I wish that Hindu spiritual leaders would also speak out so clearly on the social and political responsibilities of those who call themself a Hindu have. The continuance of fake notions of 'secularism' in Indian politics and any public debate is partly because the Hindu spiritual leaders evade their responsibility to guide the Hindu masses in these matters. We Hindus, should try to whine less about the assertiveness/aggressiveness of Christians and instead assert ourself a little more in public matters, on how the Indian society should be organized and function and indeed how the world should be organized. There is a disastrous dichotomy in the minds of Hindu's : we read and hear about brave acts of righteousness in The Ramayana and Mahabharata and we consider ourself as devotees of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna, yet at the same time many of us act decidedly in a cowardly manner in public were we dare not challenge the immoral notions of 'secularism', the lies in the school text books on history, the Hindi-Paki Bhai Bhai, etc. that the ******** sons and daughters of Macaulay the British left behind in India, shove down our throats.People need to read the Pope Benedict US speeches. They are more geo-political than religious.
Geopolitical thread
-
S.Abhisheik
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 10 Apr 2008 22:17
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11796.html
Without a blue water navy aren't the chinese exposing their hand a bit too early?
Without a blue water navy aren't the chinese exposing their hand a bit too early?
Multatuli, the Catholic church is a thing of the past and more and more people are turning away from Catholicism to the point where 1 in 10 Americans are lapsed Catholics.Multatuli wrote: I wish that Hindu spiritual leaders would also speak out so clearly on the social and political responsibilities of those who call themselves a Hindu have.
If Hinduism wants to survive, it will avoid becoming like the Catholic Church to dictate the whos and hows of people's lives.
The idea is not to tell people what to do, but to make them want to do it themselves. We must think for the long term. Involving religion and politics assures failure.
----
Satya -
So the gist of "The End of the End of History" is that autocracies such as Russia and China, who look out for the well being of the people will draw favor again?
There was another article posted on BR about a different theory concerning unipolarity and multipolarity about how there will no longer be one power but several powers.
Will this play out the same as the 19th century or will it be different, do you think?
Keshav, You need to know some background.
Francis Fukuyama wrote the "End of History" in 1988 and was hailed for predicting the end of Communism. What he ment was that ideological battles were over in the West and by extension in the rest of the world and that the democratic model has prevailed and in future one would not see ideological battles but competitive battles.
End of history- Wiki
The 9/11 attack and the resultant counter attack has sapped the West's finanical strength and also saw the revival of Russia a peer competitor to the West. What Kagan is saying is that its back to the future and that the West would see a replay of the old 19th century politics with the US in the Great Britain role and Russia in its old role.
PS: To understand all this History stuff you need to read Hegel's "Philosophy of History" and the Marxist variation of it. Its really a battle within the intellectuals of the West but the blowback is severe for the rest of the world as they want to belong without being there.
If you really want to go to the core you need to understand the Abhramic concept of linear course of History. Note the capitals and the difference between History and history. This would be OT for the forum.
Francis Fukuyama wrote the "End of History" in 1988 and was hailed for predicting the end of Communism. What he ment was that ideological battles were over in the West and by extension in the rest of the world and that the democratic model has prevailed and in future one would not see ideological battles but competitive battles.
End of history- Wiki
The 9/11 attack and the resultant counter attack has sapped the West's finanical strength and also saw the revival of Russia a peer competitor to the West. What Kagan is saying is that its back to the future and that the West would see a replay of the old 19th century politics with the US in the Great Britain role and Russia in its old role.
PS: To understand all this History stuff you need to read Hegel's "Philosophy of History" and the Marxist variation of it. Its really a battle within the intellectuals of the West but the blowback is severe for the rest of the world as they want to belong without being there.
If you really want to go to the core you need to understand the Abhramic concept of linear course of History. Note the capitals and the difference between History and history. This would be OT for the forum.
-
S.Abhisheik
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 10 Apr 2008 22:17
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_ ... al_zawahri
If its authentic and if US is about to attack Iran ,then a Shia holocaust seems to be in offing.
If its authentic and if US is about to attack Iran ,then a Shia holocaust seems to be in offing.
Russia-Georgia:Nightwatch brief
Video of the shootdown yesterday is conclusive that a high performance fighter shot down the Georgian unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. The Russians called the Georgian claim nonsense, but the video shows what appears to be a MiG-29 destroying the drone in flight. Unless the Ossetians or the Abkhazians acquired an air force, the Russians are the most likely actors.
The shoot down indicates the Russians have begun acting as the protector of Georgia’s secessionist provinces. That action reinforces the working hypothesis that the Russians consider South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a state of rebellion and therefore entitled in international law to receive outside defense assistance.
KeshavSo the gist of "The End of the End of History" is that autocracies such as Russia and China, who look out for the well being of the people will draw favor again?
The author's main fear is not tht Russia & China style goverments gaining favor but western style government losing ground & favor .
For first time probably in past 200 or so years , rules of game
are under serious threat to be written again by others not west.No wonder US & its allies are trying first to delay this till they have gained favorable positions with as many regional players as possible.
Article by CFR president that i posted has some interesting observations.
JMTs as usual
The Chinese arms ship is reportedly going back.This report indicates the international concern and pressure that is being mounted upon the Mugabe regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... zim123.xml
US presses China to halt Zimbabwe arms ship
By Christopher Munnion in Johannesburg
Last Updated: 2:06am BST 23/04/2008
The United States pressed China yesterday to halt a shipment of weapons to Zimbabwe and stop further sales amid mounting international pressure against the deliveries.
The ship has so far been refused by South
Africa, Mozambique and Angola
Tom Casey, the State Department spokesman, said America had asked Beijing "to refrain from making additional shipments and, if possible, to bring this one back", referring to the cargo of the An Yue Jiang.
The Chinese foreign ministry had said earlier that the An Yue Jiang "may return to China" if it was not allowed to unload its cargo, but insisted that the vessel was "engaged in perfectly normal trade".
Dubbed "the ship of shame" in South Africa, the An Yue Jiang is believed to be carrying three million rounds of ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and 2,500 mortar rounds.
While they were ordered last year, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change said it feared that the weapons could be used to "wage war" on its supporters prior to a possible run-off in Zimbabwe's presidential vote involving President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. Mr Casey said: "We don't think that under the present circumstances, given the current political crisis in Zimbabwe, that now is the time for anyone to be increasing the number of weapons and armaments available in that country."
advertisementThe US said it would press African nations to refuse the An Yue Jiang docking rights or face worsened relations with Washington.
The ship has so far been refused by South Africa, Mozambique and Angola. The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) said it was mobilising its affiliates in Africa to prevent the ship unloading.
"Our objective is to take a firm stand to stop the offloading of these weapons which could be used to kill innocent Zimbabweans," said Sprite Zungu, the ITF spokesman in Durban. "That includes all ports in Angola."
The MDC said: "These weapons were not going to be used on mosquitoes but clearly meant to butcher innocent civilians whose only crime is rejecting dictatorship and voting for change."
The leaders of all Church denominations in Zimbabwe meanwhile called for international intervention against the ruling Zanu-PF party's national terror campaign.
A statement released by three Church organisations said: "Organised violence against individuals, families and communities who are accused of campaigning or voting for the 'wrong' political party... has been unleashed throughout the country,"
In South Africa, Jacob Zuma, the president of the ruling ANC, said Africa had to send an urgent mission to Zimbabwe to end the delay in issuing election results.
"The delay is not acceptable," he said. "It is not helping the Zimbabwean people who have gone out to elect the kind of party and president they want."
A US embassy spokesman said that America's senior diplomat for Africa was due to visit South Africa today for talks on Zimbabwe,
Jendayi Frazer, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, will meet government officials at the start of a tour that is to include several other countries in the region.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... zim123.xml
US presses China to halt Zimbabwe arms ship
By Christopher Munnion in Johannesburg
Last Updated: 2:06am BST 23/04/2008
The United States pressed China yesterday to halt a shipment of weapons to Zimbabwe and stop further sales amid mounting international pressure against the deliveries.
The ship has so far been refused by South
Africa, Mozambique and Angola
Tom Casey, the State Department spokesman, said America had asked Beijing "to refrain from making additional shipments and, if possible, to bring this one back", referring to the cargo of the An Yue Jiang.
The Chinese foreign ministry had said earlier that the An Yue Jiang "may return to China" if it was not allowed to unload its cargo, but insisted that the vessel was "engaged in perfectly normal trade".
Dubbed "the ship of shame" in South Africa, the An Yue Jiang is believed to be carrying three million rounds of ammunition, 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades and 2,500 mortar rounds.
While they were ordered last year, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change said it feared that the weapons could be used to "wage war" on its supporters prior to a possible run-off in Zimbabwe's presidential vote involving President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. Mr Casey said: "We don't think that under the present circumstances, given the current political crisis in Zimbabwe, that now is the time for anyone to be increasing the number of weapons and armaments available in that country."
advertisementThe US said it would press African nations to refuse the An Yue Jiang docking rights or face worsened relations with Washington.
The ship has so far been refused by South Africa, Mozambique and Angola. The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) said it was mobilising its affiliates in Africa to prevent the ship unloading.
"Our objective is to take a firm stand to stop the offloading of these weapons which could be used to kill innocent Zimbabweans," said Sprite Zungu, the ITF spokesman in Durban. "That includes all ports in Angola."
The MDC said: "These weapons were not going to be used on mosquitoes but clearly meant to butcher innocent civilians whose only crime is rejecting dictatorship and voting for change."
The leaders of all Church denominations in Zimbabwe meanwhile called for international intervention against the ruling Zanu-PF party's national terror campaign.
A statement released by three Church organisations said: "Organised violence against individuals, families and communities who are accused of campaigning or voting for the 'wrong' political party... has been unleashed throughout the country,"
In South Africa, Jacob Zuma, the president of the ruling ANC, said Africa had to send an urgent mission to Zimbabwe to end the delay in issuing election results.
"The delay is not acceptable," he said. "It is not helping the Zimbabwean people who have gone out to elect the kind of party and president they want."
A US embassy spokesman said that America's senior diplomat for Africa was due to visit South Africa today for talks on Zimbabwe,
Jendayi Frazer, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, will meet government officials at the start of a tour that is to include several other countries in the region.
Kissinger on India and China:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkn ... NhYmRkZDY=
8 min interview
[quote]Kissinger says the rise of India and China is an immensely significant event. He describes these nations as “conglomerates of culturesâ€
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkn ... NhYmRkZDY=
8 min interview
[quote]Kissinger says the rise of India and China is an immensely significant event. He describes these nations as “conglomerates of culturesâ€
Henry Kissinger is on record having said this of India after Nixon's famous meeting with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on November 5, 1971. According to Kissinger, the "Indians are ******** anyway. They are starting a war there … [W]hile [Gandhi] was a bitch, we got what we wanted to … She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war."Rishi wrote:Kissinger on India and China:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkn ... NhYmRkZDY=
8 min interview
Kissinger says the rise of India and China is an immensely significant event. ....Looking to each, Kissinger says it is sensible to think of India as a de facto ally, while China and the U.S. have the chance to form a lasting relationship to the benefit of the world.
The worm has turned.
)US-Russia turf war continues
Although American analysts are suggesting that the country’s moment of unilateral power is already over, the US establishment has to come to terms with it.
Georgia and Kosovo are symptoms of larger geopolitical scenario. American attempts to diminish Russia in every way after its disintegration and the fall of the Berlin Wall succeeded admirably for a time, with a weak and chaotic Russia trying to find its feet. But President Putin changed the situation dramatically, thanks to the sky-high prices of Russia’s energy resources and his determination to centralise power and show the oligarchs in command during the regime of Boris Yeltsin their place.
The American presidential election looming on the horizon has started a new debate among US specialists and academics on future world trends. President Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq has been one indication of the limits of Washington’s power. Other indications are the emergence of China and the centre of economic activity shifting more and more towards the East. The neoconservatives have not given up their dream of becoming the second Roman Empire, but their legacy has become soled and even if the war candidate, Republican John McCain, would win, America has lost its age of innocence.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon still conceives realpolitik in terms of the balance of power in Europe. But America needs to come to terms with its inability single-handedly to rule the world with satellites and proxies. Grinding Russia’s nose in the dirt to proclaim American supremacy will not get it very far. Any new balance of power architecture must revolve round a system that gives Russia, as well as other emerging power centres, its due.
What that new architecture should be is a matter of debate and compromise. But it cannot be a unipolar world or an arbitrary undermining of the Westphalian model without putting in place a workable alternative. Today no one talks of the solemn commitments made by the US and then West Germany to Mikhail Gorbachev that Nato’s borders would not be moved east following German reunification to Moscow’s disadvantage.
Actually US is already pursuing a balance of power strategy as its think tanks advocated in early 2001. Thats what the nuke deal, the hope that Parakram leads to something are all about. Unfortunately its the experts and outside govts that have not understood the issues and are still stuck in unipolarity etc.
Yes Cold War ended with a clear victory for the US however to translate that into a Romanesque domination it needs more resources of pwer like demographics, ideas. Military and monetary power are not enough. I dont think the US was ever poised to inherit the Roman role, except in the minds of a few simpletons, for it lacks many of the attributes of power. Without these it cannot retain any acquired dominance. For starters it needs to Anglicise the Hispanics all over North and South America, it needs to eradicate teh effects of slavery and create a homogenous population that is driven by the original ideals and that means it has to evangelise/Baptistize all these people. It will have severe competition from the Papacy.
Yes Cold War ended with a clear victory for the US however to translate that into a Romanesque domination it needs more resources of pwer like demographics, ideas. Military and monetary power are not enough. I dont think the US was ever poised to inherit the Roman role, except in the minds of a few simpletons, for it lacks many of the attributes of power. Without these it cannot retain any acquired dominance. For starters it needs to Anglicise the Hispanics all over North and South America, it needs to eradicate teh effects of slavery and create a homogenous population that is driven by the original ideals and that means it has to evangelise/Baptistize all these people. It will have severe competition from the Papacy.
No offense meant.[url=http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Secti ... RTID=12762]“Asian centuryâ€
Thanks Gerard for posting that review of Dr Mahbubani's work by Dr Kapila. I think the review is slightly off base for who knows what the rest of the century will be looking at from the first decade? And who knows if cooperation will emerge between the three powers.
Also the reviewer seems to think TSP was created by PRC when it was a product of Anglo-Saxon tutelage. If it werent for this TSP would have never emerged and if it emerged would have been still born. PRC has propped up TSP initially under US guidance and not on its own. The fact that US never took recourse to the tools-sacntions etc indicate there was benign neglect at work.
There are Japanese authors who are thinking of a natural compact between these three powers. I dont have he names handy but will post by and by. I agree that Asia West of India is in another turmoil due to Islamism and energy interests and these appear presently out of reach for the three powers. But a domino here and there falls it could be different.
Also the reviewer seems to think TSP was created by PRC when it was a product of Anglo-Saxon tutelage. If it werent for this TSP would have never emerged and if it emerged would have been still born. PRC has propped up TSP initially under US guidance and not on its own. The fact that US never took recourse to the tools-sacntions etc indicate there was benign neglect at work.
There are Japanese authors who are thinking of a natural compact between these three powers. I dont have he names handy but will post by and by. I agree that Asia West of India is in another turmoil due to Islamism and energy interests and these appear presently out of reach for the three powers. But a domino here and there falls it could be different.
Gasoline could hit $7 a gallon in four years: CIBC
Crude predicted to top $200 by 2012 on tight supplies, pushing gas higher
By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch
Last update: 5:15 p.m. EDT April 24, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Surging crude prices, which could surpass $200 a barrel in four years on tight supplies, could push gasoline prices to as high as $7 a gallon, CIBC World Markets analysts said Thursday.
Crude supplies are actually lower than some official estimates indicate, while demand is unlikely to fall anytime soon, according to a statement by analysts led by Jeff Rubin at CIBC, an investment bank. They forecast that these tighter supplies and continued strong demand will drive oil and gasoline prices to roughly double their current levels by 2012.
"It is increasingly clear that the outlook for oil supply signals a period of unprecedented scarcity," said Rubin. "Despite the recent record jump in oil prices, oil prices will continue to rise steadily over the next five years."
CIBC says estimates by the International Energy Agency have overstated supplies because gains in production mostly come from natural-gas liquids.
The front-month crude contract slid Thursday to $116 a barrel, after hitting a historic high of $119.90 a barrel Tuesday. Retail gas prices averaged $3.56 a gallon Thursday, according to AAA, a new record high. See Futures Movers.
Some analysts, however, said crude prices could turn lower. Standard & Poor's predicted Thursday that crude prices could tumble to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year with the U.S. economy struggling in recession, though the range of that forecast is plus or minus $50. See full story.
Last edited by svinayak on 25 Apr 2008 10:24, edited 1 time in total.
From Hindusthan Times
[quote]
We are all Asians now
Rahul Sharma, Hindustan Times
April 20, 2008
There is a lot of India in Kishore Mahbubani’s latest book, probably for a good reason. India is way up in Singapore’s top-of-the-pop list. Relations between what some see as a red dot on the southern tip of the Malay peninsula, but is in fact one of the most pragmatic nations in the world, and New Delhi have boomed in the past decade. India is not a basketcase as it was made out to be in the late 1980s. In the new century, it is now a paragon of democratic practices despite its chaotic politics, and an emerging global economic power that, along with China, will make the big Asian dream of taking on the West come true.
That indeed is the theme of Mahbubani's book — an Asia that is challenging the West’s supremacy in more ways than one and a confused West that’s dragging its feet in accepting that it’s time has come. Few in the West have “grasped the full implications of the two most salient features of our historical epochâ€
[quote]
We are all Asians now
Rahul Sharma, Hindustan Times
April 20, 2008
There is a lot of India in Kishore Mahbubani’s latest book, probably for a good reason. India is way up in Singapore’s top-of-the-pop list. Relations between what some see as a red dot on the southern tip of the Malay peninsula, but is in fact one of the most pragmatic nations in the world, and New Delhi have boomed in the past decade. India is not a basketcase as it was made out to be in the late 1980s. In the new century, it is now a paragon of democratic practices despite its chaotic politics, and an emerging global economic power that, along with China, will make the big Asian dream of taking on the West come true.
That indeed is the theme of Mahbubani's book — an Asia that is challenging the West’s supremacy in more ways than one and a confused West that’s dragging its feet in accepting that it’s time has come. Few in the West have “grasped the full implications of the two most salient features of our historical epochâ€
US/NATO are basically breaking their promise not to encroach on Russia's borders.
The UN is worthless -- just an org. to provide cover/legitimacy for the geopolitical projects of US/EU. Make money selling weapons to both sides while creating war, and win "Reconstruction contracts" on both sides after the war...always good business no matter what.Kosovo's foreign rulers -- especially the French, Americans and Germans -- are wrestling for billions in reconstruction contracts, for key positions in the new government and for influence over the Kosovar parties and clan leaders. The region is awash with intelligence agents and soldiers of fortune, idealists and professional adventurers. This constellation could, of course, hinder the planned birth of democracy here, rather than help it.
The UN has spent an estimated €33 billion ($53 billion) for its mission in Kosovo since 1999, when a NATO bombing campaign drove out former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's murderous troops. This corresponds to €1,750 ($2,800) per capita, annually -- or 160 times the average yearly per capita aid for all developing countries combined.
Non-proliferation as disarmament
It is the very utility of nuclear weapons that serves as the main proliferation incentive. In the years ahead, it won’t be easy to stop more countries from pursuing nuclear-weapons ambitions if the present nuclear-armed states do not begin to denuke.
Yet, nuclear weapons, as the last US posture review in 2002 stated, will continue to play a "critical role" because they possess "unique properties." The growing attraction of missiles — which are much cheaper and easier to operate and maintain than manned bomber aircraft — flows from the fact that the attacking nation does not have to bring its forces in harm’s way.
Even as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism have emerged as the two most pressing issues in international relations, the global strategic environment today is more competitive than ever, with technological advances producing new destructive capacities.
It is against this background that one should examine a US-Russian proposal to globalise their 1987 Treaty on the elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (the so-called INF Treaty). That proposal raises at least three basic questions:
l The first issue is whether the US and Russia are seeking to promote non-proliferation or disarmament through their interest in a global treaty outlawing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres.
l The second question is whether such a proposal could actually act as a spur to the development of more deadly weapons by encouraging states to rely completely on long-range systems. Conversely, what is the military or technological logic to make strategic missiles preferable to intermediate-range missiles or IRBMs?
l The third question is whether this proposal is an earnest idea, given the new US-Russian tensions over America’s missile-shield plans in eastern Europe and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February 10, 2007, statement that the INF Treaty no longer serves Russian interest. In fact, just four days after Mr Putin’s statement, the Russian military’s Chief of General Staff, General Yuri Baluyevsky, had warned that Moscow could pull out of the INF Treaty if the US proceeded to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
If the INF Treaty does not mesh with Russian interests today, can Moscow seriously be seeking to globalise it? The proposal was first put forward through a scrappy October 2007 US-Russian joint statement in the UN General Assembly. Earlier this month, the proposal was discussed at a workshop at Reykjavik, Iceland.
Let us begin with the first question. With disarmament off the international radar screen, the focus of the major powers increasingly has been on more stringent non-proliferation. Too often, we are seeing non-proliferation proposals being speciously packaged as disarmament.
Historically, technological progress has created the spur to eliminate by bilateral or multilateral treaty a type or class of weapons overtaken by newer discoveries. The Chemical Weapons Convention, for example, became possible only when chemical arms ceased to be militarily relevant for the major powers and instead threatened to become the poor state’s WMD.
During the Cold War era, the unfettered arms racing, with its action-reaction cycle, led to the build-up of such surplus armaments that many of the weapons in national stockpiles became obsolescent or redundant. That encouraged arms-control efforts from the 1970s.
The INF Treaty was the product of such efforts to slash destabilising surpluses by eliminating a class of weapons that threatened peace in Europe. Signed during the height of the Reagan-Gorbachev era, the INF Treaty later created misgivings in Moscow, where some saw it as slanted in America’s favour, both in terms of what it did not eliminate on the US side, and the manner in which the American single-warhead Pershing II system got counted as equivalent to every multiple-warhead RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) Soviet missile. To be sure, this treaty contained pioneering on-site inspection provisions.
Tellingly, the INF Treaty was intended not to disturb the most-sophisticated weapon systems held by the two major powers, including long-range missiles and sea- and submarine-launched systems. A globalised INF Treaty, however, would mean decapitation of the nuclear deterrent of India or Israel because neither at present has sophisticated missile assets beyond ground-launched intermediate-range missiles.
Today, the US and Russian interest in working together to stop the proliferation of intermediate and shorter-range missiles is understandable, given the potentially adverse consequences of such proliferation for their strategic interests. The spread of missile technology impinges on the capabilities of all the five ICBM-armed major powers (the Permanent Five) to police high seas or to intervene without incurring significant political or military costs.
Such proliferation concerns are reinforced by the fact that, unlike other weapon systems, missiles, especially cruise missiles, are difficult to defend against. The progressive tightening of the missile technology control regime controls and the inclusion of civilian space and aerospace technologies within their clasp have only made it more difficult to build international consensus against the proliferation of missiles. Now, all delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) are banned for export.
The MTCR-centred missile non-proliferation regime is actually more inequitable than the NPT due to an absence of any mutuality of obligations between the missile and non-missile states. The MTCR incorporates no commitment on the part of the missile powers — akin to NPT’s Article VI — to work toward complete missile disarmament. Indeed, it facilitates continued missile modernisation, with the missile powers now increasingly focusing on advanced submarine-launched ballistic and cruise missiles.
There are also no international monitoring and verification measures to detect and forestall interstate transfers of missile systems and production technology, as underscored by China’s covert transfers of INF-class M-9s and M-11s to Pakistan and its continuing production assistance to that country.
The global INF Treaty proposal, in effect, aims to accomplish what the missile non-proliferation regime has failed to thwart. But given that the MTCR remains largely a cartel of supplier states outside the UN framework, the establishment of a globalised INF Treaty before the advent of a global missile non-proliferation regime is like putting the cart before the horse.
Actually, greater inequities in the international security order risk undermining both nuclear and missile non-proliferation. Concerns are already growing in the developing world that the existing technology controls, through their progressive tightening and extension, are throttling legitimate civilian activities by the "have-nots."
These concerns centre on the manner key technologies and sensitive commerce are monopolised by a few. Civil nuclear trade today constitutes the world’s most politically-regulated and cartelised commerce, with a tiny syndicate of state-guided firms controlling all reactor, fuel and component sales — a monopoly sought to be only reinforced by the proposed creation of an international fuel bank.
At the same time, MTCR controls are constraining civilian space cooperation, even as space assets are becoming critical for meteorology, civil communications, navigation, mapping of underground water resources, national defence and reconnaissance. Current export controls on inertial navigation system (INS) technology for commercial aircraft are just one example of the extension of controls to civilian fields.
The MTCR guidelines require members-states to consider the "capabilities and objectives of the missile and space programmes of the recipient state" before agreeing to export any item or technology. Since an indigenous space launch vehicle arms its possessor with potential IRBM capability, the civilian space programme of a non-member seeking to independently place satellites in orbit automatically becomes a target of MTCR controls.
Against this background, caution should be exercised in promoting yet another layer of discrimination in the international security rules.
With nuclear disarmament looking a utopian idea, the world faces fundamental challenges relating to the preservation of norms on non-proliferation in an era marked by major shifts in global economic and political power. Such challenges are accentuated by the fact that surpluses from the past arms racing continue to be glaring. Almost two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, America and Russia together still have nearly 25,000 nuclear weapons, including 6,000 long-range weapons on hair-trigger alert.
The growing proliferation and use of missiles does carry serious implications for regional and global security. But a global INF Treaty has to be weighed against some grim realities:
l First, missiles have come to symbolise power and coercion in international relations. They are useful not only to achieve military objectives, but also to realise aims through political intimidation and coercion.
l Second, there is no international legal structure to control missiles nor any taboo related to their use. While nuclear weapons have not been employed for more than 62 years, missiles have been used with increasing frequency. The role of cruise missiles is growing the fastest. The low-flying, slower cruise missiles, unlike the much-faster ballistic missiles, strike with a high degree of accuracy.
l Third, conflicts and interventions since the last decade are a vivid reminder of the high costs of being defenceless against a foe firing missiles and other high-tech, remotely-fired conventional weapons.
l Fourth, only nations without the capability to hit back are falling victim to missile strikes. In some cases, such states — as the history of the past two decades testifies — have been targeted as guinea pigs to test out new missile systems or to help correct flaws in existing ones.
l Fifth, there is only one effective way to deter missile terror and blackmail — a reliable missile-deterrent capability to ensure a calibrated but proportional response. Without the capacity to effectively strike back with missiles, a state would be vulnerable to the type of blackmail China mounted against Taiwan in 1996 or the kind of missile warfare that has been waged one-sidedly in other theatres.
l Sixth, a missile-defence shield is a far more expensive, complex and dubious scheme than a missile deterrent. Such a shield makes sense only for states that are already armed with a robust missile deterrent. Indeed, the institution of missile defences is likely to compel sta-tes to build more-sophisticated missiles that can foil defences of any kind, including by arming ballistic missiles with deco-ys and other countermeasures.
In that light, how realistic is the idea of globalising the INF Treaty?
Firstly, a global INF Treaty would be a spur to the development of, and reliance on, intercontinental-range weaponry, even when a state’s security threats emanate from the immediate neighbourhood. What may be a proposal to preserve the technological superiority of a few may actually help speed up a challenge to such ascendancy.
ICBMs are already an idiom of big-power status, playing a primary role in power-projection strategies. But with a global INF Treaty, the attraction of ICBMs would multiply.
Secondly, a global INF Treaty proposal runs counter to Russian threats to renew interest in intermediate-range missile forces if the US installs a missile shield in Eastern Europe.
Would a globalised INF Treaty, as an incentive, sell surplus US and Russian ICBMs to other states in lieu of the shorter-range missiles they eliminate? Such a trade-off might be a good way both to bring down the "overkill" arsenals that the US and Russia still maintain, and to promote international cooperation and peace on the based of shared capabilities.
In the absence of tangible, compensatory incentives, the seriousness of the proposal is open to question. India, for example, has modest deterrent capabilities against a multitude of missile threats that few other countries face. Why would it accept decapitation under a globalised INF Treaty?
To effectively tackle proliferation challenges, the world needs genuine disarmament. However, what a globalised INF Treaty would offer is the reinforcement of the present power and prerogatives of the P-5, armed as they are with intercontinental missile-strike capabilities and other power-projection assets, such as naval forces that patrol far from their shores, instruments of precision strike in the form of cruise missiles, and space-based information systems.
Those who cite hypothetical threats to justify continued WMD modernisation should not be seen as seeking to disarm those that confront real threats. A central tenet of international law and the UN Charter is that it is the sovereign right of every nation to defend its security by appropriate means.
Today, it has become more difficult than ever to palm off non-proliferation as disarmament, or to label a cutback of surpluses as disarmament. What the world seeks today are concrete measures that would turn growing concerns about rearmament into new hopes for common security.
It would not be a problem for India if they banned missiles of 500 to 5000kms range as India has the capability to develop missiles beyond these ranges.
It would be costly but not impossible.
But what would be the logic of it. To try to selectively exclude certain countries from the 'club'? Those countries would not agree. Besides any country can claim it has missiles over 5000kms range but field missiles with much shorter ranges (1000 to 2000kms range).
In the end, the nukes could even be delivered by air craft.
The only way forward is to ban all nukes.
It would be costly but not impossible.
But what would be the logic of it. To try to selectively exclude certain countries from the 'club'? Those countries would not agree. Besides any country can claim it has missiles over 5000kms range but field missiles with much shorter ranges (1000 to 2000kms range).
In the end, the nukes could even be delivered by air craft.
The only way forward is to ban all nukes.
The French Revolution
When Somali pirates hijacked a French yacht with 30 crew members aboard in early April, the French government took just over an hour to start organizing a counterattack. While negotiators talked about a ransom, French commandos parachuted directly into the Indian Ocean and joined up with ships from France, the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany and Pakistan already operating in the region as part of a naval task force set up in 2002. A week later the ransom was paid, the hostages freed, safe and sound. Then French Special Forces moved in. After intelligence located an SUV in Somalia carrying six of the alleged pirates, a sniper in a helicopter fired into the truck's engine, killing it dead. The men were captured alive, and are now in jail in France.
You couldn't really call the operation a battle, much less a war. But it's the kind of fighting Western armies are called on to do more and more: deploying relatively small and highly professional combat units over long distances, coordinating with military forces from different countries in varying alliances and trying to impose order amid chaos. It's the kind of thing the French do well, and it is key to their growing—perhaps pivotal—role in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that has changed dramatically since the end of the cold war.
A year into his first term, in fact, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is using his warm relations with Washington and his military's strong record fighting in Africa and the Balkans to help re-establish France publicly and formally as a leading player in NATO, more than four decades after President Charles de Gaulle pulled out of the alliance's integrated command and kicked its offices out of Paris. At the same time, he's working to put France at the fore of a separate European Union defense force and extend its influence eastward to the Persian Gulf and South Asia. And if France really wants to project itself on the world stage this way, well, it couldn't happen at a better time. U.S. forces are stretched thin, and there are only a handful of other armies with the training, the bases, the organization and, most important, the political will to kill and die in far corners of the planet to keep local wars from emerging into global threats. The shortlist includes the Brits—and the French, and that's about it.
In fact, at a purely military level, French soldiers have been playing major roles in multinational operations since the early 1990s. But French "independence" from NATO decision-making was of almost theological importance in French politics, so the military got little credit. Now Sarkozy is integrating NATO cooperation and a European defense force into his government's plans to magnify its influence and multiply limited resources. Far from rejecting NATO decisions, he wants to be at the table making them. The result represents "a revolution of sorts in NATO and transatlantic relations," says French parliamentarian Pierre Lellouche, who wrote the defense and foreign-policy planks in Sarkozy's campaign platform last year.
Back in 1966, when the alliance was all about huge standing armies facing off against the Soviet Union on European battlefields, French President Charles de Gaulle claimed his Army would be weakened, and perhaps, he feared, humiliated or betrayed by reliance on U.S. protection. After he pulled out of NATO's command structure, French forces had no say in its military operations. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO's purpose started changing. Instead of a big theoretical war where no shots were ever fired, it faced a proliferation of small, hot conflicts with a whole lot of actual shooting. Smaller armies could play much bigger roles in Bosnia, say, or Kosovo, and French President Jacques Chirac made sure French troops were there. "Operationally," says one veteran American commander at NATO headquarters, "when we put forces together, the French raise their hands."
Of course, that's not the image most Americans have. When Chirac opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, angry Yanks started called his countrymen "surrender monkeys." But Chirac's warnings proved prescient, and demonstrated forbearance, not cowardice or a lack of capability. Sarkozy—for all his pro-American sympathies—similarly has no intention of sending troops to Iraq. But the top NATO officer in Kosovo, commanding 16,000 peacekeepers at the critical moment when the country declared independence from Serbia, is French. French troops make up some 80 percent of the EU force now stationed in Chad. The French base in Djibouti has become vital to NATO operations in the Horn of Africa and the surrounding waters. Most strikingly, France is now building a small forward base in Abu Dhabi that could help it deploy in and around the Persian Gulf.
But Sarkozy's best-laid plans could well go awry in Afghanistan, which has become a crucible for the whole alliance. "This is where the future of NATO is at stake," says Etienne de Durand at the French Institute of International Relations. If the alliance fails there, he warns, NATO could wind up like other vestigial cold-war bureaucracies—"international organizations that never die, but are actually sort of zombie organizations." Victory is far from certain. The Taliban keep coming back. Casualties are rising, and while the Canadians, the British, the Dutch and the Americans are fighting a tough war in the south and east, the Germans, Italians and others originally dispatched as peacekeepers and nation-builders have been reluctant to plunge into combat.
France is not quite in either camp. "The French are at war with themselves in Afghanistan," says a senior NATO official in Brussels. On the one hand, if Sarkozy sends troops into the fighting, he helps shore up U.S. support in other arenas—like his plan to build an all-European defense structure that can coordinate with NATO in different parts of the world. Previously, Washington saw any such EU force as a distraction competing for resources. But with so many troubles and so many wars, there's growing recognition that some conflicts—in Africa for instance—may be of more interest to the EU than to the whole alliance. On the other hand, it's hard for Sarkozy to go too far in Afghanistan because the war there is unpopular with both the French public and the military.
The crunch came at the beginning of this year, when Canada threatened to pull out of the fight unless more troops from other NATO allies joined it on what pass for front lines in Afghanistan. Finally, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, Sarkozy promised to send a battalion of some 700 soldiers to the east of Afghanistan, in addition to the 1,500 already in the country, so the Americans could deploy more forces to the embattled south. In an impassioned defense of his decision during a television interview last week, Sarkozy warned that not only Afghanistan was at stake, but Pakistan. "It has the atomic bomb, and if we let Afghanistan fall, Pakistan will fall like a house of cards." Meanwhile, Somali pirates seized a Spanish fishing boat last week and took its crew hostage. Madrid sent a reconnaissance aircraft to the French military base at Djibouti. It seems the little wars affecting big alliances go on and on—and France is ready for action.
So according to "conventional wisdom" in the western *US+EU* minds is that "Pakistan falling like a pack of cards" will cut off ALL western routes to the Warm water ports in the Arabian Sea from Central Asia. This would imply that "reforming Iran" has gone up in priority for the US even more than before, esp. if Pakistan and Afghanisthan are both going to be inaccessible for western interests.
Good artcile by Vikram Sood in his blog: http://soodvikram.blogspot.com/
India and Its External Security
Not highlighting any part, should be read in full.
[quote]There was always more than one India living together for most of its history. Today at least two Indias are growing together. A traffic jam at the 32-lane highway toll tax plaza as motorists leave for work with the occasional Bentley and its sole occupant gliding by the gates is not unusual. Nor is it unusual to see a camel drawn transportation system not too far on the side road close by or a three wheeler scooter rickshaw carrying sixteen passengers to work. This is the new India on the move – young, confident, buoyant, corporate and also a demanding 350 million consumer class. It signifies an awakening after years of colonisation that stifled and socialism that did not deliver.
According to some Pakistani calculations, two of the country’s biggest industrialists, the Ambani brothers have enough resources to buy off the Karachi Stock Exchange with money to spare and four Indian industrialists can buy of the entire produce of Pakistan, the region’s second largest economy, also with money to spare. Progress at this rate needs resources and markets and political and economic stability in the neighbourhood. India’s neighbours thus have a choice – either they can ignore the rise of India or become part of this new journey that will take them to new vistas.. Whatever happens, they remain subjects of concern for India because India lives in a difficult neighbourhood.
A Difficult Neighbourhood
The Failed State Index for 2006 prepared by the Washington-based Fund for Peace, lists Pakistan (9), Afghanistan (10), Myanmar (18), Bangladesh (19), Nepal (20) and Sri Lanka (25) as the most dysfunctional states in the world.. Six of India’s neighbours are thus listed in the top 25 dysfunctional states. India’s three other neighbours -- the gigantic and powerful China and the diminutive Himalayan state of Bhutan and the atoll republic of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean -- are the exceptions to this categorisation.
This is not to suggest that collapse of these states is imminent or that this will occur in the order listed. Equally, it is unlikely that the Fund for Peace will change this unflattering and worrying depiction of India’s neighbourhood for 2007. This is because all these states have continued to exhibit classic symptoms of failed states in varying degrees. They have failed to provide basic security and good governance to their people and have lost control over the use of force within their own boundaries.
Multiple Challenges
In considering India’s external security the country’s policy makers have to bear in mind the economic backwardness and political instabilities of its smaller neighbours, the continued inimical relations that Pakistan has maintained with India. It has used terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy and as a force equaliser. India has to contend with the intentions of a powerful China that would seek to be the paramount power in Asia. External security would demand assessment of conventional military threats but in addition, terrorism, energy security, environmental degradation, demographic changes and access to natural resources including water and markets are the new factors. The nature of threats that emanate from the weakness of the smaller countries and those from the intentions of the bigger countries, China and Pakistan, are different and need different responses.
The Smaller Neighbours
A billion Indians, with enough problems of their own, thus live in a troubled part of a troubled planet. They live in an era of exploding expectations with limited resources and in economies of shortages across the entire South Asian region. The region continues to remain economically backward and politically unstable. Pakistan and Bangladesh, two of India’s most populous neighbours, are rapidly slipping into religious obscurantism. India will continue to face demanding challenges from its neighbours.
These are Nepal’s continuing domestic turmoil as it struggles to introduce democracy in the midst of a violent campaign led by the radical left wing ‘Maoistsâ€
India and Its External Security
Not highlighting any part, should be read in full.
[quote]There was always more than one India living together for most of its history. Today at least two Indias are growing together. A traffic jam at the 32-lane highway toll tax plaza as motorists leave for work with the occasional Bentley and its sole occupant gliding by the gates is not unusual. Nor is it unusual to see a camel drawn transportation system not too far on the side road close by or a three wheeler scooter rickshaw carrying sixteen passengers to work. This is the new India on the move – young, confident, buoyant, corporate and also a demanding 350 million consumer class. It signifies an awakening after years of colonisation that stifled and socialism that did not deliver.
According to some Pakistani calculations, two of the country’s biggest industrialists, the Ambani brothers have enough resources to buy off the Karachi Stock Exchange with money to spare and four Indian industrialists can buy of the entire produce of Pakistan, the region’s second largest economy, also with money to spare. Progress at this rate needs resources and markets and political and economic stability in the neighbourhood. India’s neighbours thus have a choice – either they can ignore the rise of India or become part of this new journey that will take them to new vistas.. Whatever happens, they remain subjects of concern for India because India lives in a difficult neighbourhood.
A Difficult Neighbourhood
The Failed State Index for 2006 prepared by the Washington-based Fund for Peace, lists Pakistan (9), Afghanistan (10), Myanmar (18), Bangladesh (19), Nepal (20) and Sri Lanka (25) as the most dysfunctional states in the world.. Six of India’s neighbours are thus listed in the top 25 dysfunctional states. India’s three other neighbours -- the gigantic and powerful China and the diminutive Himalayan state of Bhutan and the atoll republic of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean -- are the exceptions to this categorisation.
This is not to suggest that collapse of these states is imminent or that this will occur in the order listed. Equally, it is unlikely that the Fund for Peace will change this unflattering and worrying depiction of India’s neighbourhood for 2007. This is because all these states have continued to exhibit classic symptoms of failed states in varying degrees. They have failed to provide basic security and good governance to their people and have lost control over the use of force within their own boundaries.
Multiple Challenges
In considering India’s external security the country’s policy makers have to bear in mind the economic backwardness and political instabilities of its smaller neighbours, the continued inimical relations that Pakistan has maintained with India. It has used terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy and as a force equaliser. India has to contend with the intentions of a powerful China that would seek to be the paramount power in Asia. External security would demand assessment of conventional military threats but in addition, terrorism, energy security, environmental degradation, demographic changes and access to natural resources including water and markets are the new factors. The nature of threats that emanate from the weakness of the smaller countries and those from the intentions of the bigger countries, China and Pakistan, are different and need different responses.
The Smaller Neighbours
A billion Indians, with enough problems of their own, thus live in a troubled part of a troubled planet. They live in an era of exploding expectations with limited resources and in economies of shortages across the entire South Asian region. The region continues to remain economically backward and politically unstable. Pakistan and Bangladesh, two of India’s most populous neighbours, are rapidly slipping into religious obscurantism. India will continue to face demanding challenges from its neighbours.
These are Nepal’s continuing domestic turmoil as it struggles to introduce democracy in the midst of a violent campaign led by the radical left wing ‘Maoistsâ€
Food crisis is a chance to reform global agriculture
[quote]Of the two crises disturbing the world economy – financial disarray and soaring food prices – the latter is the more disturbing. In many developing countries, the poorest quartile of consumers spends close to three-quarters of its income on food. Inevitably, high prices threaten unrest at best and mass starvation at worst.
The recent price spikes apply to almost all significant food and feedstuffs (see charts). Yet these jumps are themselves part of a wider range of commodity price rises. Powerful forces are linking prices of energy, industrial raw materials and foodstuffs. Those forces include rapid economic growth in the emerging world, strains on world energy supplies, the weakness of the US dollar and global inflationary pressures.
Yet the food element of this story carries its own significance. As HSBC points out in a recent analysis*, with rice and wheat prices spiking, riots on the streets of the Philippines, Egypt and Haiti and moves by India, Vietnam, Cambodia and China to restrict rice exports, food is suddenly an even hotter issue than normal.
So why have prices of food risen so strongly? Will these higher prices last? What action should be taken in response?
On the demand side, strong rises in incomes per head in China, India and other emerging countries have raised demand for food, notably meat and the related animal feeds. These shifts in land use reduce the supply of cereals available for human consumption.
Furthermore, rising production of subsidised biofuels, further stimulated by soaring oil prices, boosts demand for maize, rapeseed oil and the other grains and edible oils that are an alternative to food crops. The latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund comments that “although biofuels still account for only 1½ per cent of the global liquid fuels supply, they accounted for almost half of the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2006-07, mostly because of corn-based ethanol produced in the USâ€
[quote]Of the two crises disturbing the world economy – financial disarray and soaring food prices – the latter is the more disturbing. In many developing countries, the poorest quartile of consumers spends close to three-quarters of its income on food. Inevitably, high prices threaten unrest at best and mass starvation at worst.
The recent price spikes apply to almost all significant food and feedstuffs (see charts). Yet these jumps are themselves part of a wider range of commodity price rises. Powerful forces are linking prices of energy, industrial raw materials and foodstuffs. Those forces include rapid economic growth in the emerging world, strains on world energy supplies, the weakness of the US dollar and global inflationary pressures.
Yet the food element of this story carries its own significance. As HSBC points out in a recent analysis*, with rice and wheat prices spiking, riots on the streets of the Philippines, Egypt and Haiti and moves by India, Vietnam, Cambodia and China to restrict rice exports, food is suddenly an even hotter issue than normal.
So why have prices of food risen so strongly? Will these higher prices last? What action should be taken in response?
On the demand side, strong rises in incomes per head in China, India and other emerging countries have raised demand for food, notably meat and the related animal feeds. These shifts in land use reduce the supply of cereals available for human consumption.
Furthermore, rising production of subsidised biofuels, further stimulated by soaring oil prices, boosts demand for maize, rapeseed oil and the other grains and edible oils that are an alternative to food crops. The latest World Economic Outlook from the International Monetary Fund comments that “although biofuels still account for only 1½ per cent of the global liquid fuels supply, they accounted for almost half of the increase in consumption of major food crops in 2006-07, mostly because of corn-based ethanol produced in the USâ€
NATO mischief in enticing Georgia into its fold and the inevitable Russian respone is leading to the possibility of and armed clash between Georgia and Russia.With NATO and the US provoking Russia by enticing former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe into their strategic fold,despite there being no conceivable threat from Russai these days,the Cold War (2) is alive and well with the moves of the master-manipulators of the US and NATO .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ia.georgia
Russian moves inflame tensions with Georgia· Moscow gathers forces in breakaway republic
· Nato calls for talks amid ominous show of might
Luke Harding in Moscow The Guardian, Thursday May 1 2008
Nato yesterday accused Russia of ramping up tensions with its neighbour Georgia and said Moscow's rapid build-up of troops in the breakaway republic of Abkhazia threatened Georgia's territorial integrity.
The alliance called on Russia and Georgia to resolve their differences over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia's two rebel republics, amid ominous signs of a looming military confrontation.
Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, also derided Russian claims that a Nato jet may have shot down a Georgian drone last week over Abkhazia. Georgia says a Russian MiG-29 shot it down. Russia's Nato envoy had suggested the alliance was responsible.
"The secretary general had said he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a Nato Mig-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said. He added: "There is no danger of the secretary general getting ingestion."
"The steps taken (by Russia) ... and the rhetoric that has been used concerning the threat of force have undermined Georgia's territorial integrity," he declared. On Tuesday Russia accused Georgia of plotting to attack Abkhazia, and announced that it was deploying additional troops and military equipment in the region. Around 1,000 Russian peacekeepers are already stationed in Abkhazia, which broke away from Georgia following a 1992-3 war.
The move came after Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, this month recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as legal entities - prompting a furious response from Tbilisi, which accused Russia of trying to annexe the territories by stealth.
Georgia has denied it has plans to invade Abkhazia, a small and picturesque territory on the sub-tropical eastern coast of the Black Sea. Georgia's special presidential envoy, David Bakradze, has appealed for international solidarity, holding talks yesterday with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
"Georgia is being pushed to the edge of a precipice. Without credible and concerted reaction, we are confronted by the prospect of a situation similar to that in northern Cyprus or analogous to what occurred in Taiwan," Bakradze said.
He added: "Russia's end goal now appears to be to force Georgia into armed conflict. It would thus strip it of the opportunity to earn Nato membership, while finally annexing Georgia's territories."
Abkhazia's separatist leadership has echoed Russian claims that Georgia is massing forces in the Upper Kodori Valley - a strategic enclave controlled by Georgian forces but inside rebel-held territory. Some 1,500 troops were there, it said.
He added: "I would characterise the situation as tense, but stably tense," Abkhazia's vice-foreign minister, Maxim Gunjia, told the Guardian.
Recent developments are likely to alarm the US and the EU. Both have expressed support for Georgia and its territorial integrity.
Russia has lifted economic sanctions against Abkhazia and given passports to most of its citizens. On Tuesday Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow had a right to defend them if they came under Georgian attack. Last night Abkhazia's foreign minister, Sergei Shamba, confirmed Russia had boosted its troop contingent from 2,000 to 3,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ia.georgia
Russian moves inflame tensions with Georgia· Moscow gathers forces in breakaway republic
· Nato calls for talks amid ominous show of might
Luke Harding in Moscow The Guardian, Thursday May 1 2008
Nato yesterday accused Russia of ramping up tensions with its neighbour Georgia and said Moscow's rapid build-up of troops in the breakaway republic of Abkhazia threatened Georgia's territorial integrity.
The alliance called on Russia and Georgia to resolve their differences over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia's two rebel republics, amid ominous signs of a looming military confrontation.
Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, also derided Russian claims that a Nato jet may have shot down a Georgian drone last week over Abkhazia. Georgia says a Russian MiG-29 shot it down. Russia's Nato envoy had suggested the alliance was responsible.
"The secretary general had said he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a Nato Mig-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said. He added: "There is no danger of the secretary general getting ingestion."
"The steps taken (by Russia) ... and the rhetoric that has been used concerning the threat of force have undermined Georgia's territorial integrity," he declared. On Tuesday Russia accused Georgia of plotting to attack Abkhazia, and announced that it was deploying additional troops and military equipment in the region. Around 1,000 Russian peacekeepers are already stationed in Abkhazia, which broke away from Georgia following a 1992-3 war.
The move came after Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, this month recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as legal entities - prompting a furious response from Tbilisi, which accused Russia of trying to annexe the territories by stealth.
Georgia has denied it has plans to invade Abkhazia, a small and picturesque territory on the sub-tropical eastern coast of the Black Sea. Georgia's special presidential envoy, David Bakradze, has appealed for international solidarity, holding talks yesterday with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
"Georgia is being pushed to the edge of a precipice. Without credible and concerted reaction, we are confronted by the prospect of a situation similar to that in northern Cyprus or analogous to what occurred in Taiwan," Bakradze said.
He added: "Russia's end goal now appears to be to force Georgia into armed conflict. It would thus strip it of the opportunity to earn Nato membership, while finally annexing Georgia's territories."
Abkhazia's separatist leadership has echoed Russian claims that Georgia is massing forces in the Upper Kodori Valley - a strategic enclave controlled by Georgian forces but inside rebel-held territory. Some 1,500 troops were there, it said.
He added: "I would characterise the situation as tense, but stably tense," Abkhazia's vice-foreign minister, Maxim Gunjia, told the Guardian.
Recent developments are likely to alarm the US and the EU. Both have expressed support for Georgia and its territorial integrity.
Russia has lifted economic sanctions against Abkhazia and given passports to most of its citizens. On Tuesday Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow had a right to defend them if they came under Georgian attack. Last night Abkhazia's foreign minister, Sergei Shamba, confirmed Russia had boosted its troop contingent from 2,000 to 3,000.
NATO mischief in enticing Georgia into its fold and the inevitable Russian respone is leading to the possibility of and armed clash between Georgia and Russia.With NATO and the US provoking Russia by enticing former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe into their strategic fold,despite there being no conceivable threat from Russai these days,the Cold War (2) is alive and well with the moves of the master-manipulators of the US and NATO .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ia.georgia
Russian moves inflame tensions with Georgia· Moscow gathers forces in breakaway republic
· Nato calls for talks amid ominous show of might
Luke Harding in Moscow The Guardian, Thursday May 1 2008
Nato yesterday accused Russia of ramping up tensions with its neighbour Georgia and said Moscow's rapid build-up of troops in the breakaway republic of Abkhazia threatened Georgia's territorial integrity.
The alliance called on Russia and Georgia to resolve their differences over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia's two rebel republics, amid ominous signs of a looming military confrontation.
Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, also derided Russian claims that a Nato jet may have shot down a Georgian drone last week over Abkhazia. Georgia says a Russian MiG-29 shot it down. Russia's Nato envoy had suggested the alliance was responsible.
"The secretary general had said he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a Nato Mig-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said. He added: "There is no danger of the secretary general getting ingestion."
"The steps taken (by Russia) ... and the rhetoric that has been used concerning the threat of force have undermined Georgia's territorial integrity," he declared. On Tuesday Russia accused Georgia of plotting to attack Abkhazia, and announced that it was deploying additional troops and military equipment in the region. Around 1,000 Russian peacekeepers are already stationed in Abkhazia, which broke away from Georgia following a 1992-3 war.
The move came after Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, this month recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as legal entities - prompting a furious response from Tbilisi, which accused Russia of trying to annexe the territories by stealth.
Georgia has denied it has plans to invade Abkhazia, a small and picturesque territory on the sub-tropical eastern coast of the Black Sea. Georgia's special presidential envoy, David Bakradze, has appealed for international solidarity, holding talks yesterday with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
"Georgia is being pushed to the edge of a precipice. Without credible and concerted reaction, we are confronted by the prospect of a situation similar to that in northern Cyprus or analogous to what occurred in Taiwan," Bakradze said.
He added: "Russia's end goal now appears to be to force Georgia into armed conflict. It would thus strip it of the opportunity to earn Nato membership, while finally annexing Georgia's territories."
Abkhazia's separatist leadership has echoed Russian claims that Georgia is massing forces in the Upper Kodori Valley - a strategic enclave controlled by Georgian forces but inside rebel-held territory. Some 1,500 troops were there, it said.
He added: "I would characterise the situation as tense, but stably tense," Abkhazia's vice-foreign minister, Maxim Gunjia, told the Guardian.
Recent developments are likely to alarm the US and the EU. Both have expressed support for Georgia and its territorial integrity.
Russia has lifted economic sanctions against Abkhazia and given passports to most of its citizens. On Tuesday Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow had a right to defend them if they came under Georgian attack. Last night Abkhazia's foreign minister, Sergei Shamba, confirmed Russia had boosted its troop contingent from 2,000 to 3,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ma ... ia.georgia
Russian moves inflame tensions with Georgia· Moscow gathers forces in breakaway republic
· Nato calls for talks amid ominous show of might
Luke Harding in Moscow The Guardian, Thursday May 1 2008
Nato yesterday accused Russia of ramping up tensions with its neighbour Georgia and said Moscow's rapid build-up of troops in the breakaway republic of Abkhazia threatened Georgia's territorial integrity.
The alliance called on Russia and Georgia to resolve their differences over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia's two rebel republics, amid ominous signs of a looming military confrontation.
Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, also derided Russian claims that a Nato jet may have shot down a Georgian drone last week over Abkhazia. Georgia says a Russian MiG-29 shot it down. Russia's Nato envoy had suggested the alliance was responsible.
"The secretary general had said he'd eat his tie if it turned out that a Nato Mig-29 had magically appeared in Abkhazia and shot down a Georgian drone," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said. He added: "There is no danger of the secretary general getting ingestion."
"The steps taken (by Russia) ... and the rhetoric that has been used concerning the threat of force have undermined Georgia's territorial integrity," he declared. On Tuesday Russia accused Georgia of plotting to attack Abkhazia, and announced that it was deploying additional troops and military equipment in the region. Around 1,000 Russian peacekeepers are already stationed in Abkhazia, which broke away from Georgia following a 1992-3 war.
The move came after Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, this month recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as legal entities - prompting a furious response from Tbilisi, which accused Russia of trying to annexe the territories by stealth.
Georgia has denied it has plans to invade Abkhazia, a small and picturesque territory on the sub-tropical eastern coast of the Black Sea. Georgia's special presidential envoy, David Bakradze, has appealed for international solidarity, holding talks yesterday with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
"Georgia is being pushed to the edge of a precipice. Without credible and concerted reaction, we are confronted by the prospect of a situation similar to that in northern Cyprus or analogous to what occurred in Taiwan," Bakradze said.
He added: "Russia's end goal now appears to be to force Georgia into armed conflict. It would thus strip it of the opportunity to earn Nato membership, while finally annexing Georgia's territories."
Abkhazia's separatist leadership has echoed Russian claims that Georgia is massing forces in the Upper Kodori Valley - a strategic enclave controlled by Georgian forces but inside rebel-held territory. Some 1,500 troops were there, it said.
He added: "I would characterise the situation as tense, but stably tense," Abkhazia's vice-foreign minister, Maxim Gunjia, told the Guardian.
Recent developments are likely to alarm the US and the EU. Both have expressed support for Georgia and its territorial integrity.
Russia has lifted economic sanctions against Abkhazia and given passports to most of its citizens. On Tuesday Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow had a right to defend them if they came under Georgian attack. Last night Abkhazia's foreign minister, Sergei Shamba, confirmed Russia had boosted its troop contingent from 2,000 to 3,000.
Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change?
[quote]In recent months, China has taken center stage in the international debate over global warming. It has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases, and it became developing nations’ diplomatic champion at the recent United Nations climate negotiations in Bali. Now China may become the target of a full-fledged trade war that could destroy – or perhaps rescue – the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming.
The focus on China intensified late last year, when new data from the International Energy Agency and other research organizations revealed that China had overtaken the US as the largest source of greenhouse gases – and, more ominously, that its emissions are growing at a rate that exceeds all wealthy nations’ capacity to decrease theirs. Even if China met its own targets for energy conservation, its emissions would increase by about 2.3 billion metric tons over the next five years – far larger than the 1.7 billion tons in cutbacks imposed by the Kyoto Protocol on the 37 developed “Annex 1â€
[quote]In recent months, China has taken center stage in the international debate over global warming. It has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases, and it became developing nations’ diplomatic champion at the recent United Nations climate negotiations in Bali. Now China may become the target of a full-fledged trade war that could destroy – or perhaps rescue – the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming.
The focus on China intensified late last year, when new data from the International Energy Agency and other research organizations revealed that China had overtaken the US as the largest source of greenhouse gases – and, more ominously, that its emissions are growing at a rate that exceeds all wealthy nations’ capacity to decrease theirs. Even if China met its own targets for energy conservation, its emissions would increase by about 2.3 billion metric tons over the next five years – far larger than the 1.7 billion tons in cutbacks imposed by the Kyoto Protocol on the 37 developed “Annex 1â€
Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008
Introduction
From the middle of the 19th century but especially after the Second World War, two models of empire building competed on a world scale: One predominantly based on military conquests, involving direct invasions, proxy invading armies and subsidized separatist military forces; and the other predominantly based on large-scale, long-term economic penetration via a combination of investments, loans, credits and trade in which ‘market’ power and the superiority (greater productivity) in the means of production led to the construction of a virtual empire.
Throughout the 19th to the middle of the 20th centuries, European and US empire building resorted to the military route, especially in Asia, Africa, Central America, North America and the Caribbean. By far the British and US colonized the greatest territories through military force, followed by the introduction of state directed mercantile systems, the Monroe doctrine for the US and imperial preference for the British. South America following independence became the site of the growth of market powered empire building. British and later US capital successfully captured the commanding heights of the economies, especially the agro-mining and petroleum export sectors, trade, finance and in some cases attached customs and treasury to cover debt collection. As late developing capitalist countries and emerging imperial powers (EIP), the US, Germany and Japan faced the hostility of the established European empires and limited access to strategic markets and raw materials. The EIP adopted several strategies in challenging the existing empires. These included demands for free trade with their colonies and the end of imperial (colonial) privilege/ preference. The EIP established parallel colonial settlements and concessions, bordering the old empires. They fomented and financed ‘anti-colonial’ revolts to replace existing colonial collaborators and pursued economic penetration via superior production. They disseminated political propaganda promoting ‘democratic’ values within a market driven empire. World War Two marked the decline of the European military based colonial empire and the US transition from a predominantly market to military-based empire. This ‘transition’ was facilitated by earlier military occupations in the Philippines and the Caribbean and a multitude of invasions in Central America.
Nationalist liberation movements, based on liberal, nationalist and socialist leaders and programs, drawing on returning soldiers, weakened colonial control and post-war European anti-fascist and anti-war sentiments, led to the dismantling of their military-based empires. Internal reconstruction and domestic working class radicalism influenced the agenda for most European colonial powers. The attempts by the European powers to re-impose their colonial empires failed despite bloody wars in Indo-China, Kenya, Algeria, Malaya and elsewhere. The French, English and Israeli invasion and occupation of the Egyptian Suez (1956) marked the last major attempt at military-driven imperialism.
The US opposition to this effort at European re-colonization marked the supremacy of US-centered empire building and, paradoxically, the beginning of US military-driven empire building. The European powers, especially Great Britain, engineered a strategic shift from a colonial-military empire toward market-driven empires based on supporting pro-capitalist nationalist against socialist revolutionaries (India, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.). While Europe transited to the market-driven empire building model based first and foremost on the reconstruction of their war-torn domestic capitalist economy, the US quickly moved toward a military based empire building approach. The US established military bases throughout Europe, militarily intervened in Greece, elaborated a complex and comprehensive military buildup to challenge Soviet spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and intervened in the Chinese and especially the Korean and Vietnamese civil wars.
Immediate Post-WWII: The Combination of Market and Military Roads to Empire
Because the US economy and military came out of the victory during WWII with enormous resources far surpassing any other country or group of countries, it was able to pursue a dual approach to empire building, engaging in military and economic expansion. The US dominated over 50% of world trade and had the greatest surplus public and private capital to invest overseas. The US possessed technological and productivity advantages to promote ‘free trade’ among its would-be competitors and to increase domestic living standards.
These advantageous circumstances, directly related and limited to the first decade of the post-WWII period, became embedded in the practice and strategic thinking of US policymakers, Congress, the Executive branch and both major parties. The conjunctural ‘world superiority’ generated a plethora of elite ideologies and a mass mind set in which the US was seen to be ‘by nature’, by ‘divine will’, destined by ‘history’ and its ‘values’, by its ‘superior education, technology and productivity’ to rule over the world. The specific economic and political conditions of the ‘decade’ (1945-1955) were frozen into an unquestioned dogma, which denied the dynamics of changing market, productive and political relations that gradually eroded the original bases of the ideology.
Divergence in the World Economy: US-Europe-Japan
Beginning with the massive military buildup with the ‘Cold War’ and the subsequent hot war in Korea, the US allocated a far greater percentage of its budget and GNP to war and military empire building than Western Europe or Japan.
By the mid-1950’s, while the US vastly expanded its state military apparatus (armed forces, intelligence agencies and clandestine armies), Western Europe and Japan expanded and built up their state economic agencies, public enterprises, investment and loan programs for the private sector. Even more significantly, US military spending and purchases stimulated Japanese and European industries. Equally important state-private procurement policies subsidized US industrial inefficiency via cost over-runs, non-competitive bidding and military-industrial monopolies.
US empire building via projections of military power absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars in government expenditures in regions and countries with low economic payoffs in the Caribbean, Central American, Asia and Africa.
While military-driven empire building did increase short term domestic growth and rising income, and led to some important civilian spin-offs and technological breakthroughs that entered the civilian economy, European and Japanese market-based empire building moved with greater dynamism from domestic to export led growth and began to challenge US predominance in a multiplicity of productive sectors.
The US prolonged and costly war against Indo-China (roughly 1954-74) epitomized the replacement of European colonial-military empire building by the US version. The hundreds of billions of dollars in US government war spending spilled over into Japanese and South Korean high-growth manufacturing industries. Western European manufacturing achieved productivity gains and export markets in former African and Asian colonial nations, while the US Empire’s murderous wars in South East Asia discredited it and its products throughout the world. Domestic unrest, widespread civilian protests and military demoralization further weakened the US capacity to pursue its imperial agenda and defend strategic collaborating regimes in key regions.
The relative decline of US manufacturing exports was accompanied by the massive growth of US public debt, which in turn stimulated the vast expansion of the financial sector which then shaped regional and national policy toward de-industrializing central cities and converting them into a finance-real estate and insurance monoculture.
The contrasting and divergent roads to empire building between the US on the one hand and Europe and Japan on the other, deepened with the advent of the ‘Second Cold War’ under the Carter-Reagan years. While the US spent billions in proxy wars in Southern Africa (Angola and Mozambique), Latin America (Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala) and Asia (Afghanistan), the Europeans were expanding economically into Eastern Europe, China, Latin America and the Middle East. Even at the moment of greatest imperial success, the overthrow of Communism in the USSR and East Europe and China’s transition to capitalism, the US militarily driven empire failed to reap the benefits: Under Clinton the US promoted the raw pillage of the Russian economy and destruction of the state (civilian and military), market and scientific base rather than stabilize and jointly exploit its existing markets and human and material resources. The US spent billions undermining Communism, but the Europeans, primarily Germany, and to a much lesser degree France, England and Japan, were the prime beneficiaries in terms of securing the most productive industries and employing the better part of the skilled labor and engineers in the former Soviet bloc. By the end of the Clinton era and the bursting of the information technology speculative bubble, the European Union eclipsed the US in GNP, outperformed the US in accumulating trade surpluses and foreign debt management.
Market Versus Military Empire Building in the 1990’s
During the Bush-Clinton years, US military-driven empire-building vastly expanded its commitments in financing and providing troops into the Balkan and Iraq wars, military entry into Somalia, the bombing of the Sudan, the increased subsidy of Israel’s colonial wars, the Afghan wars, Colombia’s counter-insurgency and to a lesser extent the Philippine’s counter-insurgency and counter-separatist wars. While the US spent billions to prop up a gangster-ridden and corrupt KLA regime in Kosova in order to spend billions more in building a huge military base, Germany was reaping the economic benefits of its economic hegemony in the relatively prosperous regimes of Croatia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. While the US spent hundreds of billions in the First and Second Gulf Wars, China, the new emerging market-driven empire builder, was looking to sign lucrative oil and gas contracts in the Middle East, especially with Iran. While the US was backing an unpopular minority regime backed by its client Ethiopian military force in Somalia, China was signing major oil contracts in Sudan, Angola and Nigeria and even in Northern Somalia (Puntland). While the US military-centered empire-building state was giving away over $3 billion in military aid (plus transferring its most up-to-date military technology to competitor firms) per year to Israel, European, Asian and Latin American private and public enterprises were signing long-term lucrative contracts with the Gulf oil states as well as with Iran.
A clear sign of the long-term economic decay of the US global competitive position between 2002-2008 is evidenced by the fact that a 40% depreciation of the dollar has failed to substantially improve the US balance of payments, let alone produce a trade surplus. Despite the handicap of appreciating currencies, China, Germany and Japan continued to accumulate trade surpluses, especially with the US. While the US spent hundreds of billions in Asian wars, CIA propaganda and subversive operations in the former USSR, Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, the Caribbean (Cuba/Venezuela) and the Caucuses, the principle beneficiaries were the revitalized European market-driven empire-builders and the newly emerging market empire builders.
While the US spends enormous sums in building new military bases surrounding Russia, including new offensive operations in Kosova, Poland and the Czech Republic, with new preparations for NATO bases in Georgia and the Ukraine, Russian, Chinese and European capital expands buying out or investing in privatized and public-private strategic mining, petrol and manufacturing enterprises in Africa, Latin America, Australia and the Gulf.
While China harnesses foreign capital, including major US MNCs to make itself the ‘manufacturing workshop of the world’, Germany with its high precision heavy manufacturers are prospering by ‘constructing the workshops’ for the Chinese. US manufacturers and productive capital flee to state-subsidized (via tax reductions and low interest rates) financial, real estate and speculative sectors, and go overseas to avoid high rent and fringe payments to US labor. The resulting decline of the domestic market and a shrinking base of industrially trained labor reinforce the overseas and speculative movements on US capital. These capitalist structural changes undermined the economic fundamentals underlying the financial sector.
The deterioration of the US economy became apparent as the speculative paper pyramid (sub-prime and credit crises) collapsed during the 2007-08 recession. The recycling of multiple layers of ‘exotic’ financial ‘instruments’ each more precarious than the other, each more divorced from any tangible productive unit in the real economy characterized this period. Their predictable collapse dragged the US into recession. Even among the big banks and financial houses there is no knowledge of the real value of the paper being traded or of the ‘material collateral’ (housing and commercial property being held). The fictitious economy revolves around unloading the devalued paper, to cover costs and lessen losses…and let the next holder of the paper face the risks and uncertainties. As a result there is a total lack of confidence in the market because the ‘objects’ up for sale have become so lacking of value, i.e. so intangible and unrelated to the real economy.
The decline of the real producer basis of goods and social services and the predominance of the paper economy accentuated the divergence between military-directed empire building and the global economic interests of the US. The paper economy is not directly influenced by imperialist militarism, as is the case with US MNC’s with physical assets at risk from imperial wars, armed resistance, the disruption of trade routes, the destruction of overseas markets and the disarticulation of access to minerals and energy sources.
The ascendancy of speculative finance capital coincides with the greater autonomy of the militarist empire builders over and against the residual influence of American manufacturing and commercial interests supporting market imperialism. The extraordinary role that the pro-Israel power bloc plays in shaping a bellicose Middle East foreign policy over and above what US oil companies looking to sign contracts with Arab countries exercised, can only be understood within the large upsurge of ‘militarist driven imperial policy’.
Washington’s unconditional support of Israel’s militarist colonial regime reflects two important structural changes in US empire building. One is the extraordinary organization and influence of the principle pro-Israel Jewish organization over local, regional, national legislative and executive bodies and in the mass media and financial institutions. The second change is the rise of a political class of executive and legislative militarist policy-makers, which has an affinity with Israeli colonialism and its offensive military strategy. Israel is one of the few – if not only – military-driven ‘emerging imperial powers’ and that is part of the reason for the ‘resonance’ between Jewish leaders in Israel and Washington policy-makers. This is the real basis of the often stated and affirmed ‘common interests and values’ between the two ‘countries’. Military-driven imperial powers, like the US and Israel, do not share ‘democratic values’ – as even the most superficial observer of their savage repression of their conquered peoples and nations (Iraq and Palestine) can attest – they share the military route to empire-building.
Historic Comparison of Market and Military Driven Imperialism
A rational cost efficient evaluation of the US major and minor military invasions demonstrates the high economic cost and low economic benefits to both the capitalist system as a whole and even to many key economic enterprises.
The US blockade and subsequent war with Japan ultimately unleashed the Asian national liberation movements, which undercut European, and US colonial-style military imperialism. The Korean War ignited the massive re-industrialization of Japan and created optimal conditions for Korea’s model of protectionism at home and free trade with the US (so-called Asian state-led export model). The result was the creation of two major manufacturing rivals to the US economic expansion in Asia, North America and later in the rest of the world.
The US invasion, colonial occupation and imperial war in Indochina and its subsequent defeat severely weakened the military capacity to subsequently defend global imperial interests and client states in Southern Africa, Iran and Nicaragua. More to the point, by concentrating resources on war-making the US lost markets to the emerging market empire-builders and diverted capital from increasing the productivity and productive forces which create market dominance.
In the broader picture, military and market driven imperialism, which coexisted and seemed to complement each other diverged in the period between 1963-1973, with the militarist faction gaining supremacy in directing US empire-building. The divergence was papered over by several instances of complementary activity such as the overthrow of President Allende in Chile on behalf of US MNCs and similar earlier cases as in Guatemala (1954), Iran (1953) and in other countries where quick imperial victories over smaller countries did not seem to carry any significant economic or political costs.
The ascendancy of Reagan and the negative long-term economic impact of new arms buildup were obscured by the break-up of the Communist system and the Chinese and Vietnamese transitions to capitalism. The windfall gains to US economic interests in the former European communist countries, especially Russia, were largely based on pillaging existing resources in alliance with gangster-capitalists. Long-term, large-scale benefits were not due to US capitalist taking over and developing the forces of production and developing the internal markets of the ex-communist countries. The political and military gains that accrued to US military empire building obscured the continued loss of economic power in the world marketplace to the market-driven imperial powers. Moreover, China unleashed a large-scale, long-term process of dynamic capital accumulation, which in less than two decades displaced the US from manufacturing markets and challenged its access to energy markets.
In other words favorable resolution of the US-Soviet conflict led to their mutual economic decline. What is worse from a practical historical perspective, the military-driven empire builders saw their ‘victory’ over Communism as vindication and license to escalate their militarist approach to empire building. According to this line of argument, the Soviets fell because of military pressure, backed by ideological warfare. Moreover in the absence of a countervailing military pole, the Bush-Clinton-Bush Presidencies saw an open field for pursuing the military road to empire building.
From the Gulf, to the Gulf and Back to the Gulf : 1990-2008 (and beyond)
The first Bush Presidency assumed the military road to empire building but tried to avoid the high costs of occupation and colonization. The Israeli colonial model had to await the Zionist occupation of policy-making positions in later administrations. The first Iraq War was intended to project US imperial military power, secure US economic interests among the Gulf oil states (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) as well as expand Israeli influence in the Middle East. Most of all it was seen as the launching of a ‘New World Order; centered in US world supremacy, supported by docile allies and financed by rich Arab oil states.
Shortly after the Gulf War, the triple alliance, which emerged during the war, collapsed as Europe pursued its own market-driven empire in competition with the US, Saudi Arabia paid some of the US military expenditures and then abruptly ended its funding, and domestic opposition grew as the electorate demanded less imperial expenditures and the re-building of the domestic economy.
Military-Driven Empire-Building (MDE) and Zionism
The Zionist Power Configuration in the United States successfully secured from the White House and Congress massive sustained multi-billion dollar military and economic grant and aid packages for Israel throughout the 1980’s ensuring Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East. Yet both Presidents Reagan and Bush (father) tried to maintain a balance between the interests of major US oil multi-nationals working with Arab regimes on the one hand and on the other Israeli and Washington’s military-driven empire building (MEB).
Bush Senior’s attack of Iraq in the First Gulf War, greatly reduced Baghdad’s military capability but he refrained from destroying its armed forces or overthrowing Saddam Hussein as Israel and the ZPC were demanding at the time. Above all Bush did not want to destabilize the region for US oil deals in the Gulf, even as he imposed a US military presence to ensure dominance.
With the election of Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress, the MDE and the ZPC gained strategic positions in the elaboration and implementation of foreign policy. Madeleine Albright, ‘Sandy’ Berger, Dennis Ross, Cohen, and Martin Indyk and an army of lesser known functionaries, militarists and Zionists launched a series of wars, military attacks and severe sanctions against Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq. They devastated their population (over 500,000 children died in Iraq as a direct result of US starvation sanctions), destroyed their national productive facilities and, intentionally disarticulated and fragmented their nations into violent ethno-tribal and religious mini-states. While Clinton embraced the military road to empire building, he was also totally committed to the financial sector of the US economy (in particular, the most speculative activities) by de-regulating all controls, oversight and constraints on ‘hedge funds’, investment banks and equity houses. Under the tutelage of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, the pro-Israel Alan Greenspan, the Clinton regime became the launching pad for the full conversion of the US into a speculation-driven economy, culminating in the dot-com bubble which burst in 2000-2001, and the massive Enron and World Com swindles leading up to the current financial meltdown of 2006-2008.
While the MDE gained a dominant role, the ascendance of speculative capital marginalized and eroded the political influence and economic weight of productive capital, forcing it overseas and/or to transfer funds into the financial-speculative sector. The socio-economic basis of market-driven empire-building (MDEB) was weakened relative to the militarists and the ZPC in setting the US foreign policy agenda. This new power configuration opened the door for the total takeover by these same forces during the 8 years of Bush (Junior)’s presidency. The latter quickly eliminated any residual influence of the market-driven imperialists, forcing the resignation of his first Treasury Secretary O’Neal and others. Even hybrid market-militarists like Colin Powell who went along with the global war strategy but raised tactical questions were subsequently forced into retirement.
MDE were in total control of the government in all spheres, from the elaboration of war propaganda, the build-up of a global network of terror and assassination teams, to colonial wars and the systematic use of torture abroad and the savaging of elementary freedoms at home. Within the MDE, the ZPC gained dominance, especially in the formulation and the implementation of total war strategies in Iraq and the unconditional backing of Israel’s genocidal politics in Gaza and the West Bank. Every sector of the government was geared to war, bellicose action and especially to subordinating economic policies to military practices informed by the military-driven Israeli colonization.
The convergence of policy and practice between the MDE and the ZPC within the highest levels of government and their mutual reinforcement, gave US foreign policy its extremist military character. Zionist cultural and media power provided an army of academic and journalistic ideologues and mass media platforms which the MDE previously lacked – and amplified their message. The linking of traditional US MDE and the emerging power of the Israeli-ZPC buttressed the spread of authoritarian controls and harsh and widespread censorship over any politician, intellectual or media critic of Israel and its unconditional supporters in the ZPC.
The joint forces of the MDE and ZPC have reshaped the US military command to serve their plans for new major wars – against Iran – and the prolongation and extension of wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and elsewhere. The MDE have failed to pursue the free trade openings in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East – leaving the field wide open for entirely new trading and investment networks involving China, Europe, Japan, India, Russia and the Middle Eastern sovereign funds. Even with the onset of the recession in the US and the meltdown of the financial markets, the militarists have refused to change or alter their stranglehold on the budget and foreign policy, causing the government to resort to printing currency to finance the bailout of speculators and their investment banks.
Imperial Wars, Social Revolutions and Capitalist Restorations
The historical record demonstrates that imperial wars destroy the productive forces and social networks of targeted countries. In contrast, market-driven economic empire building gains hegemony via collaboration with local political and economic elites, taking control of strategic industries, minerals and energy via direct investments and loans, privatizations and denationalization, and favorable trade and monetary agreements. Market-driven empire building takes over, it does not destroy the productive forces; it does not demolish the social fabric, it reconstructs or ‘adjusts’ it to accommodate its accumulation needs.
The evolution of social revolutionary regimes in a post liberation period shows a common pattern reflecting the political-economic external constraints imposed by military imperialism. The revolutionary regimes expropriate and nationalize the major means of production, control foreign trade and organize the planning of the economy. They eliminate foreign control over strategic economic sectors, centralize political and economic control as well as redistribute land and income. In many cases these radical measures were imposed upon the revolutionary governments by imperial economic boycotts, the flight of capitalist and landlords, the non-cooperation of managers and technicians and by the necessity of reconstruction in the face of large-scale destruction. The US embargo and similar constraints on external financial aid have forced revolutionary governments to rely on the rationing of scarce resources for priority public projects, limiting its capacity to increase individual consumption.
As a result, the post-revolutionary regimes were forced to deal with market-driven empire builders. They contracted large-scale short-term and long-term trade agreements, joint investment ventures through equitable profit sharing agreements and a broad range of technological contracts involving royalty payments. In other words, given the unfavorable position of the revolutionary economy in the world market and the low level of development of the forces of production, the market-driven empire building countries were in a position to secure lucrative economic opportunities. In contrast, the military driven empire attempted to inflict maximum economic damage to compensate for its military defeat.
The revolutionary regimes under Communist leadership featured characteristics, which foreshadowed positive future relations with market-driven imperial countries. Their vertical leadership and concentrated political power facilitated quick and relatively easy changes from collectivist to neo-liberal policies, while hindering the democratic mechanisms, which might have corrected erroneous and harmful economic decisions. Secondly, unchecked power at the top in a time of scarcity led to the conversion of power into privilege, corruption and social inequalities. These developments created a wealthy nepotistic elite with an interest in deepening ties with their capitalist counterparts from the imperial states. These internal changes coincided with the interests of market-driven capitalists willing to establish lucrative ‘beach heads’ and relations with elite groups in the post-revolutionary society and state. Market-driven empire builders were attracted to the tight controls exercised over labor and the lack of competition from other military-driven imperial states.
Post-revolutionary economies continued to be embedded in the world capitalist marketplace and subject to its competitive demands. In the best of circumstances, even with a democratic and socially egalitarian leadership and relatively favorable world commodity prices, the revolutionary regime would need to balance the social demands of a socialist domestic economy (with demands for increases in income, social services and workplace improvement and consumer goods) and the world market demands for greater efficiency, increased capital investments, rising productivity and labor discipline. Given the built-in biases toward political and military security embedded in the bureaucratic centralist structures, it was not surprising that production would stagnate. The constraints and the centralized elites’ inability to micro-manage the economy beyond the period of reconstruction was one reason for stagnation. The other was that the regime would prefer a hierarchical organized capitalist structure (over any democratic changes from below), which would not challenge, but rather strengthen, the communist elite’s position in a ‘new’ eclectic system.
In other words there would be a dual transition from imperial-dominated extractive capitalism to centralized socialism which would entail a period of reconstruction and national unification with an organized and disciplined labor force. This would be followed by a transition to a centralized mixed state capitalist economy, increasingly penetrated by market-driven imperial capital.
Was ‘Socialism a Detour to Capitalism’? Were ‘Imperial Wars Necessary for Capitalist Expansion’?
The historical record documents the continued growth and expansion of market-driven empire building throughout the post World War II period, without wars, significant military intervention, boycotts, embargos or other offensive belligerent actions. The expansion took place in the context of non-revolutionary, revolutionary and post-revolutionary regimes. Germany’s market-driven empire builders traded with the Communist East, China and Russia before, during and after the fall of Communism, accumulating huge trade and productive advantages over the US. The same occurred with Japan with regard to China and other Asian communist countries.
The market imperialists did not depend, as some apologists for military imperialists argue ‘on the protective umbrella’ of US militarism, but on their superior position in the world market and the greater development of the forces of production, which allowed them to enter and secure favorable and lucrative economic positions.
In contrast, the US empire builders, who started the post-war 1945-50 period in a uniquely favorable position in the world market, wasted their massive economic resources in funding wars against successful revolutions - China, Korea, Indochina, Cuba, and now in prolonged colonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions more have been spent in numerous surrogate wars in Angola, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Chile with no economic payoffs for US MNCs over and against its European and Asian competition. The US imperial wars failed to enhance its economic empire. US Empire builders shifted massive resources away from producing goods for the international market and upgrading their industrial productivity in order to retain world and domestic market shares to its monstrous and wasteful military budgets. The result has been a steady decline of the US economic empire relative to its competitor market-driven empires. Ironically, when the centralized collectivist regimes eventually made the transition toward capitalism, it was because of their inner social and economic contradictions and not because of US military policies. The restoration of capitalism had little to do with the hundreds of billions of dollars in US military spending.
In contrast, the market-driven empires from the end of the 1940’s benefited from US imperial wars, by securing lucrative US military contracts and were able to concentrate their state expenditures and investment policies on securing overseas markets. They were in an ideal position to reap the benefits resulting from the socialist regimes’ transition to capitalism.
Given the emergence of post-Communist political and social ruling elites who blindly adhered to free market dogma with their corrupt, authoritarian and privileged political practices, in retrospect ‘socialism’ did appear as a ‘detour’ to capitalist restoration. However the structural changes of some communist political elites, especially in China and Vietnam, created the essential foundations for a capitalist take-off. They unified the country, educated and trained a healthy, disciplined work-force, launched basic industries, eliminated war lords and local ethnic fiefdoms. Subsequently Communist liberalization opened the door to the peaceful economic invasion of market-driven imperialism, safeguarded by a strong centralized state limiting any working class or nationalist opposition or protest. The Communist elites established a framework ideal for subsequent imperialist reentry and expansion.
The historical record makes it clear that imperial wars were not necessary for economic expansion. Empire-driven militarism thoroughly undermined the US long-term competitive position. If the driving force of empire building is economic conquest, then market-driven empires are far superior to military-driven empires. The goal of ‘colonial political dominance’, pursued by military-driven imperialists, is in the modern period, a chimera, as demonstrated by a history of political defeats in Asia, Africa, Latin America and now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military-Driven Imperialism Today and the Newly Emerging Imperial Powers
One might conclude that the US imperial leadership would have ‘learned the lessons’ of failed military-driven empire building from the their experience over the past 50 years. But as we pointed out earlier, the internal structural dynamics of the US economy and the reconfiguration of the political elite directing the political system have led in the opposite direction. The 21st century has witnessed the ascendancy of the most zealous exponents of military-driven empire building in the entire post-World War II period. An overview of US imperial policy shows the proliferation and intensification of direct wars, surrogate wars, military confrontations in which the US favors militarist allies over countries with lucrative markets and profitable investment opportunities in natural resources.
Market-Driven Versus Militarist Alliances
The militarist and Zionist takeover of US empire building in the 21st century is manifested in their strategic decisions, alliances and priorities, each and everyone of which is diametrically opposed to market-based empire building and ultimately doomed to further erode the position of the US empire.
The newly emerging empire building states (like China), rely almost exclusively on market-driven strategies designed by political elites linked to industrialists and technocrats. They are quickly dominating manufacturing markets, accessing strategic raw materials and securing long-term trade agreements at the expense of the increasingly militarist, but internally deteriorating US empire. Near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the imperial policies of the US militarists and Zionists have demonstrated their willingness to make deep sacrifices in market growth by choosing to align the US with costly and dubious militarist regimes in all regions of the world, beginning with the US alliance with Israel.
In the Middle East, unlike market-driven empire builders, the US militarists and Zionists have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying many lucrative oil deals and joint ventures and leading to the quadrupling the world price of oil. Instead they have invested (and lost) over a trillion dollars in non-productive, non-economic, military activity. Militarist imperialism has weakened the entire economic fabric of the US Empire without any ‘compensatory’ gains on the military side. The prolonged war in Iraq (6 years and running) has demoralized the US ground troops and weakened US military capability to engage in any ‘third front’ in which the US has important economic interests. US liberal market-driven imperialists describe this as ‘imperial overstretch’. While the US invests in non-productive and unsuccessful military conquests, profoundly indebting the domestic economy, China, India, Korea, Russia, Europe, the Middle East and even Latin America pile up trade surpluses while expanding their economic empires via private and sovereign investments.
Largely because of the political fusion and strategic convergence of interests between militarists and Zionists, the US empire builders choose to sacrifice lucrative ties to the richest markets among the Gulf State in the Middle East and among predominantly Muslim countries in order to favor Israel, a resource-poor militarist-colonial state with a third rate market for goods and investments. US militarists have subjected America’s empire building to strategies in the Middle East, which mostly favor Israel’s colonial and regional hegemonic drive. This places the US on a direct confrontational path with Lebanon, Syria, Iran and even the Gulf States who feel threatened by Israel’s constant resort to offensive military power to attack its neighbors. No Arab oil country, no matter how conservative and pro-capitalist, can afford to open its economy to the US, if it believes that Washington will subordinate it to the vision of a militarist Israel-US dominated sphere of influence. By unconditionally backing Israel’s colonial and hegemonic interests, American militarists have gained a strategic domestic political ally (the Zionist Power Configuration) but it has come at an enormous cost to US economic empire building. Moreover the Israeli state has run the biggest and most aggressive espionage operations in the US of any country since the fall of the USSR, thus calling into question its ‘security benefits.’ The multiplicity of enemies resulting from Israel’s racist-colonialist policies ensures that the US will be engaged in decades of war, or as long as the US taxpayers can sustain the demands of the military empire.
Military-driven empire building is manifested not only in the Middle East but throughout the world. In Africa, the US backs the Ethiopian military regime and its weak and isolated puppet regime in Somalia against an Islamist-secular nationalist coalition representing the majority of Somalis. Washington and Israel finance and arm the Sudanese separatists in Darfur against the oil-rich central Sudanese government. In both Somalia and Sudan, China and other emerging imperial powers have secured access to strategic oil rich sites. While the US spends billions of dollars on endless wars, propaganda campaigns and sanctions, China reaps hundreds of millions in profits. While the US financed African wars destroy the entire fabric of production and society in Somalia, militarizing impoverished Ethiopia, the Chinese build roads and infrastructure to facilitate exports in both the Sudan and Northern Somalia. Pentagon-directed colonial wars in Africa, conducted by surrogates, undermine the political support of economic collaborators while the market-driven empires enhance their ties with local economic elites and political rulers.
In Latin America, the US military imperialists have so far contributed $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia’s militarist regime during the 21st century, destroying the entire social fabric in the rural areas, while the rest of Latin America expanded their ties with Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Washington has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in failed efforts to destabilize Venezuela’s nationalist-democratic Chavez Government. As a result US capitalists have lost out on billions of dollars in investments and trading contracts in Venezuela to China, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Iran. By making Colombia the centerpiece of their South American policy, US militarist empire builders have lost out on the enormously lucrative economic opportunities accompanying the commodity price boom in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia.
In Asia, despite the deepening US economic dependence on China to sustain to the rapidly depreciating US dollar (China holds $1.5 trillion dollars in foreign reserves which has lost 60% of its value since 2002), the US militarists still engage in sustained anti-Chinese propaganda campaigns and highly provocative incidents. The US-backed violent protests against the Chinese presence in Tibet fomented by the Dalai Lama and CIA-funded exile organizations is only the more recent example. American Zionists have directed a political campaign against the expansion of Chinese investments and contracts (market-driven imperialism) in the Sudan. The Zionist role in the so-called ‘Darfur’ campaign is based on Sudan’s support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel’s genocidal policy in Gaza.
China has so far generally overlooked US military provocations such as the shooting down of a Chinese fighter plane, spy flights over Chinese offshore territory, the deliberate bombing of its embassy in Belgrade and the sale of advanced missiles to Taiwan. The US financing of the separatist demonstrations among Tibetan exiles is designed to tarnish China’s image in the lead up to its hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics. China’s market-driven empire builders ignore US military provocations because they had little effect on Chinese overseas and domestic economic expansion. Nevertheless China has increased spending on modernizing its military defense capabilities. More significantly, as the US economy declines and enters a deep recession in 2008, and as the dollar continues to fall ($1.60 to 1 Euro as of May 2008), China has turned toward the Asian, European, Middle Eastern markets. Asian markets now account for 50% of world trade growth as of 2008. In 2007 China increased production and the development of its market to sustain growth rates at least five times higher than the militarist-dominated US Empire. Even more significant, the great majority of Chinese exporters (over 800,000) have shifted payments to Euros, Yen, Pounds Sterling and the Renminbi in its trading with non-US trading partners.
Russia, shaking off the shackles of Clinton-backed pillage during the gangster capitalism of the Yeltsin years in the 1990’s, has taken off during the 21st century under the leadership of President Putin. US military-driven empire builders were able to integrate and subordinate all the former members of the Russia-centered Warsaw Pact into the US-dominated NATO. In the 21st Century, the Russian economy has expanded rapidly between 6% and 8%, established majority control over strategic resources and has sought to lessen its vulnerability to US military encirclement. While Germany, Italy and most of the major Asian trading countries (China, India and Japan) have obtained lucrative trading and investment agreements with Russia, the US militarists have concentrated on military encroachment along Russia’s European and Asian borders. The US is pushing to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and preparing to station offensive, so-called ‘missile shields’ in Poland and the Czech Republic on the absurd pretext that such highly sophisticated installations are intended to protect Western Europe from attacks by distant Iran rather than target Moscow, just 5 minutes away by missile attack.
Conclusion
US military-driven empire building has made costly military alliances with peripheral countries at a catastrophic economic cost. The persistence of militarist empire builders has systematically undercut market-driven empire building and has pushed the domestic US economy to near bankruptcy. The twin motors of the contemporary empire and domestic economy, speculative finance and militarism, have driven the US economy backwards at the same time that established and emerging imperial competitors are advancing.
Comparative historical data covering the entire half-century to the present demonstrates that European, Japanese and now China and India’s market-driven expansion has been far more successful in securing market shares, developing the productive forces and accessing strategic raw materials than US military empire building.
Market-driven empire building has both resulted from and created a strong civil society in which socio-economic priorities take precedent in defining domestic and foreign economic policy over military priorities and definitions of international reality. US empire builders, academics and political advisers have interpreted, what they call ‘the rise of US global power its victory in the Cold War and the decline of Communism’ as a vindication of military-driven empire building. They have ignored the rise of capitalist competitors and the relative and absolute decline of the US as an economic power. It can be argued that the newly emerging market-driven former Communist countries (like China and Russia) represent a greater global challenge to the US Empire than the previous stagnant bureaucratic Communist regimes.
Militarism is deeply embedded in the structure, ideology and policies of the entire US governing class, its political parties, the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary and the armed forces. Over the same half-century countervailing market-driven empire builders have declined as a defining force in the formulation of foreign policy in the US. The growing encroachment of the militant Zionist power configuration within the policy-making directorate has been greatly facilitated by the ascendancy of militarism and the relative decline of economic-empire building.
The long period of incremental decline of US economic empire building and the trillions of dollars wasted by military-driven empire building has come to a climax. In the new millennium with the profound devaluation of the imperial currency (the dollar), the huge indebtedness and loss of markets Washington is totally dependent on the good will of its commercial partners to keep accepting constantly devalued dollars in exchange for essential commodities.
The immediate outcome is likely to be a major domestic crisis, which could be accompanied by one more desperate and futile military attack on Iran and/or Venezuela or a forced confrontation with China and/or Russia. Desperate acts of declining military empires have historically accelerated the demise of imperial rulers.
Out of the debris of failed empires two possible outcomes could emerge. A new rabidly nationalist authoritarian regime or the re-birth of a republic based on the reconstruction of a productive economy centered on the domestic market and social priorities, free from foreign entanglements and power configurations whose only purpose is to subordinate the republic to overseas colonial ambitions.
The dismantling of the military driven empire will not occur ‘by choice’ but by imposed circumstances, including the incapacity of domestic institutions to continue to finance it. The demise of the militarist governing class will follow the collapse of their domestic economic foundations. The result could be a withered empire, or a democratic republic. When and how a new political leadership will emerge will depend on the nature of the social configurations, which undertake the reconstruction of US society.
Right after the Axis of evil speech in 2002, I went to Seoul to work on a very high profile project. There was tremendous resentment against the American team. We stayed at the Shilla hotel which is like the top hotel there. Post dinner discussions tended to turn very political and centered on the superiority and sense of entitlement of Americans in general. The view amng the americans was that SOKo has come up due to American patronage and they should be eternally grateful for the prosperity which has come up under the American Chatra-Chaya.
During one of these discussions, I mentioned that the origin of the world "Shilla" was in India and must have come to Korea with the Buddhist missionaries. In that sense, I said Korea has imbibed and indian culture. There were blank stares followed by hostile vibes from the anglo-saxons who were in the American team.
During one of these discussions, I mentioned that the origin of the world "Shilla" was in India and must have come to Korea with the Buddhist missionaries. In that sense, I said Korea has imbibed and indian culture. There were blank stares followed by hostile vibes from the anglo-saxons who were in the American team.