slice of Turkey. Will that shock cause Turkey to further split ideologically - with one Westernized faction pushing ever harder to merge with Europe and one Islamist faction becoming all the more fidaa?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2012 05:45

Kurdistan is coming about.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 14 Dec 2012 10:41

Carl wrote: Most Turks today also see themselves in that capacity, as a Yajuj-Majuj (Gog Magog) force that will wipe out the old and open up new spaces for the true way.

Now there may be SOME Turks who have even greater ambitions, as 'Caliph', or those people in Turkey who are from the Kaatib (scholarly) castes and claim direct descent from the Prophet. But the average Turkish Islamist and worker is happy and proud of this role as a footsoldier and potentially general.

In that sense of opening up new spaces for Islam (fath) and expanding, Turkish Islamists do have a lot of potential due to several reasons. They have a direct cultural connection to those that currently inhabit Turkic Central Asia. Turkic tribes there have penetrated and practically changed the ethnic composition of traditionally Persian lands from ancient times -- present day Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc is well known. But even in large parts of Tajikistan and north Afghanistan Gulenists and other Turkish members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir are very active.

Carl ji, my sample size of Turkish friends is 7, somewhat SDRE conditioned after having sampled SE Asian multi-culti. Just wanted to elucidate on the point that Turkey faces some stark choices and that the geopolitical space around it may stand in judgement against it if it decides to go with the Sunni Arab flow. Turkey's comparison to its past will be harsher than what Iran would face, even though Kurdistan is a scary but unavoidable prospect for all in the Levant.

You are probably right with TSP playing a balancing role between the 3 players.

Perhaps this is what Ramana ji means by "revenge of the periphery".

Devesh and Ramana ji's posts detail what I wished to elaborate upon.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 14 Dec 2012 22:42

North Korean Rocket test and its implications

US lost the plot completely and now it is too late to reverse it. It is clear that China has two proxies (Pakistan and North Korea) which can be used to blackmail the free world.

Pakistan- Weak and underdeveloped. Its lost wars against India. It needed (and needs) help and nonrecognition to counter India. China gave it Nuclear bomb. US kept silence because they needed Pakis in Afganistan (first against USSR the against Talibans). India and her security were not important for US. North Korea helped them with missile with due approval from Chinese.

North Korea- Promoted by China against US and Japan. Most interesting was the "round table talk" drama played by China and North Korea. North Korea misbehaves (advised by China) -US stops the talks- NoKo shows middle finger- China shows public anger- China brings back NoKo backs to talks without any punishment - US happily agrees- and again to starting point. Result.....Noko did nuclear test developed missile and it was not punished. Peaceful China stays clean and spotless enough to teach peaceful coexistence to others.

China- Won the round comprehensibly and is sitting high and dry. She hopes to keep US and Japan busy with antics of NoKo...........just as she did with India.

US- They know that they lost it but would not admit. US is getting ready for direct fight with China.....but that will not happen in near future. Most probably it will be a North Korean nuclear attack on US base in Japan with China preaching the tolerance.

I think US will act in very near future on North Korean Provocation. But for that to happen Japan has to change its constitution to develop some muscles and be ready for any eventuality.JMT

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Dec 2012 10:08

Welcome to the Hotel of Doom: The 3,000 room monstrosity in Kim Jong-Un's starving dictatorship no foreigner has stepped inside... until now

Understanding Mohamed Morsi: His journey from farm boy to most powerful man in the Middle East.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Jan 2013 16:27

Steve Walt: My prediction for Obama's second term: no big victories

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Jan 2013 20:55

rsingh wrote:North Korean Rocket test and its implications

US lost the plot completely and now it is too late to reverse it. It is clear that China has two proxies (Pakistan and North Korea) which can be used to blackmail the free world.

Pakistan- Weak and underdeveloped. Its lost wars against India. It needed (and needs) help and nonrecognition to counter India. China gave it Nuclear bomb. US kept silence because they needed Pakis in Afganistan (first against USSR the against Talibans). India and her security were not important for US. North Korea helped them with missile with due approval from Chinese.

North Korea- Promoted by China against US and Japan. Most interesting was the "round table talk" drama played by China and North Korea. North Korea misbehaves (advised by China) -US stops the talks- NoKo shows middle finger- China shows public anger- China brings back NoKo backs to talks without any punishment - US happily agrees- and again to starting point. Result.....Noko did nuclear test developed missile and it was not punished. Peaceful China stays clean and spotless enough to teach peaceful coexistence to others.

China- Won the round comprehensibly and is sitting high and dry. She hopes to keep US and Japan busy with antics of NoKo...........just as she did with India.

US- They know that they lost it but would not admit. US is getting ready for direct fight with China.....but that will not happen in near future. Most probably it will be a North Korean nuclear attack on US base in Japan with China preaching the tolerance.

I think US will act in very near future on North Korean Provocation. But for that to happen Japan has to change its constitution to develop some muscles and be ready for any eventuality.JMT

Sir, you are rushing into the judgement. In simple, China is playing the usual provocateur game. As long as others not changing their rule of game, China may appear to win. But once others start playing their game, China knows it can't stand a chance. So what China so far doing is just come so close to that red line, but not crossing the line. Others are watching too!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jan 2013 09:12

Eve of Disaster: Why 2013 eerily looks like the world of 1913, on the cusp of the Great War.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Jan 2013 07:54

Rare Photo of the Mushroom Cloud Over Hiroshima Discovered in a Former Japanese Elementary School

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jan 2013 07:47

Brainwashed: Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith

The Party Faithful: The Settlers move to annex West Bank--and Israeli politics

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jan 2013 07:26

The Real Cuban Missile Crisis: Everything you think you know about those 13 days is wrong.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jan 2013 20:42

What U.S. Jews Don’t Get About European Anti-Semitism

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 19 Jan 2013 17:49

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Real Cuban Missile Crisis: Everything you think you know about those 13 days is wrong.

It is true that the Cuban missile crisis was resolved by US agreeing to remove their missiles from Turkey. And Kennedy was truly the instigator for the crisis. That is the truth, which unfortunately is different from the received wisdom.

What I would like to concentrate on in the following paragraph

At the time of the missile crisis, the Soviets had 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 138 long-range bombers with 392 nuclear warheads, and 72 submarine-launched ballistic-missile warheads (SLBMs). These forces were arrayed against a vastly more powerful U.S. nuclear arsenal of 203 ICBMs, 1,306 long-range bombers with 3,104 nuclear warheads, and 144 SLBMs—all told, about nine times as many nuclear weapons as the U.S.S.R.

Soviet Union at the time of the crisis was a geographical behemoth. Spanning over 10 time zones. More than twice the size of USA. Added to this was the fact that NATO conventional ground and air forces were no match for the sheer size and quality of WARSAW pact conventional ground and air forces. In fact NATO never ever espoused the first-no-use pledge because of the sheer disparity of its capability wiz WARSAW forces. NATO actively made strategies which included the use of nuclear weapon systems from day one of the so called WW-III. This was only with respect to Soviet Union.

Now add to this the adversarial relation ship which USA had with PRC. During the crisis the extent of Soviet-PRC breakup was not clear.

No wonder America needed more nuclear weapons as compared to the Soviet Union. The problem was Soviets got into the trap of "my d*i*c*k is bigger than yours" mentality.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Jan 2013 09:37

This may explain why Germany is asking for its Gold

'Power shift'? France and Germany mark 50 years since historic pact

Paris and Berlin are marking 50 years since the signing of the Elysee treaty, but political scientist Judith Winkler says a “shift in power” to Germany in the last 20 years is making cooperation between the two European power-houses more difficult.
“It may be our best kept secret that our chemistry actually works,” said the German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a press conference in Berlin Tuesday.
French President Francoise Hollande is in the German capital for a jam-packed line up of events to mark the historic Elysee Treaty, signed on 22nd January 1963 by President Charles de Gaulle and the West German chancellor Konrad Adenaur.
The governments of both countries will gather at the chancellery, with lawmakers from France’s National Assembly visiting the Reichstag for a debate with the Bundestag, the German parliament.
For a long-time cooperation between the two nations has proven the backbone to the European project. Charles de Gaulle said Europe was “a coach and horses, with Germany the horse and France the coachmen”.
Drawing on their historical ties, Angela Merkel and Francoise Hollande announced at a press conference Tuesday that they want to further deepen and stabilize European economic and monetary union.
“If you look back at the past eight months, I’m very happy with what France and Germany have been able to accomplish to get the euro zone out of its crisis. If you look at the results, it’s clear we’re on the same wavelength,” Hollande said to reporters in Berlin Tuesday.
As the UK drifts further and further away from Europe, both politically and ideologically, the main decision’s concerning the continent’s future will likely be taken in Berlin and Paris. But the two nations are not without their disagreements.
Despite being firmly committed to the Euro, both are at odds on how to solve the Eurozone financial crisis.
Merkel believes that cutting deficits and austerity is the only long term solution, while Hollande believes only fresh spending will bolster growth. He also wants more solidarity and risk-sharing and a bigger euro-zone budget to deal with economic problems.
There is rising concern among Germans and financiers about the state of the French economy, who “don’t want to catch a cold if your [French] economy sneezes”, RT’s correspondent in Berlin, Peter Oliver, reported.

(1st row LtoR) French Senate President Jean-Pierre Bel, French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German President Joachim Gauck, French National Assembly President Claude Bartolone, German Bundestag President Norbert Lammert and French President Francois Hollande, are applauded by the audience upon arrival before a joint session of the French National Assembly and the Bundestag at the German lower house of Parliament (Bundestag) on January 22, 2013.(AFP Photo / Odd Andersen)
On the surface Franco-German military ties appear close, even sharing a fighting brigade, formed in 1987, but in reality in recent years France often appeared more in tune with British foreign policy.
While France has been quick to deploy forces in Libya and Mali, Germany has been reluctant to commit troops and has so far promised only limited logistical aid.
Wolfgang Schaeuble the German finance minister, said that “Germany didn’t want to be a major player in foreign policy,” citing Germany’s 20th century history as a reason not to become too involved. “How could we be, after Hitler and Auschwitz?” he said Monday to the Handelsblatt business daily.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks next to French President Francois Hollande (L) as they address a press conference at the Chancellery on January 22, 2013.(AFP Photo / David Gannon)
Despite Schaeuble’s comments, Germany appears far more involved now in global politics, than it was 23 years ago when the country was reunited.
Judith Winkler, a political scientist from the Free University of Berlin, explained that there has been a shift in the balance between France and Germany since the end of the Cold War.
“Since before the end of the Cold War, it was Germany that carried the economic weight and France that carried the political weight, now there has been a shift towards political weight for Germany as well, at least from a French perspective. So that has certainly made co-operation more difficult,” she said.
Watch RT's interview with Judith Winkler

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Jan 2013 14:25

Not-so-special relationship: Dean Acheson and the myth of Anglo-American unity

Recommended.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jan 2013 15:49

New Delhi: India had launched a series of missiles, rockets and dropped experimental bombs to divert attention of "snoopers" before conducting the 1998 nuclear tests, APJ Abdul Kalam, considered the father of India's missile programmee, said on Thursday.

These well-planned measures were taken to "divert the attention of snoopers" two days before the nuclear tests in Pokhran in the summer of 1998, the former President said.

Delivering the 7th RN Kao Memorial Lecture organized here by the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), Kalam went down the memory lane about the anxious days before the nuclear tests during which the DRDO and his team worked over-time to make the tests successful in utter secrecy.

APJ Abdul Kalam also said it was PV Narasimha Rao who had asked him to make preparations for nuclear tests.
"An important event was to take place the next day. Multiple agencies were in action. The next two nights were dark nights with no moon light. The other side, the world was sleeping. At the Chandipur flight test range, a series of 12 Trishuls were launched. Almost every two hours one launch.

"At the Island range at stealth launch pad, a simulated Agni launch preparations were going on in high intensity. In Pokharan ranges, away from the action point, a number of rockets, PINAKA type, were put into action. At mid-day and evening, Air Force aircraft was bombarding with runway destruction bombs on experimental runways," he said.
The next day, Kalam said, India woke up to the news that three nuclear tests had been conducted on the same day and another two the next day.

"No one knew about it except three souls and their classified team...the whole event I described can be classified as more than a Black Swan," he said.

Kalam also said it was the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao who had asked him to make preparations for nuclear tests, just two days before the results of the 1996 general elections were to be announced.

But the elections went against Rao and the Prime Minister called Kalam and asked him to brief Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Prime Minister-designate so that a "smooth takeover" of such a very important programme can take place.

"This incident reveals the maturity and professional excellence of a patriotic statesman who believed that the nation is bigger than the political significance," Kalam said.